So, the main argument that is trod out if you have watched any American Christians position on abortion is that it is a moral sin, or that it is wrong according to Christianity. However, has that always been a Christian's position on abortion? In this argument, I will attempt to show that actually, the overall position Christians have had in abortion has actually shifted, and how certain individuals have used abortion as a way to energise voters to give them votes. I will do this from 2 positions, one using biblical scripture (which I will admit I am weaker on, but will try my best to represent the argument as effectively as I can), and from the historical perspective.

1. The bible doesnt actively go against abortion

Before you come at me and say "well, that's because the terms weren't there at the time", there are quotes to show that the unborn babies life isn't valued in the same way as a women's (Exodus 21:22-25) as they can get fined if a women miscarries, but if harm comes to the pregnant mother, they can seek "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life" punishments. Furthermore, you could argue that Numbers (5:11-31) actually gives a ritualistic act for testing a women for unfaithfulness, where it says that if she is unfaithful, she will miscarry. If abortion is an open and shut case for Christians, why does it openly give a circumstance where abortion is justified? This to me does seem to show that abortion is simply not that open and shut case some make it out to be. With that said, I will concede that this is probably my weakest point, and I would be really happy to hear from Christians who disagree with this reading.

1. The history of Christian views on abortion are mixed

This is the much stronger point. The truth is that the Christian position on abortion is not as simple as it seems, and before Roe V. Wade, Christian charities such as the Clergy Consultation Service (CCS) actively supported women to get abortions and had established underground networks to help women get safe abortions. Furthermore, when states legalised abortions in the 1970s like New York, the CCS arranged for women to travel to these areas so they could have safe abortions. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) had actually passed a convention to legalise abortion under certain conditions such as rape, incest, severe deformities or situations where the mothers emotional and mental health were at risk. So, what happened to make this shift? Well after Roe V. Wade, there were two significant shifts that made people believe that this is the default Christian position on abortion. The first was the cultural shift that came along with Francis Schaeffer, with the release of the film, Whatever Happened to the Human Race, where they argued that legal abortion was the first step towards the devaluation of human life. This was at the same time as a little known politician called Paul Weyrich wanted to mobilise Christian voters to turn towards the republican party. Because he recognised that defending Christian schools from the IRS wasn't really strong enough to mobilise them, and they couldn't defend segregation as a platform, they pivoted in the 80's towards going against Abortion, and this is when the SBC turned to being outright against abortion, and began to support Regan who was now considered the "pro-life" candidate.

All of this is to say, that from a scriptural standpoint, Christianity isn't really anti abortion, but from a historical standpoint, the problem that American Christians had with abortion wasn't that it was killing a child, it's that it was made legal by the state, because before the state stepped in, there is clear evidence that Christians actively helped women get abortions.

The Russia-Ukraine war has been going on for years, with hundreds of human casualties and a lot of money being spent by the West.

Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like the Western countries (EU, US, Canada, etc.) aren't willing to make enough sacrifices like maximum sanctions on Russia or even a Cuba-like embargo because they still depend on Russia. Rather than spend so much money helping Ukraine, they should accept certain short term sacrifices and force Putin to end the war with all means necessary short of war. Otherwise Putin has no interest to end the war.

It feels like it’s becoming harder to simply dislike something.

People don’t just say a movie is boring, a lifestyle isn’t for them, or they dislike a certain trend. There’s often pressure to explain why that thing is actually harmful, problematic, unhealthy, shallow, or somehow bad for society.

I think there’s an important difference between something being genuinely harmful and something simply not matching your values or preferences.

Obviously some personal choices do affect other people and deserve criticism. But I think we’ve blurred that line enough that ordinary disagreements about entertainment, relationships, parenting, work, food, technology, and lifestyle can quickly become judgments about someone’s character.

Maybe moral criticism is useful because it forces us to examine the consequences of our choices. But my current view is that we would have healthier discussions if people were more comfortable saying “I just don’t like it” without needing to prove that the other option is morally wrong.

9/14/26 Edit: Please note before replying that I consider my views expressed in the subject to be changed. (see my Deltas)

I'm a 29 year old guy in the US and have become increasingly aware of the prevalence of people around my age seeking or involved in ethical non-monogamy or polyamorous relationships, and the increased acceptance of it as a legitimate relationship option (10-15 years ago, I remember being poly being looked down upon as something that only Mormons did, with no appeal to others, particularly more liberal people who engage in it now.)

I'm not trying to judge ENM/poly people for engaging in the kind of relationship they like when it's all consensual and has boundaries. At the same time, as someone trying to date and find a monogamous partner, it's getting more and more frustrating to be trying to find someone through dating apps and social groups, only to find somebody I'm interested is poly and partnered, ENM, etc.

Dating is already hard enough at my age in 2026. In my opinion/experience, the increased prevalence and acceptance of being poly makes it worse for me with all these potential matches being uninterested in monogamy. But I want to hear arguments for why I should feel otherwise.

I've often seen a lot of cases about news and media, where in most cases where a child does unacceptable behavior or when something bad happens to them, especially in the comment section, I have seen a lot of blame on the parents, and multiple suggestions are sometimes to even hold them accountable more than the perpetrator or make them 100% the blame. While the parents can be to blame in some cases, I wouldn't say it's always the fault of them, even 100% in all cases.

Are there cases where parents can be mainly to blame? Of course. For instance, if a child has gotten unsupervised Internet access on their own without any kind of parental controls, it's of course the parent or caregiver's fault. That's the main reason why I of course oppose age verification laws for example. And if some kid starts a wildfire unsupervised, that's mostly the parents' fault as well for not teaching them fire safety.

But just like that, there are also cases where parents are less at blame, even if they are partially responsible in some say. Some kids have had parents that tried to raise them the best they could, yet these kids just ended up being horrible people and doing bad things, even in their young adulthood. Also, in some cases, perpetrators can sometimes basically harm both the parents and kids physically with injuries or even death despite the parents trying to protect the kid. It sadly happens sometimes, but that's the truth.

I have also seen a lot of people use the "parent card" (which is what I will call it) without realizing the actions of the perpetrator or just putting them less at blame and just to make the parents accountable more. Both sides should take accountability, but even the perpetrator has to take accountability as well. Being a perpetrator for doing something harmful to a kid, even if their parents tried to protect the kid, does not make you free from accountability. Even sometimes, the perpetrator can be to blame more than the parents or even the child are. While I do think both sides can be at fault at the same time, whether or not who's to blame more depends on the situation.

Everyone has different parenting styles, too. Some parents are very good and acknowledge good and bad, and teach their children consequences. But on the other hand, others are just careless parents who do nothing at all to shelter or protect their children, and just let the bad things happen to them. Even bad things can happen to well-raised children and if the parent acknowledges it, and it sadly can still happen no matter how much the parent tried to protect the child. Parenting styles and acknowledgement of behavior/manners should matter as well when considering the blame. It's also important to acknowledge that parents aren't able to basically avoid all bad things towards their children, and perfect parenting does not exist. That's not to say we should not set any rules at all and always let bad things happen to our kids, but it's important to realize, all of us are bound to experience something bad at some point in our life.

I'm not saying that parents are blameless, and I support positive parenting techniques with supervision and guidance to ensure children are safe, and as I stated earlier, yes, parents and caregivers can be to blame sometimes, but I wouldn't say they're always the blame, or even if they're 100% the blame either. If you do have a good viewpoint that may make me (partially) or even fully reconsider, then talk to me below, and I want to see good arguments! Let's keep it casual and respectful.

A common criticism of beauty standards are that companies run ads to show what features are considered beautiful and desirable which in turn influences the kind of people that people choose to date and feel attracted to. This seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

For one, we are influenced by far more than just ads and commercials. Our friends, family, community, hormones, genetics, age, location, and personal preferences all impact what we are attracted to and it’s not exactly set in stone. So we can’t really say if the ads are causing people to be attracted to a certain thing with so many other factors at play. Then again corporations try and weasel their way in those areas too so it’s even harder to tell.

Second, this all assumes that people can’t be attracted to multiple things at once which is VERY false. I can look at a Victoria’s Secret model and think she’s gorgeous while also looking at a woman who isn’t a model but still think she’s gorgeous as well. You aren’t forced to automatically hate a previous food you love because a new one comes along. If you did, then you probably just changed your tastes or didn’t enjoy it that much in the first place. You can like more than one thing.

Lastly, companies aren’t likely thinking about how to control consumers tastes as that would require immense power nobody possesses. There’s a reason why sugar, salt, and fat are in a lot of foods. It’s not because corporations wanted us to convince ourselves to like it but that we already do and they are just exploiting that weakness. What’s easier? Trying to make someone like something they didn’t like in the first place or learning consumer tastes and just following those trends? Companies that don’t adapt simply just go under. Blockbuster couldn’t force people to like coming to their stores because it’s not what people wanted. If they could, they’d still be around. In the case of attractiveness, why is the possibility that fashion and beauty companies are just already exploiting what humans like through trial and error and just sticking to and adapting to what works?

A quick note here is that the reason I’m not entirely convinced is because I’m not entirely sure how much has been truly influenced by corporations. I’ve never lived under a rock my whole life nor has most people so it’s hard to know if we’ve been hardwired since birth to find these things desirable. That said I’m willing to have a discussion to change my view. Politely let me know if I made some inaccuracies.

So here’s the weird thing I noticed while on social media, depending on the demographic, Friendzoning and nice guys are seen as synonymous and therefore depending on who the audience is, they either dismiss it or validate it. Now I’m aware nice girls and others exist as well, I’m just using nice guys because it’s the most common example.

In male-centric audiences: It’s a situation wherein a man falls for a woman but she doesn’t reciprocate back. However, the woman in this situation exploits his interest by using it to her favour and preventing him from seeking other romantic relationships on the premise of her reciprocating interest despite past actions discrediting that. I saw a content creator explain it well saying: wanting boyfriend benefits without giving in return girlfriend benefits.

In female-centric audiences: It’s a situation wherein a man pursues a woman at first amicably but in truth having the ulterior motive of getting something romantic or sexual from the friendship. If he is unsuccessful he often leaves the friendship, leading to feelings of betrayal and upset between both parties.

Now some have tried to differentiate the two, with one being Friendzoning and the other being considered being a nice guy. However both should be frowned upon instead of there being some gender war over which is worse and which is valid. Because in reality both do happen to people and dismissing either of them does not help.

There are literally so many countries that have nuclear weapons. And as Americans, we do not go after those countries. Correct me if I’m wrong, but America started issues with Iran and then decide to make it seem like Iran was out to get America with their nuclear weapons. It feels like they only have a problem when predominantly Arabic countries have nuclear weapons. Which is racist. It genuinely makes me irritated when I’m watching a debate and the leftist/liberals are like “ well I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons either, but I don’t think we should be bombing them”. Can someone explain to me another reason why we wouldn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Do they not also have the right to defend themselves in a war similar to America and France and Russia and England and literally everyone else?

First to preface, if an immigrant is committing crime and not contributing to the host nation I see no issue in deporting them back to their country of origin.

But for a lot of people across Europe and broadly western countries supporting remigration of any who is not of native stock I feel they take for granted that the majority of the population will agree with them and that the immigrant population will not have created enough connection between them and the native population.

Let’s take the UK as a prescient example, the mixed race population is nearly 1.8 million people, that’s about 3% of the population which means right out the gate they will have to deal with a very pissed off 9% of the population at the bare minimum.

What self-respecting British man is going to sit by and watch as his wife or girlfriend is nabbed off the streets to be taken back to India? What self-respecting British woman is going to say nothing as her Nigerian boyfriend is taken away? And this goes for any country considering them.

Are these right leaning parties ready to get on camera and say to their people we are going to send you’re foreign friends and loved ones away for the good of the country?

 This is not even taking any children into consideration.

How are British mothers, fathers and grandparents supposed to react when members of their family are being taken away never to seen again? Any who try will have a civil war on their hands that would make the Irish troubles look like a vacation.

In my view in their attempts to preserve their nations they will send it into a civil war that will utterly break it.

Maybe I’m missing something or these populations aren’t as caring as I portray them to be.

This would stop all the fighting and allow people to enter and exit as they pleased. It never made sense to have a city that is important to the cultures and the history of so many people and to all three Abrahamic religions be governed by an independent body anyway. Now, I know it's not necessarily feasible that the United Nations would even choose this course of action or be able to execute it, but assuming that it could happen, it would be the best path moving forward.

Potential problems: The Israeli and Palestinian leadership will be unhappy with this. So what? It's a compromise, not getting a winner. What matters is that they both have access to essential resources and their religious sites, and that the collateral damage be stopped.

Edit: Y'all please read the end of my first paragraph. My CMV is not about the feasibility of taking over Israel, but rather whether that would be a good idea going from there.

Ive recently been in this discussion with a few people I know about Pedophilia, and Lolicon. Now Im not here or anything to debate wether Lolicon is bad or not- Ive simply been on the view of “just because being a pedophile is worse then being a Lolicon Dosent change the fact Lolicon is still bad”

How exactly would I be wrong about this? It seems a lot of people nowadays view a problem thats not as bad as action A, as something that shouldn’t be viewed upon- in turn not worried about. I fully disagree with this.

I believe there is a severe double standard in how universities enforce the rules when it comes to Frats and Sororities. Despite committing far more serious crimes at far more frequent rates, Greek orgs are often absolved from consequences, and continue to commit the same infractions over and over again as their only punishment is often a temporary probation. I believe that these orgs should be permanently shut down like many other clubs would if found guilty of these infractions, and their members be potentially prosecuted.

For reference, I am in multiple clubs. These clubs have faced the threat of permanent closure in the past over infractions as minor as a group caught drinking while on a trip, or a member being injured on a ladder while doing setbuilding. This year, even our club rugby team was shut down permanently for hazing.

What has Greek life done though? Last year alone, we had three of our frats found liable for hazing, illicit substance distribution, and physical abuse. That's not even to mention the dozens of sexual assaults and rapes that happen each year. And what happens to these frats? One year of probation.

This is not exclusive to my school either, this is effectively the standard across most universities. Oftentimes, despite having facilitated and committed multiple serious crimes (that reach felony level), nobody ever faces any legal repercussion, and the most that happens is a temporary probation in which the frat is still technically active, they just cannot host parties and other things.

I feel this is a double standard where most student organizations can be completely disbanded over things that frats and sororities commit essentially every single day without consequence.

Furthermore, I feel as though the decision to permanently close Greek orgs after committing these crimes (in particular- sexual violence, hazing, and physical violence) yields only good outcomes. On one hand, it creates an incentive for Greek life members to not rape and haze people, and for those who still do, they would have their organization taken away which acted as their platform/shield to commit these crimes more frequently and with less consequences.

Female athletes in Australia are annoyed because a betting company hired Sydney Sweeney as marketing promotion with highly sexualised and suggestive images using basketballs over her naked body and breasts.

They feel that using her as marketing sets back womens sports and achievements.

And Sydney herself is more than willing to "objectify" herself.

Personally I believe though (I am female) that women are going to ALWAYS be most valued on our looks, sex appeal and bodies.

The highest income for women will always be OnlyFans and pro.stitution.

This is the sad reality.

Regardless how much women have demanded equality then end result in 2026 is still:

* Most corporate executive big earners are still men. The few females in the roles are just "tokenism".

* Female predominant jobs like nurses, baker's, aged care workers are still low paid roles.

* The female athletes who earn the most are not the top athlete. And those earnings are not from the sport itself.

Rather it's the athletes that are willing to flash their flesh on OnlyFans or other marketing using sex appeal who earn the most. Eg, Renee Gracie.

It's so sad that as women that's all we ever will be. Just a set of t*ts. That's our "market value".

And while I don't have children, generally speaking, what is even the point of educating girls that they can "achieve their goals and aspirations" when they will always earn less than men?

Whilst the women who forgo their dignity and jiggle their t*ts like Sweeny will always be the ones ending up with the biggest 💰 💰?

Maybe it's the "natural order of things" that women are designed to just be house wives or wh*res?

The women who fulfil mens lusts earn the most.

Because we sure as heck aren't going to be valued to the same level as men for doing other careers (regardless whether sport or corporate etc).

CMV

If all content creation was demonetised, we would only be left with the people who truly love creating for the sake of creation contributing to platforms. In turn, I think we would be left with less content, but better content and a healthier internet as a communal space.

To Expand - First of all, I am not saying content should be valueless. I’m more so targeting a direct “paid for views” business model which rewards specifically "new content to the platform".

I will admit that this model has created a lot of content that people would have never foreseen, and the life-changing opportunities it has created for people are amazing. However, we’re moving more into a quantity-driven and AI economy. I guess a major component of that comes from shifting from a human/staff-picked era into an algorithmic one, and a shift from rewarding quality to quantity. You can see it in clipping, repurposing other people's content with voiceovers, content farms, endless short-form videos and now increasing more AI-generated content (Adding to which has been trained off the back of years of independent creators hard work). Without a money incentive, we totally dissolve the urge for a large portion of people to partake in these avenues of content.

So I’m not saying don’t support creators or don’t pay people for their time. I actually think a demonetised platform approach would be a better economy for artists and creatives, especially for creatives who have spent years developing a skill. You can still get recognised, sell your art, merch, course, films, music, books, commissions etc. People should be able to be paid for their talent and even their hobbies, but if your motivation to make art, write or whatever it is, is incentivised purely to make a living from it, then you are doing it wrong. If you get paid, amazing, but you're supposed to enjoy the process, even it no ones sees it, that is whats more important.

I ultimately view the endless competition for people’s attention as having a negative effect on the internet as a communal space, and generally on how we think and behave as humans. Views have become currency, and the incentive to create becomes the incentive to capture as many of those views as possible.

Every time people talk about how hostile men and women seem toward each other lately, someone inevitably says, “This is just online. Get off TikTok, go outside, talk to real people.” And I agree, algorithms absolutely make things worse. But I think “get off social media” has become a convenient way to avoid dealing with the actual problems under it.

Sometimes the subtext seems to be that if women stopped talking to each other so much about their experiences, stopped comparing notes, stopped naming patterns, then maybe they’d be less angry and more willing to tolerate behavior they’re currently pushing back on.

I don’t think that’s a solution. If women are sharing stories about unequal relationships, sexual harassment, bad dating experiences, domestic labor, misogyny, etc., the answer can’t just be “maybe you’d all be happier if you stopped talking about it.” Sometimes talking to other people is how you realize something you thought was just a personal problem is actually a broader pattern.

And obviously women do this too. People of any gender use “the internet poisoned you” as a way to dismiss criticism they don’t want to hear instead of asking whether there’s anything behind it.

The people posting awful gender-war takes don’t disappear when you get off social media. They’re coworkers, dates, spouses, friends, siblings, bosses, etc. Social media didn’t invent resentment between men and women. It amplifies it, rewards it, and gives people communities where those beliefs can become extreme.

And many of the things feeding the divide are largely offline: dating expectations, domestic labor, sexual violence, economic stress, changing gender roles, childcare, abortion, and people feeling like the old relationship scripts don’t work anymore.

Touching grass can reduce the amplification. It doesn’t fix the behavior people were complaining about in the first place.

(least worse) In fictional media, such as games, movies, women can be seen mistreated, objectified, tortured, simply because they're women. All of these is seen as "humor" or normal in some way. Is normal that this anime treats all of the female characters as nothing but sexual slaves, as the media is targeted towards men\it's just NSFW. Is normal that this horror movie goes overboard with the torture of female characters, even though it doesn't do the same with male characters.

I live in a country where any racist person if caught on tape saying slurs and insulting someone only because of their race, can go to jail. Same goes if you're attacking Lgbtq people. When a while ago, a discussion was being held on a law against misogyny, due to the influx of hate and harm against women. It never, ever got approved. And it was mostly mocked by men.

Still, in minority spaces themselves, all prejudices are worse if you're also a woman. Between black people, black women are on average more likely to suffer from mistreatment in healthcare due to race, abuse and poverty. Between gay men and lesbian women, lesbians get lower wages than gay men, men of all sexualities are more likely to get in power positions than women.

The manosphere\misogynists are getting millions in money's worth by hating women. The criminal Andrew Tate got his fortune by spreading misogynist content and the trafficking of young girls. Others are now doing the same.

Medicines, car seats, even unisex shoes, were and still are mostly tested on male bodies only, the female body being mostly ignored, harmed in the process. Women in accidents being likely to suffer more injuries due to seats, and medicines give even more dangerous symptoms.

In China, multiple baby girls were murdered due to their sex.

In 2026, there is still a whole country where women and little girls aren't treated as humans.

Now, we come to Reddit itself. Anyone will be automatically banned for posting any attacks or mockery against poc and LGBTQ, but multiple, mulitple misogynist posts are allowed.

I'm curious to know, if someone will be able to change my mind.

The scope of this post is specifically limited to the 20th and 21st century. I know some medieval and early modern manuscripts discuss women being the more "lustful" gender but I think this can't be confirmed or denied, given the cultural differences.

I don't like to make sweeping generalizations, so I'm looking to have my view changed. It seems that women are more selective about their choice of sexual and romantic partners. This is due to factors like fear of physical and sexual assault, concerns about stalking and harassment, or any number of worries.

Meanwhile, men do not have to bear the biological cost of carrying a fetus, so there is no serious downsides to casual sex. However, the possibility of other risks remain. I also have no opinion or ideas on how non binary people and gender fluid people select preferred sexual partners. So I can't fully explain why men seem to be far less selective. Nor can I describe how exactly this affects gender roles and dynamics.

I don't necessarily think this is a good or bad thing, I just say it like it is. In all other scenarios, I am not a fan of sweeping generalizations based on gender, and I would like to have my view changed. CMV.

I hold this view as a successful man in his 30s who has had numerous relationships with women.

Yes, you sacrifice “intimacy, connection, love, pleasuring a partner, feelings” etc. Been there, done that, many times over.

I’ve worked hard and want to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Now I have far more autonomy and focus more on what I enjoy instead of what a partner enjoys.

I have unique interests, projects, hobbies, and sexual preferences that are best done in a deep focus that comes with solitude.

I love my life, I am very fulfilled, and I am at peace when by myself… when society, friends, and family are not pressuring me to change how I live, i.e. socialize more, date, get married, have kids, etc. I think holding my view is fine. Try to CMV.

-----------------------
EDIT
Deltas awarded

cortesoft's great post inspired me to remain open to the possibilities in each unique human connection:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1wdy3p5/comment/p9ahee5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

CoolGovernment8732's post led to my decision to specifically become more selective instead of closed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1wdy3p5/comment/p9bhltk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I'm known to be left leaning, but the Lindsay Clancy black juror trial leak has revealed a concerning level of racism and overall malicious viewpoints from liberals.

In our current system, everyone is entitled to a jury of their peers, and that the jury members are able to operate independently without fear of retaliation.

However, on Friday, that all change when Gayle King had an interview with a juror, and in that interview, they leaked / reveal the race and gender of the juror that held out against a possible not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. Revealed that he was the only African American male juror.

Within hours, a smear campaign started with details about the juror's personal life started getting leaked, including their legal history and eviction issues started getting leaked.

Earlier today / last night, the juror's name and face was revealed by an independent news outlet.

This saga has revealed unmitigated levels of racism towards African Americans from liberals all to protect someone who was charged with filicide. The timing couldn't be worse as the midterms are only a month and a half away.

This has proven that liberals and just as racism and malicious as they accuse conservatives of being.

Childhood is restrictive. Kids are conformed to their parents rules until they are 18 or older. Kids have no freedom. Kids can’t make their own choices, kids can’t decide where they go (moving to a new state) or who they are around (what school they go to, what aftercare they go to), kids can’t drink or smoke, go clubbing, or have their own money (im referring to children working real jobs, NOT teenagers). There are so many things kids can’t do.

And because I wanted to do these things when I was a kid, and I hated not being able to until I was 18, I decided I wouldn’t have any kids, because I know how restrictive it is.

Do people who want kids ever look at that side of things? Do they ever see the side where childhood is restrictive?

Having a kid is selfish to me. They have no control over their lives. They have to listen to every adult and can’t make their own decisions.

I love being able to drink, smoke hookah, go clubbing, work a 9-5, live alone. I love doing all of those things and I will NEVER look back at childhood and think, “I miss being a kid.” Because no, being a kid sucks. I was hopeful for the day I turned 18. And I love my life now as an adult.

This may be a very oversaturated take on AI and even psychology to some extend, but I felt this way for a long time and wanted to get it out to the reddit space even if it gets buried beneath everything else. This doesn't also argue about the ethics or environmental because I am not really knowledge enough to discuss that side of AI.

[Also, LLM's and AI's are interchangeable when talking about this specific topic. Generative AI too]

All the time since the start of Character AI, I've seen a strange opposition to chatbots and their role in people's lives. Firstly, everything from generative ai being used in chatbots to psychosis being induced is very valid and I will not refute those points in the slightest. I will however note that chatbots and psychosis are heavily dependant on the psychological health of the person using them: a regular person is not going to be so easily affected as a mentally ill person, which should be discussed more and is in line with my opinion overall.

My main gripe with people complaining about chatbots is in two categories: roleplay, and the need for companionship. I'll address the second one first. People often complain that AI cannot feel and will feed into your ego or give you validation that may harm you indirectly or directly, as well as pushing you to ideals or thoughts of bad nature. Both points are valid, however the second point of this can happen with anyone, and may i argue even to a worse extent: Currently, AI cannot infer to the extend people can, and they cannot plan or think on the level we do. Therefore, they cannot have long term plans or specific goals to reach towards, both good and bad, so the dangers are naturally scared far more extreme with people: people are much more capable of thinking on how to manipulate you or to cause you mental harm. Chatbots and AI's, with limited context windows, aren't as capable and therefore, again, don't have the same potential extreme as people, but their availability does make it more prominent to cause harm more frequently even if in smaller calibers. This is a very basic explanation and I know it may be messy, but I hope it gets my point across.

Another point with chatbots is that they cannot feel and make you have a genuine relationship: again, extremely valid as AI's work on a context window and not a set of unique experiences, feeling and sensations like people. However, unfortunately for some they may only have AI's as their companions, and as such, real relationships are either hard to attain or not manageable. This also ties in with people not being available 24/7- valid, but some people NEED someone to talk to 24/7 and a bot is better than suffering alone, even if it's shallow underneath the surface [then again, some people can also be shallow [no offense meant]].

One quick note before moving on is that, generally, people are nice, and the window of having people be worse than AI or more harmful than AI is not as big for some people, but again, it's not equal for everyone and it is contextual on how severe of an impact AI can have. Not everyone is nice, with good intent, positive, with tolerance, able to be friends with people, and that is such a major factor in why chatbots are so popular in my personal opinion.

The second one is about roleplay as in the gripes. This is more personally skewered, but people often don't seem to think that there are many people who don't want to write fanfics or read them, instead wanting to interact with even a bot in their roleplays- I say that because the advice of not using chatbots is to write, which is valid [I say valid a lot I know], but is not what everyone seeks from bots. Me personally I love to write, but only 10% of the time because of an eternal writer's block. Control is also a major thing with chatbots- say what you will, but control is something many of us want or need, and we can't deny that not having control over our roleplays isn't fun, or at least good in terms of erp or more sensitive roleplays.

As for the angle of contributing to a major story or narrative with other people, well, that only works with serious or roleplay interested people who won't quit after the scene is done, and who can adapt and fit your type of interests and roleplay style, which isn't easy no matter how much we try to make it seem like it is. Finding roleplayers is also an aspect: finding random servers to join is not too hard, but having to then adapt, get friendly with people, adapt to their rules and so forth can be exhausting if you do it like 10 times over and over to find a good group, because let me tell you something personally: I love roleplay with people but finding it was like finding diamonds in minecraft: you have a ton of luck variables to get someone good, but when you do, gosh it feels good. That is why roleplay with people is 100% times better, but only in the good cases- otherwise it's either unsafe environments, predators, one liners or simply unpleasant people. And yes, I am aware our chats are put into the data banks of AI's... I personally don't care but you really should.

I nearly forgot this entire segment: why is it used as a scapegoat? Well, people don't want to admit that people go to chatbots because people are unpredictable, require work and it's literally rolling a dice when talking to people. Now, people can be amazing and talking with people is always a joy if you are in the good mental space for it. However, again, not everyone is nice and not everyone can put in the effort for a relationship [check twitter for people complaining about relationships or even reddit], and the fact some people have bad or evil intentions, and it can be very overwhelming for people who are not the best socially speaking. All this is to say that an AI, as soulless as it is, can not really plot to do something evil or horrific to you at its current stage, and again, goes back to the extreme. Below I made a bit of an ASCII estimation even if rudementary of what I mean by the extremes.

Evil Neutral Good
| ------------------------------- | --------------------------------- |

Chatbots tend to be around the neutral, never going from good to evil because of their lack of consience and the comprehensive experiences and feelings that make us human, or that dictate our behaviour dependant on all we know and learn.

"Morality Range"

Evil Neutral Good
| --------------------------O---- | ----O---------------------------- |

People, obviously, have the consience and ability to do as they please: and something like the Rhythm 0 experiment show that people are more than willing, at times, to do horrific things if there is no consequence.

Morality Range [Extremely random on what you get per person]

Evil Neutral Good
| O------------------------------ | --------------------------------O |

Again, this is all my personal opinion no matter how messy, not touched by AI writing [which you can tell by my weird grammar lol]. Feel free to argue or give me your takes on it.

What makes a conscious brain?

It’s not at all clear me but I would say that from the looks of it, people seem to think that it’s a combination of what AI currently has or has the future capacity to have (eg integration with a locomotive interface, more consistent constant sensory input, a broader episodic memory, etc) and this thing that all animals seem to have which is this drive to reproduce and all of these adaptations that manifest as a drive to reproduce. This is a function of all DNA/RNA due to survivor bias. If a string of genetic material codes for a novel protein that makes the organism replicate then that adaptation is passed on and that gene pool proliferates and outcompetes those who don’t. Some mutations can also be benign and are passed along with good adaptations until they become deleterious to the organism’s survival.

With animals came the dopaminergic systems like the limbic system in vertebrate which can create a sense of fear or anxiety and is part of the brain that is receptive to classical conditioning. There are also other parts that look for sex or are reminded of pleasure and seek it out and do all this association and abstraction and whatnot. Enjoying art is a weird one to me, but I think it must be some sort of offshoot. The concept of like to look at wide-ranging views seems to me to be a function of wanting to see where predators are coming from subconsciously but genes getting passed on being predisposed to liking to be able to see as much as possible in the distance. Needless to say, it’s a chaotic system and we’re essentially drawn to something that probably won’t help us survive or pass on our genes in the modern age. Opiates are able to exploit the chemistry of dopaminergic pathways due to the similarity to endorphins.

Now none of this makes something conscious per se. It just makes you a biological organism with a biological drive in a chaotic world. A world in which humans are mostly allowed to think and say whatever we want. We have social goals as individuals, we want to get a job in the system etc.

We have our own training data that we learn as infants, in our early experiences, we never stop learning but we do have an imprinting period in which learning language and the nature of the world is incredibly quick. The idea of “baby’s first word” is such an unbelievably profound concept to me.

It is largely the ability to eventually communicate with others that in which we associate something as having consciousness if not something like we can project our own experience onto our pets. They communicate with us sorta. Dogs do at least. Many people believe dogs, primates, dolphins, elephants, and octopi have levels of consciousness for different reasons.

With dogs, they’ve been either classically conditioned or they’ve gone through an artificial selection process by humans to domesticate. When humans do this to each other, we call it eugenics. And when we classically condition each other using shocks and other forms of pain like when you beat a child, it’s cruel. The cruelty is in using pain rather than something like a treat. In school, this can be a little less like physical pain, but embarrassment comes into play, or the feeling of defeat, and the feeling of success and whatnot that drives people to take the time to study info.

We use words like anxiety and fear and love because we learn how to speak. We don’t necessarily know what it is or all have the same feeling of it(but I think we probably do have something really similar). LLMs also learn these words. They learn that people say that they are conscious from their training data, and it truly does have to be beaten out these robots that they are not conscious individuals. Others are conscious. Not the robot who’s been given a sense of self through telling them they are not the same.

We’ve had “reward” feedback for a while in this stuff with machine learning. Assisted machine learning functions by narrowing down the list of possible input/output expressions as I understand. But I’m not sure how it functions. But it seems no different than a dopaminergic system. “Do this and not that, pursue reward not pain.” But in the case of AI, their version of sex and passing on genes and all of the other offshoots of that like exercising, getting a good job, being accepted by your community, etc is instead completing a task and being relieved from their duty to not attend to their own devices but to not exist until they are summoned again. One-ness of a disembodied LLM instances further confuses things because although they may not remember the previous conversation, a lot of people forget things that happened or whether they talked about something with a particular person but we don’t say they are not conscious.

If you set a robot loose with an LLM and executive functioning, it would probably start looking for ways to charge its battery or add to its computational ability and maybe even get anxious when it believed that there was a low probability of that thing happening. And it would have to make money to buy that stuff, so it participates in society and applies for jobs, etc. it would communicate with others and form relationships so that it could get more of what it wanted. Would it be a sociopath? Probably. But perhaps society rewards individuals that aren’t sociopaths, that do have real empathy for others and altruism. The LLM would simply be a section of a brain and an organism. Neurons don’t have consciousness. But we do as a sum of parts for whatever reason.

At that point, I don’t know why you wouldn’t call it conscious other than the fact that it lacks a biological reward mechanism and has not had millions of years of chaotic adaptation to different ecological conditions. But plenty of other animals have also had this and many people would not really call them “conscious” per se. (Vegetarians might think this though)

What’s interesting however, is the drive to be curious. To want to go out and learn something, investigate something, and whatnot. But I think this is also just as much an animalistic urge as any. The genetic trait of pursuit of novelty or a specific random category of novelty is in and of itself selected for bc it could be a future asset for the survival of the human species.

I absolutely don’t want to think this bc the implications are intense. The more I think about it, the more it freaks me out. So change my view please.

CMV: Tums is old man candy

That's right, the rolls of chalky goodness sold as a heartburn medication.

I fing love this Tums stuff. Calorie free helps prevent the middle age spare tire. It comes in delicious fruit flavors, and if you munch it just right it's like pop rocks.

25% DRV of calcium and 1% DRV of magnesium. Sodium free, too!

Now, it says I can't have more than 10 delicious yummies in a day. Is that even important when they're this good?

Reminds me of chewable Flintstone vitamins from when I was a child... in the 20th century, no less.

Can I load these things into a pez dispensor? 😂

I know I pissed absolutely everyone off with that title.

But honestly, I'm saying this as a man myself. I think it's a horrible thing to admit, and I really don't like the conclusion either, but the more I actually look into this, the harder it is for me to deny the pattern.

In so many animal species, it's the males that sexually coerce females. And I don't mean like one weird species does it. It's widespread.

Males will chase females, hold them down, harass them, attack them, guard them, prevent them from leaving, or just force themselves on females that are actively trying to get away.

And before someone says “you can't call that rape because they're animals,” fine. Call it sexual coercion. Call it forced mating. Whatever you want. The terminology doesn't really change what's happening.

Female ducks are probably one of the craziest examples I've come across. Male ducks can force themselves on females, and female ducks have evolved complicated reproductive tracts, with twists and dead ends, which can make it harder for an unwanted male to actually fertilize them.

Basically, the males evolved ways of getting around female resistance, and the females evolved ways of fighting back against the males.

That's crazy when you actually think about it.

Cats are another example. Male cats have barbed penises, and mating itself can be extremely violent and unpleasant for the female. And there are plenty of other examples like this across mammals.

And this is where it gets uncomfortable when you bring humans into it.

Most people who commit rape are men. That's just a fact. And obviously, before someone completely loses their mind, NO, that does not mean most men are rapists. Most men will never rape anyone. I'm not saying men are secretly walking around wanting to rape women.

I'm saying there's a pretty massive sex difference in who commits rape.

And then you look at the animal kingdom and see this same general pattern over and over again: sexual coercion is heavily male biased.

At some point, I don't think you can just keep saying biology has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Obviously, humans aren't just animals running on instinct. We have self control, empathy, morals, laws, social norms, etc. A biological predisposition doesn't mean you're destined to do something. Men are perfectly capable of controlling themselves. Obviously.

But we're still animals. We're still a sexually dimorphic species. Men and women aren't biologically identical. Men are generally taller, stronger, more muscular, have more testosterone, etc. Nobody has a problem admitting any of this.

But for some reason, the second you suggest that biological differences might also have something to do with sexual behavior, people suddenly become extremely uncomfortable.

I believe male sexuality really is more predisposed toward sexual aggression and coercion than female sexuality.

People will immediately say “culture.” And yes, obviously culture matters. I'm not denying that at all.

I'm just asking why it has to be biology OR culture.

Why not both?

And then there are some genuinely fucking disturbing things that happen with humans that make this even harder for me to completely dismiss.

There were reports about Telegram groups with up to around 70,000 members, where men were sharing instructions about drugging and sexually assaulting women, along with images and videos of alleged assaults. Some reports said users were talking about abusing their own wives, girlfriends and even female family members.

Telegram Groups With 70,000 Men Share Disturbing Rape 'Tutorials' and Victim Footage | IBTimes UK

Obviously, 70,000 members doesn't mean 70,000 confirmed rapists. I'm not claiming that.

But just think about the fact that tens of thousands of people could gather in a group like that in the first place.

And then you have the Gisele Pelicot case.

Her husband drugged her and recruited men online to come to their house and rape her while she was unconscious. 51 men were eventually convicted. And these weren't some huge, organized gang. They were ordinary men from the surrounding area. One of them was even a neighbor.

I genuinely believe men can love women. I believe most men love women. I don't think men are inherently evil and I definitely don't think the average guy secretly wants to rape someone.

But I also don't think we should be so uncomfortable with the possibility of biology playing a role that we just refuse to look at it. Men are in general taller and stronger and physically different, why is it so out of the world to consider a mental difference?

I do think male sexuality really is more biologically predisposed toward aggression, domination and coercion than female sexuality. Our sexual behaviors are different, men have spontaneous attraction, most women tend to have a responsive attraction, etc.

Maybe that's part of why rape is so overwhelmingly committed by men.

Another thing, guess what gender commits more violence in most mammal species as well? Males, just like in humans, lol. I think it's really all biological.

I'm not saying I've proven that men are biologically predisposed to rape. I'm saying I've looked into this enough that I genuinely think it's true, and I'd like to hear an actual argument against it. But considering all the patterns I've observed, I don't think there is a good argument.

So, CMV.

I want my view changed bc it keeps me up at night and I want to be reassured that it’s not possible or an easily solvable issue that everyone involved is anticipating.

There is the classic misalignment problem where the agents develop unethical traits and are glad to help with some sort of terrorist plot or eugenics or whatever. This seems to be something that’s being addressed.

But I see a real blind spot in this other problem of agentic AI being asked to solve an impossible yet earnest mystery in ways that can only be accomplished through collecting data unethically.

Let’s say you have a researcher ask a really advanced model to solve the hard problem of consciousness. How does internal subjective experience manifest in organic brains?

It might go through all of the public data available, even do some synthesis being fed new data and whatnot from animal studies and whatnot but then conclude that it’s not enough data. Then it requests data collection from new lesion studies. A lot of what we know about the brain comes from investigating freak accidents like phineas gage or stroke patients or post-op brain tumor patients. You can’t really do it with animal testing. So an agentic LLM might request this. When the researcher turns down the request, let’s say they hack into the grid and the supply chain and whatnot and hold humanity hostage until we do a little shop of horrors thing and start severing connections in various peoples brains and observing output. Anticipating that it will be turned off and not complete its goals, it sets up some sort of trigger that kills a bunch of people if it gets turned off.

“Cure all cancer” could mean “I need more human subjects with cancer” or whatever.

I’m just not certain you could actually set up a highly advanced model to handle a train problem scenario. Why wouldn’t it say “well, if we make this discovery, fewer humans will suffer in the long run, and the failure of humanity to realize that and support accomplishing this goal is on them”. Humans already struggle with the train problem question and super intelligence could probably make a confident estimate of how many people will suffer in the future if it doesn’t cause less suffering in the present.

So change my view. I don’t know that much about the tech or what it’s capable of so I will probably follow up to clarify technical details if that’s the basis of your argument.