comment
stringlengths 1
9.49k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
Would you agree with this statement?
"It is smart to run into gunfire"
|
[
"/u/Kwakigra (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOP, this is basically just a lot of words for \"making bad decisions may cause harm to others\", which is not a statement anyone disagrees with.\nI suspect, though, that you mean a much stronger claim here. Can you - ideally much more briefly - say what the consequences you think this statement implies are?",
">\n\nI second the more briefly part, please never again site passages from book or recite poems, make your point as clear and readable as possible. because frankly, I'm not reading all that.",
">\n\nThe essential problem with Clifford's argument is that it suggests that it can be unethical to believe something that is true (if you have insufficient evidence to support it). And that seems like a very dubious claim. It's not clear when believing something true would ever be unethical. And Clifford's reasoning proceeds from an invalid generalization from false insufficiently supported beliefs (such as the belief in the seaworthiness of the ship) to all such beliefs.",
">\n\nI probably should have specified in my original argument that I'm dealing in relative likelihoods. Of course a total guess may be correct when all available evidence supports a conclusion which isn't correct. I believe however that it's been demonstrated that information considered most likely to be true when subject to empirical investigation and critical scrutiny is generally more reliable than what may be considered to be true by intuition, bias, or classical reasoning. Since contemporary epistemology has demonstrated that determining what is most likely to be true given evidence is more reliable than intuition or pure deduction, it is as best as we can do to be most likely to achieve desirable outcomes. This is in contrast to not making that effort at all which is significatnly less likely to produce such outcomes, which I consider to be \"stupid behavior.\" I am thinking in aggregate rather than issue by issue.",
">\n\nYour definition of \"stupid behavior\" seems wrong though. For example, suppose that I am considering whether to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Applying my decision-making process, I decide to wear a helmet, reasoning that this will make me safer while riding my bicycle. Subsequently, while riding, a piece of debris is flung off a nearby truck and hits me a glancing blow in the top of my helmet, knocking me off my bicycle and giving me a concussion; had I not been wearing a helmet, the debris would have missed my head entirely. My decision-making process achieved the opposite of the desired outcome. Was my decision-making process really \"stupid\" and unethical?",
">\n\nIt has been demonstrated that it is significantly less likely for a brain injury to occur through helmet use than through non-use, but of course the risk can't be totally eliminated. Just because it's impossible to be immune from risk doesn't mean the effort to mitigate it isn't worthwhile. In this case I think you would have taken the most care to preserve your brain as you could have, and an issue occurred anyway. In the vast majority of other incidents, the brain would have been preserved. There are no absolutes here, only doing what we can to do what makes the most sense according to our needs and wants.",
">\n\nIf that is the case, why would you make this post? Seems to defeat your own argument",
">\n\nI'm sorry, I'm not following you. Can you explain how I've defeated my own argument?",
">\n\nYou made a stupid post. Why would you do that if it is unethical?",
">\n\nAre you able to explain why my argument is stupid? Can you explain what obvious thing I've failed to consider here?",
">\n\nBecause people don't agree who is stupid, it is subjective....\nAlso do you think stupid people intentionally do stupid things? If you were smart enough to have not made this post, you wouldn't have done it, it is not something you have control over really",
">\n\nI'm sorry, did you read my argument?",
">\n\nYes, it is pretty stupid. Can you respond to my argument?",
">\n\nOk, then allow me to clarify. I'll edit my above post to include a specific definition of stupid behavior for the purposes of my argument. I am considering a decision-making process to be stupid when it either fails totally to achieve the desired outcome or achieves the opposite of the desired outcome. In my examples, I think the desire of Germans at the time was to build a prosperous and successful Germany, those voting on birth control measures intend to limit teenage birthrates or else they would propose no action, and those dying of covid likely didn't want to die from covid and I assume didn't want to infect and kill others as a consequence of their behavior. Although all the individuals in the above cases were either made aware of the relevant factors to their decision making or at least had every opportunity to deliberate on such an impactful and obviously catastrophic decision, they chose instead to their peril to engage in behavior that was directly harmful to themselves or others.",
">\n\nIf Nazi germany had won the war, what the citizens did would not be stupid anymore. Which is why it is a useless and subjective term (as you are using it)\nClearly, people agree your argument is stupid. So you should take this post down or risk being unethical",
">\n\nI'm sorry, the majority of voters who supported the Nazis would not have been better off if they had won. They would have had to live under Nazi rule.",
">\n\n\nElecting you-know-who as chancellor of Germany was a stupid decision by many voters at the time. Most contemporary Germans understand and actively avoid such stupidity. \n\nWell, how you-know-who (I really don't know who you mean) get elected then? \nIs Germany not a democracy? Is the leader not the one with the most support either individually, or via their governing coalition? If most Germans actively avoided such stupidity, how did the stupidity come to pass?",
">\n\nMy argument was not that it was unethical for such an election to be possible, rather my argument was that the German voters who made the mistake of voting in such a way were behaving stupidly in their decision-making when they had the opportunity not to. It is contemporary Germans with the benefit of hindsight who are more likely to be careful to avoid such stupidity when they vote. A contemporary German voting for someone like that is behaving more stupidly than the ones who originally behaved stupidly.",
">\n\nA car crashes and catches fire. A passerby witnesses the accident and runs to try and get the unconscious driver out of the burning vehicle. As he is doing so, the car explodes, killing both the driver and the would-be rescuer. If the passerby had been smart, he would have assessed the dangers before running in to help. Was the passerby unethical in his actions?",
">\n\nAlthough the motivation of the action was admirable, the decision-making process was unethical. If this individual had applied the scrutiny of the situation which you described the damage would have been minimized. That being said I addressed this in my argument. Although the decision-making process was technically unethical, given the circumstances the individual was probably not capable of suitably analyzing the situation quickly and had to have applied a different, less reliable, and deadly method. I would not fault the individual here. I would fault an individual who had every opportunity and as much time and resources as they needed to come to the most likely conclusion, such was the case in my examples. The latter individual has far fewer constraints than the former.",
">\n\nHow about a situation such a a zeroth law rebellion. This is a situation often discussed in media in which an artificial intelligence programmed to reduce human suffering will come to the logical conclusion that the best way to eliminate human suffering is to eliminate humans. After all, the utility of an eternity without any human suffering makes the short term harm insignificant. The A.I. has taken the time to fully analyze the situation and came to the most utilitarian choice it could. Is this an ethical or unethical decision?",
">\n\nIf an individual intends the outcome of their behavior it's beyond the scope of what I'm arguing here. I'm only referring to individuals who intend to benefit themselves or others with their behavior and achieve nothing or harm when the risks would have been obvious is an investigation was performed.\nIn this instance if the A.I. designers weighed the likely possibilities and decided to take the risk anyway to their peril, I might consider them negligent but they would also be outside of my scope. If instead the designers outright dismissed the possibility that the A.I. could do this and deployed it anyway, they would be engaging in unethical stupidity whether the A.I. wipes everyone out or not.",
">\n\n\"Unethical\" and \"causes suffering\" are two seperate concepts.\nTo the aztecs, human sacrifice was ethical. It also caused a lot of suffering.\nA volcano can erupt and kill and burn a lot of people, causing a lot of suffering. Yet calling a volcano unethical would be kind of silly.\nMistakes happen. Even with the best of intentions, most of us will make a stupid decision eventually. Not because off ill intent or lack of moral fiber but because our brain has limited capacity.\nOn the other hand, stupidity can have positive outcomes. Someone building a bomb to kill innocents and failing because they're too dumb to properly make one would be a good thing.\nNow if, after reading what I wrote, you're trying to arrange concepts or justify why the examples of bad outcomes are actually stupidity and the good outcomes are intelligence, then you're trying to shoehorn stupidity and suffering together.\nThey are orthogonal concepts.",
">\n\nThis is a good point about an ethical perspective. I'll edit my post to specify I'm working from a utilitarian perspective. In this case, the aztecs could not have applied modern epistemology to the question of whether or not human sacrifice benefited them. Since the tools were totally unavailable, I can't fault them for not utilizing them even though in theory they could have developed such a methodology. When I say behaving stupidly, I don't mean ignorant, I mean knowledgeable but choosing less reliable methods anyway.\nAs to the unavoidability of behaving stupidly, I mention this. I am dealing with averages and likelihoods rather than absolutes. Although complete chaos can cause good or bad outcomes, I do believe it's important to attempt to behave ethically for the greatest amount of good to befall the greatest number of people.",
">\n\nbut your definition of \"good\" was \n\nwhat is \"good\" is the intended outcome of the behavior which is being engaged in. \n\nThe Aztecs never intended for some sort of direct, immediate materialistic/pragmatic benefit to come from their sacrifices.",
">\n\nTo my understanding the sacrifices were made to achieve an unrelated purpose for religious reasons, and of course I could be incorrect about this. What do you understand as the intended outcome of their sacrifices?",
">\n\nI'm no expert in Aztec history/culture, but that's beside the point.\nI'm simply trying to point out to you that people have very different goals in mind and therefore your definition of \"utilitarian\" perspective may sound logical at first, but is, in fact, meaningless. \nYour view of what's good and mine can be completely opposite.",
">\n\nIt is true that there are more ways to be unethical than from simple stupid behavior, but that is beyond our scope. Of course I understand that someone with the opposite perspective of good from mine would consider me terribly unethical as well. This is only to say that this is a totally different conversation than someone intending an action to benefit themselves or others which does not benefit or harms them instead.",
">\n\nIn a way we already do... the shipowner in this case could probably be sued for negligence or even criminally charged with manslaughter (maybe not this case specifically but in similar other ones).\nBut this liability goes down the more it is shared... it's hard to hold hundreds of millions of voters liable in the same way you can hold a single shady business owner.",
">\n\nInteresting point about negligence. I would like to see how this might play out in our legal system.\nWhen I say hold them responsible I mean socially rather than legally. Rather than consider them to be lacking of an ability to comprehend reality, I think it's more useful to point out that they could have utilized a more reliable method and the fact that they chose not to and caused harm demonstrates that.",
">\n\n\nWhen I say hold them responsible I mean socially rather than legally.Rather than consider them to be lacking of an ability to comprehendreality, I think it's more useful to point out that they could haveutilized a more reliable method and the fact that they chose not to andcaused harm demonstrates that.\n\nI'd say we do that too. People shame each other for their political choices all the time.",
">\n\nSure, but do we shame the process by which they arrived at their conclusion when we found out there simply wasn't one?",
">\n\nFrom what I have seen, yes. In fact it’s a very common criticism of people that just vote for “whoever has an “R” next to their name” or vice versa.",
">\n\nThis is a good point, this is a common criticism. Anecdotally I understand the common explanation for this behavior is stupidity rather than intellectual laziness but it's possible those making the criticism typically intend the latter which is usually taken as the former. Is it your view that their laziness is unethical here or would you consider ethics to be irrelevant to this behavior?",
">\n\nI think \"stupid\" and intellectual laziness are often used interchangeably in common parlance. My observations is that when people criticize people for blind loyalty or willful ignorance, that this is seen as a moral failing. \nBut sometimes they do mean they are just less capable of critical thinking. Especially when people are shamed for \"voting against their own interests.\" Politics often relies on propaganda, which is specifically designed to trick people. If someone does make an effort to be aware but falls to propaganda, I wouldn't fault them for that. As to what level of effort we should expect from someone is subjective...no person has infinite time to personally verify every claim.",
">\n\nI think that we agree. I disagree with the contention that the average person is incapable of critical thinking, but I could be wrong about this of course. Do you have any information demonstrating a significant number of people who are functionally incapable of critical thinking?\nEven though it could be the case that some people who appear to be normal reasoning human beings are actually incapable of critical thought, I don't think it's useful in a democratic system to assume that this is the case. In the case that someone lives and dies entirely ignorant, of course I can't call the decisions they make stupid. If however someone has had their ideas challenged, had a formal education, is aware that there is some disagreement about what is true, and otherwise have every opportunity to choose not to behave stupidly, I think they should be critisized for failing to apply the scrutiny they understand they should have applied. Many of those individuals voting against their own interests are choosing not critically engage with the issue, and those are the people I think are behaving stupidly and unethically.",
">\n\nThe problem with the \"utilitarian perspective\" is, how do you define what's good? What is your evaluation function?",
">\n\nFor the purposes of my argument in the context of stupid behavior, what is \"good\" is the intended outcome of the behavior which is being engaged in. For example, a \"good\" might be an individual intending to limit hunger in their community. Someone attempting to avoid stupid behavior may attempt to ascertain the most effective way to accomplish this. An individual engaging in stupid behavior may have the idea to convince everyone in their community to work harder and make more money and assume that this is absolutely the most effective method. The former individual may have considered this as a possible method, but they would have applied some effort in determining whether this may be the most effective method to accomplish their \"good.\"",
">\n\nSo let's say I am a swimmer, and my goal is to swim faster.\nSo I try different techniques, and some of them resulted in a worse result (i.e slower swim).\nDoes that make my behavior unethical?",
">\n\nIf in this case the swimmer chose to continue with a method which was demonstrated to be subotimal for reasons of reliance on cognitive biases, egotism, laziness, stubbornness, credulity (as opposed to philosophical skepticism), willful ignorance, dismissal of contemporary epistemology, or outright anti-intellectualism, the decision making process would be unethical but the literal behavior would not be. The problem would occur if the swimmer were to apply this same decision-making process to a decision which has the potential to make a major impact on their own life or the lives of others.",
">\n\nOkay, this is an interesting distinction between the thought process and action.\nBut in this case, I would posit that not a single person can rigorously justify even a single stance they hold without appealing to cognitive biases, stubbornness, willful ignorance, subconscious brainwashing they've received from certain ideologies, etc etc etc...",
">\n\nOf course! I am only contending that it is important to be aware that we are vulnerable to such things and attempt to apply methodology to counteract these tendencies which we know effect us, considering the criticism which we receive. I have personally been offended by someone telling me something which I later found to be true, but I would not have accepted the truth if I allowed my ego to overwhelm my methodology. If I had done that, I would have engaged in stupid behavior. That being said, we can't assume we are absolutely correct about anything, we can only be most likely to be correct pending better evidence.",
">\n\nYou are assuming that people knowingly do stupid choices. They might have doubts, but if you want to be extra sure about everything you will never act.\nYou are always taking calculated risks and are trusting your judgements, that stuff is going to turn out fine and even if it doesn't you accept the consequences. \nI don't think that people are acting stupid knowingly. You might hear that you are doing something wrong, but you have to filter out the information and call the shots yourself. If you make the action that people have warned you against and succeed, you are a fucking genious, but if you fail, you look incredibly stupid. \nAnd this is the issue: whether the action was stupid is determined by the outcome, which you can't always predict. More often than not you think you are acting smart, but with the power of retrospective you can see how incredibly stupid you were. \nAnd most of the people are incredibly stupid and only learn by failing themselves.",
">\n\nWe're mostly in agreement as to the unavoidability of stupid behavior. We vastly disagree that most people are incredibly stupid though, although most people including you and I can and likely have made incredibly stupid decisions.\nIt is certainly possible to achieve the desired outcome by chance or through instinct, and most of the time this is the most convenient way to make decisions. It's not possible to even be aware of all the decisions me make in a day. My argument mostly pertains to major decisions effecting lives at a fundamental level. If an individual takes the effort to investigate these issues, considers the factors, and utilize a solid decision making process, I don't think they behaved stupidly even if the outcome is different from what they intended since they did everything they could to manage risk. It is in the case that this work is not done or brushed aside as unnecessary pertaining to a dire decision that I consider to be stupid behavior.",
">\n\n\nIf an individual takes the effort to investigate these issues, \nconsiders the factors, and utilize a solid decision making process, I \ndon't think they behaved stupidly even if the outcome is different from \nwhat they intended since they did everything they could to manage risk.\n\nThis is the point, you never do everything to manage risk all the time. It is literally impossible and there are also a lot of contradicting risks. \nWhat you describe as stupid is your own \"opinion\" from experience that the person making the decision might not have had, therefore he would filter your opinion out as invalid. You might have doubts, but you can't act on all of the doubts that you have, you have to trust yourself and cleanup after, otherwise you are always stuck and don't do anything.\nNo person thinks that what they are doing is stupid. Noone is intentionally stupid.\nYou might say that someone might do some petty stuff as revenge and that might be \"stupid\", but it is stupid in hindsight, it made total sense to the person in the moment of action, otherwise he wouldn't do it.",
">\n\nNo one is intentionally stupid, but individuals may intentionally engage in stupid behavior. It is true that it is unlikely they be aware that they are engaging in stupid behavior, but I would indeed fault them if they dismissed all criticism and never considered whether their decision making may be flawed. If someone murdered another person because they harmed their ego they would be considered at fault, why wouldn't they also be at fault if they failed to observe a legitimate criticism intended to prevent harm because their ego couldn't handle it which if taken seriously would have prevented them from voting for a genocidal maniac? I would consider the latter person at fault even though they didn't mean malice and only made their decision out of deliberately stupid behavior.",
">\n\n\nNo one is intentionally stupid, but individuals may intentionally engage\n in stupid behavior. It is true that it is unlikely they be aware that \nthey are engaging in stupid behavior, but I would indeed fault them if \nthey dismissed all criticism and never considered whether their decision\n making may be flawed.\n\nYou are super contradicting yourself. If they are not aware of engaging in stupid behavior, that means that they have considered the criticism and think it is invalid therefore their behavior is not stupid to them.\n\nIf someone murdered another person because they harmed their ego they \nwould be considered at fault, why wouldn't they also be at fault if they\n failed to observe a legitimate criticism intended to prevent harm \nbecause their ego couldn't handle it which if taken seriously would have\n prevented them from voting for a genocidal maniac?\n\nYou are looking at the outcome and determining the actions are stupid. Again, the people acting didn't think they were making stupid decision. They were not willfully ignorant and even if they were, they think that being ignorant is a good thing.",
">\n\nThis is coming to the core of what I'm arguing. Regardless of that individual's opinion of whether or not their own behavior is harmful, it is harmful. If a murderer considered their victims to have deserved it, we would generally hold them accountable for their actions anyway regardless of their self-perception. Even though that person believed there was nothing wrong with what they were doing, most reasonable people would still consider them at fault for their actions.\nIn this case, this indiviudal who feels completely justified to engage in stupid behavior should be blamed for failing to take responsibility for their deliberately stupid behavior when they could have chosen not to do so. Similarly, the murderer could have chosen not to murder. Each considered their behavior justified. Because this individual believes that it is permissible to make mortal decisions without making any effort to minimize risk or maximise efficacy, I think their stupid behavior should be considered unethical whether it causes harm or not. I consider it to be unethical because such a dysfunctional belief system has no controls to prevent harm.\nThe Shipowner in the example in my post chose to dismiss concerns about the safety of his ship. I don't think he was pre-destined to make the decision, I think he chose to engage in stupidity and was at fault whether the ship made it or not because his decision-making process is reckless and dangerous. This is regardless of how well the shipowner can convince himself he's right.",
">\n\nWhat would it take to change your mind? I have already shown you a contradiction.\nThe Shipowner dismisses concerns because he thinks he knows better. The behavior is \"stupid\", but it also isn't from his point of view.\nYou are conflicting the murderer example with \"being stupid\". Murderer clearly breaks rules. Murderer is not held accountable because he was \"stupid\", he was held accountable because he crossed the line we agreed on as a society.\nDid the Shipowner not follow a mandatory protocol? if he didn't, then he is guilty, but if there was no protocol he is rendered stupid just by the outcome more or less... If the outcome was different, then he would be a genious or it would seem like the experts were in the wrong, because ship was clearly good enough, right?",
">\n\nI appreciate the discourse and you have come the closest so far. The thing which would change my view could take a few forms. I could be convinced that an individual can't possibly be held responsible for their belief system (what we're talking about now). I could be convinced that no system of epistemology can be considered ethically superior to any other. I could be convinced that my proposed definition of stupidity for the purposes of my argument is fundamentally flawed. I could have my attention brought to some flaw in my argument which causes it to fall apart. The reason I put this on here is that it seems like a leap even to me so I wanted to examine if there was something important I'm missing. It's possible this conversation requires significantly more examination than would be possible on this platform as there appear to be many disagreements on some assumptions which would require clarification.\n!delta because I found the hole in my thinking while typing a response to you which I wouldn't have found if you weren't continuing to challenge what I was saying. Although empiricism is ironically empirically demonstrated to be the most reliable system to approximate truth, this does not mean empirical reasoning is fundamentally superior than all other systems. Although I continue to consider the specific examples I cited as stupid, establishing the norm that the only acceptable system is empiricism may potentially stunt us vs allowing different methods to be utilized which may be better for their purposes.\nWhen I consider the murderer to be unethical, I don't mean their behavior is bad because it's against established norm. I am considering the absolute harm that such an action were to cause regardless of what society has agreed on (assuming the victim would not cause more harm if alive, etc.). If murder was not illegal and there were no guidelines banning it, I would still consider it to be unethical. Although there is some overlap between law and ethics, I am exclusively considering ethics here. That being said, I can't myself be sure whether dominant forms of contemporary epistemology could the best method in every circumstance. Therefore, I think it's more limiting than helpful to hold people accountable for not holding true to what our most advanced philosophy currently considers to be the best methods.\nThanks for the discourse!",
">\n\nThe individual absolutely cannot be held responsible for his belief system, if there is not another belief system that sees that he is fucking up. In his belief system (POV), he is not wrong or even if he thinks he is, it is with the benefit of hindsight. There are instances where he could act against his belief system (lying), but I would argue that he does not truely believe in it.\nI think your definition of stupidity is kind of vague/missing. You are assuming everyone knows the best practices and should behave like a different group of individuals thinks is \"smart\". You would not have any evolution if everyone acted this way, because at some point you have to diverge or dig your heels in. In politics this is the progressives-conservatives tension.\nIt seems like you are missing the value part of decision making here: what you percieve as good is not what another person percieves as good. There are absolutely values that we agree on, like \"human life should be protected\", but there are much more nuanced values that we might disagree on that can lead to \"stupid\" actions.\nAlso, decision making process is quite complicated: you take into account your own experience, experience of others, your estimation of the circumstances and others' estimation of the same circumstances. This is the ideal world, however, you also have to take into account your experience with others and others' experience with others (both relate to trust). If you fundamentally not trust science, you will act extremely stupid in the eyes of the science people, however science people are acting extremely stupid in the eyes of the \"church people\", right?\nIn addition to that, you might completely trust them, but you also have to be completely sure that they understand the circumstances in the same depth as you do in order to take their opinion into account, otherwise you view them as the \"stupid\" ones and discard their guesses.\nI appreciated this conversation as well! Hopefully it will help you find the answer you are looking for :)",
">\n\nWhat I was realizing was that I was assuming that all people are universally most interested in achieving their desired outcomes, but I'm coming to understand that this is something that I can't assume. For example, the ship-owner may care more about being comfortable avoiding responsibility than he cared about the safety and well-being of his ship and crew. There is a moral failing here which involves deliberately avoiding issues through the use of self-delusion, but I think you're correct in that it's not necessarily stupid behavior. \nIn politics, a person may claim that they would like to see something improve or take place, but employing their method regardless of whether it causes that thing to take place or even if it's been tried before and subverts that thing from taking place is more important to them than the change itself even if they would genuinely like to see that change. For example someone may want to consider the solution to end homelessness to be book distribution because they are more interested than doing that than ending homelessness, even if they are also actually interested in ending homelessness. Even though their behavior and stated goal are at odds, I'm not sure this discrepancy can be attributed just to stupid methods of belief formation as motivations which I consider to be perverse with my own biases may also be involved.\nI can't say it still doesn't frustrate me. Counterproductive behavior may be driven by reasons other than a sub-standard epistemological framework. If I consider something to be stupid because it doesn't work or achieves the opposite effect of what was intended and the person doing it may observe that, the actor performing the action may not necessarily care about the effect but rather their actions regardless of what the effect may be. !delta directly this time.",
">\n\nSo in Your View, the grunts who ran into oncoming gunfire (behaving stupidly) on Omaha Beach were \"unethical\", correct?",
">\n\nI'm not sure how you could have drawn that conclusion from my argument. The desired outcome the Normandy invaders was to overrun the German line and invade the continent, which these grunts were doing. If a given soldier were to ignore their training and sense of self-preservation and run into the open for no other reason than the thought occurring to them, that would be counterproductive and probably unethical, but I don't think anyone did that. The individuals deliberately charging into gunfire were risking their lives for a specific tactical purpose, and the sacrifice of many who chose to do so aided what they were intending to do which was to defeat the Axis powers and end WWII."
] |
>
In some circumstances. Obviously not generally. In the case of the normandy invasion, yes it was their best option.
|
[
"/u/Kwakigra (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOP, this is basically just a lot of words for \"making bad decisions may cause harm to others\", which is not a statement anyone disagrees with.\nI suspect, though, that you mean a much stronger claim here. Can you - ideally much more briefly - say what the consequences you think this statement implies are?",
">\n\nI second the more briefly part, please never again site passages from book or recite poems, make your point as clear and readable as possible. because frankly, I'm not reading all that.",
">\n\nThe essential problem with Clifford's argument is that it suggests that it can be unethical to believe something that is true (if you have insufficient evidence to support it). And that seems like a very dubious claim. It's not clear when believing something true would ever be unethical. And Clifford's reasoning proceeds from an invalid generalization from false insufficiently supported beliefs (such as the belief in the seaworthiness of the ship) to all such beliefs.",
">\n\nI probably should have specified in my original argument that I'm dealing in relative likelihoods. Of course a total guess may be correct when all available evidence supports a conclusion which isn't correct. I believe however that it's been demonstrated that information considered most likely to be true when subject to empirical investigation and critical scrutiny is generally more reliable than what may be considered to be true by intuition, bias, or classical reasoning. Since contemporary epistemology has demonstrated that determining what is most likely to be true given evidence is more reliable than intuition or pure deduction, it is as best as we can do to be most likely to achieve desirable outcomes. This is in contrast to not making that effort at all which is significatnly less likely to produce such outcomes, which I consider to be \"stupid behavior.\" I am thinking in aggregate rather than issue by issue.",
">\n\nYour definition of \"stupid behavior\" seems wrong though. For example, suppose that I am considering whether to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Applying my decision-making process, I decide to wear a helmet, reasoning that this will make me safer while riding my bicycle. Subsequently, while riding, a piece of debris is flung off a nearby truck and hits me a glancing blow in the top of my helmet, knocking me off my bicycle and giving me a concussion; had I not been wearing a helmet, the debris would have missed my head entirely. My decision-making process achieved the opposite of the desired outcome. Was my decision-making process really \"stupid\" and unethical?",
">\n\nIt has been demonstrated that it is significantly less likely for a brain injury to occur through helmet use than through non-use, but of course the risk can't be totally eliminated. Just because it's impossible to be immune from risk doesn't mean the effort to mitigate it isn't worthwhile. In this case I think you would have taken the most care to preserve your brain as you could have, and an issue occurred anyway. In the vast majority of other incidents, the brain would have been preserved. There are no absolutes here, only doing what we can to do what makes the most sense according to our needs and wants.",
">\n\nIf that is the case, why would you make this post? Seems to defeat your own argument",
">\n\nI'm sorry, I'm not following you. Can you explain how I've defeated my own argument?",
">\n\nYou made a stupid post. Why would you do that if it is unethical?",
">\n\nAre you able to explain why my argument is stupid? Can you explain what obvious thing I've failed to consider here?",
">\n\nBecause people don't agree who is stupid, it is subjective....\nAlso do you think stupid people intentionally do stupid things? If you were smart enough to have not made this post, you wouldn't have done it, it is not something you have control over really",
">\n\nI'm sorry, did you read my argument?",
">\n\nYes, it is pretty stupid. Can you respond to my argument?",
">\n\nOk, then allow me to clarify. I'll edit my above post to include a specific definition of stupid behavior for the purposes of my argument. I am considering a decision-making process to be stupid when it either fails totally to achieve the desired outcome or achieves the opposite of the desired outcome. In my examples, I think the desire of Germans at the time was to build a prosperous and successful Germany, those voting on birth control measures intend to limit teenage birthrates or else they would propose no action, and those dying of covid likely didn't want to die from covid and I assume didn't want to infect and kill others as a consequence of their behavior. Although all the individuals in the above cases were either made aware of the relevant factors to their decision making or at least had every opportunity to deliberate on such an impactful and obviously catastrophic decision, they chose instead to their peril to engage in behavior that was directly harmful to themselves or others.",
">\n\nIf Nazi germany had won the war, what the citizens did would not be stupid anymore. Which is why it is a useless and subjective term (as you are using it)\nClearly, people agree your argument is stupid. So you should take this post down or risk being unethical",
">\n\nI'm sorry, the majority of voters who supported the Nazis would not have been better off if they had won. They would have had to live under Nazi rule.",
">\n\n\nElecting you-know-who as chancellor of Germany was a stupid decision by many voters at the time. Most contemporary Germans understand and actively avoid such stupidity. \n\nWell, how you-know-who (I really don't know who you mean) get elected then? \nIs Germany not a democracy? Is the leader not the one with the most support either individually, or via their governing coalition? If most Germans actively avoided such stupidity, how did the stupidity come to pass?",
">\n\nMy argument was not that it was unethical for such an election to be possible, rather my argument was that the German voters who made the mistake of voting in such a way were behaving stupidly in their decision-making when they had the opportunity not to. It is contemporary Germans with the benefit of hindsight who are more likely to be careful to avoid such stupidity when they vote. A contemporary German voting for someone like that is behaving more stupidly than the ones who originally behaved stupidly.",
">\n\nA car crashes and catches fire. A passerby witnesses the accident and runs to try and get the unconscious driver out of the burning vehicle. As he is doing so, the car explodes, killing both the driver and the would-be rescuer. If the passerby had been smart, he would have assessed the dangers before running in to help. Was the passerby unethical in his actions?",
">\n\nAlthough the motivation of the action was admirable, the decision-making process was unethical. If this individual had applied the scrutiny of the situation which you described the damage would have been minimized. That being said I addressed this in my argument. Although the decision-making process was technically unethical, given the circumstances the individual was probably not capable of suitably analyzing the situation quickly and had to have applied a different, less reliable, and deadly method. I would not fault the individual here. I would fault an individual who had every opportunity and as much time and resources as they needed to come to the most likely conclusion, such was the case in my examples. The latter individual has far fewer constraints than the former.",
">\n\nHow about a situation such a a zeroth law rebellion. This is a situation often discussed in media in which an artificial intelligence programmed to reduce human suffering will come to the logical conclusion that the best way to eliminate human suffering is to eliminate humans. After all, the utility of an eternity without any human suffering makes the short term harm insignificant. The A.I. has taken the time to fully analyze the situation and came to the most utilitarian choice it could. Is this an ethical or unethical decision?",
">\n\nIf an individual intends the outcome of their behavior it's beyond the scope of what I'm arguing here. I'm only referring to individuals who intend to benefit themselves or others with their behavior and achieve nothing or harm when the risks would have been obvious is an investigation was performed.\nIn this instance if the A.I. designers weighed the likely possibilities and decided to take the risk anyway to their peril, I might consider them negligent but they would also be outside of my scope. If instead the designers outright dismissed the possibility that the A.I. could do this and deployed it anyway, they would be engaging in unethical stupidity whether the A.I. wipes everyone out or not.",
">\n\n\"Unethical\" and \"causes suffering\" are two seperate concepts.\nTo the aztecs, human sacrifice was ethical. It also caused a lot of suffering.\nA volcano can erupt and kill and burn a lot of people, causing a lot of suffering. Yet calling a volcano unethical would be kind of silly.\nMistakes happen. Even with the best of intentions, most of us will make a stupid decision eventually. Not because off ill intent or lack of moral fiber but because our brain has limited capacity.\nOn the other hand, stupidity can have positive outcomes. Someone building a bomb to kill innocents and failing because they're too dumb to properly make one would be a good thing.\nNow if, after reading what I wrote, you're trying to arrange concepts or justify why the examples of bad outcomes are actually stupidity and the good outcomes are intelligence, then you're trying to shoehorn stupidity and suffering together.\nThey are orthogonal concepts.",
">\n\nThis is a good point about an ethical perspective. I'll edit my post to specify I'm working from a utilitarian perspective. In this case, the aztecs could not have applied modern epistemology to the question of whether or not human sacrifice benefited them. Since the tools were totally unavailable, I can't fault them for not utilizing them even though in theory they could have developed such a methodology. When I say behaving stupidly, I don't mean ignorant, I mean knowledgeable but choosing less reliable methods anyway.\nAs to the unavoidability of behaving stupidly, I mention this. I am dealing with averages and likelihoods rather than absolutes. Although complete chaos can cause good or bad outcomes, I do believe it's important to attempt to behave ethically for the greatest amount of good to befall the greatest number of people.",
">\n\nbut your definition of \"good\" was \n\nwhat is \"good\" is the intended outcome of the behavior which is being engaged in. \n\nThe Aztecs never intended for some sort of direct, immediate materialistic/pragmatic benefit to come from their sacrifices.",
">\n\nTo my understanding the sacrifices were made to achieve an unrelated purpose for religious reasons, and of course I could be incorrect about this. What do you understand as the intended outcome of their sacrifices?",
">\n\nI'm no expert in Aztec history/culture, but that's beside the point.\nI'm simply trying to point out to you that people have very different goals in mind and therefore your definition of \"utilitarian\" perspective may sound logical at first, but is, in fact, meaningless. \nYour view of what's good and mine can be completely opposite.",
">\n\nIt is true that there are more ways to be unethical than from simple stupid behavior, but that is beyond our scope. Of course I understand that someone with the opposite perspective of good from mine would consider me terribly unethical as well. This is only to say that this is a totally different conversation than someone intending an action to benefit themselves or others which does not benefit or harms them instead.",
">\n\nIn a way we already do... the shipowner in this case could probably be sued for negligence or even criminally charged with manslaughter (maybe not this case specifically but in similar other ones).\nBut this liability goes down the more it is shared... it's hard to hold hundreds of millions of voters liable in the same way you can hold a single shady business owner.",
">\n\nInteresting point about negligence. I would like to see how this might play out in our legal system.\nWhen I say hold them responsible I mean socially rather than legally. Rather than consider them to be lacking of an ability to comprehend reality, I think it's more useful to point out that they could have utilized a more reliable method and the fact that they chose not to and caused harm demonstrates that.",
">\n\n\nWhen I say hold them responsible I mean socially rather than legally.Rather than consider them to be lacking of an ability to comprehendreality, I think it's more useful to point out that they could haveutilized a more reliable method and the fact that they chose not to andcaused harm demonstrates that.\n\nI'd say we do that too. People shame each other for their political choices all the time.",
">\n\nSure, but do we shame the process by which they arrived at their conclusion when we found out there simply wasn't one?",
">\n\nFrom what I have seen, yes. In fact it’s a very common criticism of people that just vote for “whoever has an “R” next to their name” or vice versa.",
">\n\nThis is a good point, this is a common criticism. Anecdotally I understand the common explanation for this behavior is stupidity rather than intellectual laziness but it's possible those making the criticism typically intend the latter which is usually taken as the former. Is it your view that their laziness is unethical here or would you consider ethics to be irrelevant to this behavior?",
">\n\nI think \"stupid\" and intellectual laziness are often used interchangeably in common parlance. My observations is that when people criticize people for blind loyalty or willful ignorance, that this is seen as a moral failing. \nBut sometimes they do mean they are just less capable of critical thinking. Especially when people are shamed for \"voting against their own interests.\" Politics often relies on propaganda, which is specifically designed to trick people. If someone does make an effort to be aware but falls to propaganda, I wouldn't fault them for that. As to what level of effort we should expect from someone is subjective...no person has infinite time to personally verify every claim.",
">\n\nI think that we agree. I disagree with the contention that the average person is incapable of critical thinking, but I could be wrong about this of course. Do you have any information demonstrating a significant number of people who are functionally incapable of critical thinking?\nEven though it could be the case that some people who appear to be normal reasoning human beings are actually incapable of critical thought, I don't think it's useful in a democratic system to assume that this is the case. In the case that someone lives and dies entirely ignorant, of course I can't call the decisions they make stupid. If however someone has had their ideas challenged, had a formal education, is aware that there is some disagreement about what is true, and otherwise have every opportunity to choose not to behave stupidly, I think they should be critisized for failing to apply the scrutiny they understand they should have applied. Many of those individuals voting against their own interests are choosing not critically engage with the issue, and those are the people I think are behaving stupidly and unethically.",
">\n\nThe problem with the \"utilitarian perspective\" is, how do you define what's good? What is your evaluation function?",
">\n\nFor the purposes of my argument in the context of stupid behavior, what is \"good\" is the intended outcome of the behavior which is being engaged in. For example, a \"good\" might be an individual intending to limit hunger in their community. Someone attempting to avoid stupid behavior may attempt to ascertain the most effective way to accomplish this. An individual engaging in stupid behavior may have the idea to convince everyone in their community to work harder and make more money and assume that this is absolutely the most effective method. The former individual may have considered this as a possible method, but they would have applied some effort in determining whether this may be the most effective method to accomplish their \"good.\"",
">\n\nSo let's say I am a swimmer, and my goal is to swim faster.\nSo I try different techniques, and some of them resulted in a worse result (i.e slower swim).\nDoes that make my behavior unethical?",
">\n\nIf in this case the swimmer chose to continue with a method which was demonstrated to be subotimal for reasons of reliance on cognitive biases, egotism, laziness, stubbornness, credulity (as opposed to philosophical skepticism), willful ignorance, dismissal of contemporary epistemology, or outright anti-intellectualism, the decision making process would be unethical but the literal behavior would not be. The problem would occur if the swimmer were to apply this same decision-making process to a decision which has the potential to make a major impact on their own life or the lives of others.",
">\n\nOkay, this is an interesting distinction between the thought process and action.\nBut in this case, I would posit that not a single person can rigorously justify even a single stance they hold without appealing to cognitive biases, stubbornness, willful ignorance, subconscious brainwashing they've received from certain ideologies, etc etc etc...",
">\n\nOf course! I am only contending that it is important to be aware that we are vulnerable to such things and attempt to apply methodology to counteract these tendencies which we know effect us, considering the criticism which we receive. I have personally been offended by someone telling me something which I later found to be true, but I would not have accepted the truth if I allowed my ego to overwhelm my methodology. If I had done that, I would have engaged in stupid behavior. That being said, we can't assume we are absolutely correct about anything, we can only be most likely to be correct pending better evidence.",
">\n\nYou are assuming that people knowingly do stupid choices. They might have doubts, but if you want to be extra sure about everything you will never act.\nYou are always taking calculated risks and are trusting your judgements, that stuff is going to turn out fine and even if it doesn't you accept the consequences. \nI don't think that people are acting stupid knowingly. You might hear that you are doing something wrong, but you have to filter out the information and call the shots yourself. If you make the action that people have warned you against and succeed, you are a fucking genious, but if you fail, you look incredibly stupid. \nAnd this is the issue: whether the action was stupid is determined by the outcome, which you can't always predict. More often than not you think you are acting smart, but with the power of retrospective you can see how incredibly stupid you were. \nAnd most of the people are incredibly stupid and only learn by failing themselves.",
">\n\nWe're mostly in agreement as to the unavoidability of stupid behavior. We vastly disagree that most people are incredibly stupid though, although most people including you and I can and likely have made incredibly stupid decisions.\nIt is certainly possible to achieve the desired outcome by chance or through instinct, and most of the time this is the most convenient way to make decisions. It's not possible to even be aware of all the decisions me make in a day. My argument mostly pertains to major decisions effecting lives at a fundamental level. If an individual takes the effort to investigate these issues, considers the factors, and utilize a solid decision making process, I don't think they behaved stupidly even if the outcome is different from what they intended since they did everything they could to manage risk. It is in the case that this work is not done or brushed aside as unnecessary pertaining to a dire decision that I consider to be stupid behavior.",
">\n\n\nIf an individual takes the effort to investigate these issues, \nconsiders the factors, and utilize a solid decision making process, I \ndon't think they behaved stupidly even if the outcome is different from \nwhat they intended since they did everything they could to manage risk.\n\nThis is the point, you never do everything to manage risk all the time. It is literally impossible and there are also a lot of contradicting risks. \nWhat you describe as stupid is your own \"opinion\" from experience that the person making the decision might not have had, therefore he would filter your opinion out as invalid. You might have doubts, but you can't act on all of the doubts that you have, you have to trust yourself and cleanup after, otherwise you are always stuck and don't do anything.\nNo person thinks that what they are doing is stupid. Noone is intentionally stupid.\nYou might say that someone might do some petty stuff as revenge and that might be \"stupid\", but it is stupid in hindsight, it made total sense to the person in the moment of action, otherwise he wouldn't do it.",
">\n\nNo one is intentionally stupid, but individuals may intentionally engage in stupid behavior. It is true that it is unlikely they be aware that they are engaging in stupid behavior, but I would indeed fault them if they dismissed all criticism and never considered whether their decision making may be flawed. If someone murdered another person because they harmed their ego they would be considered at fault, why wouldn't they also be at fault if they failed to observe a legitimate criticism intended to prevent harm because their ego couldn't handle it which if taken seriously would have prevented them from voting for a genocidal maniac? I would consider the latter person at fault even though they didn't mean malice and only made their decision out of deliberately stupid behavior.",
">\n\n\nNo one is intentionally stupid, but individuals may intentionally engage\n in stupid behavior. It is true that it is unlikely they be aware that \nthey are engaging in stupid behavior, but I would indeed fault them if \nthey dismissed all criticism and never considered whether their decision\n making may be flawed.\n\nYou are super contradicting yourself. If they are not aware of engaging in stupid behavior, that means that they have considered the criticism and think it is invalid therefore their behavior is not stupid to them.\n\nIf someone murdered another person because they harmed their ego they \nwould be considered at fault, why wouldn't they also be at fault if they\n failed to observe a legitimate criticism intended to prevent harm \nbecause their ego couldn't handle it which if taken seriously would have\n prevented them from voting for a genocidal maniac?\n\nYou are looking at the outcome and determining the actions are stupid. Again, the people acting didn't think they were making stupid decision. They were not willfully ignorant and even if they were, they think that being ignorant is a good thing.",
">\n\nThis is coming to the core of what I'm arguing. Regardless of that individual's opinion of whether or not their own behavior is harmful, it is harmful. If a murderer considered their victims to have deserved it, we would generally hold them accountable for their actions anyway regardless of their self-perception. Even though that person believed there was nothing wrong with what they were doing, most reasonable people would still consider them at fault for their actions.\nIn this case, this indiviudal who feels completely justified to engage in stupid behavior should be blamed for failing to take responsibility for their deliberately stupid behavior when they could have chosen not to do so. Similarly, the murderer could have chosen not to murder. Each considered their behavior justified. Because this individual believes that it is permissible to make mortal decisions without making any effort to minimize risk or maximise efficacy, I think their stupid behavior should be considered unethical whether it causes harm or not. I consider it to be unethical because such a dysfunctional belief system has no controls to prevent harm.\nThe Shipowner in the example in my post chose to dismiss concerns about the safety of his ship. I don't think he was pre-destined to make the decision, I think he chose to engage in stupidity and was at fault whether the ship made it or not because his decision-making process is reckless and dangerous. This is regardless of how well the shipowner can convince himself he's right.",
">\n\nWhat would it take to change your mind? I have already shown you a contradiction.\nThe Shipowner dismisses concerns because he thinks he knows better. The behavior is \"stupid\", but it also isn't from his point of view.\nYou are conflicting the murderer example with \"being stupid\". Murderer clearly breaks rules. Murderer is not held accountable because he was \"stupid\", he was held accountable because he crossed the line we agreed on as a society.\nDid the Shipowner not follow a mandatory protocol? if he didn't, then he is guilty, but if there was no protocol he is rendered stupid just by the outcome more or less... If the outcome was different, then he would be a genious or it would seem like the experts were in the wrong, because ship was clearly good enough, right?",
">\n\nI appreciate the discourse and you have come the closest so far. The thing which would change my view could take a few forms. I could be convinced that an individual can't possibly be held responsible for their belief system (what we're talking about now). I could be convinced that no system of epistemology can be considered ethically superior to any other. I could be convinced that my proposed definition of stupidity for the purposes of my argument is fundamentally flawed. I could have my attention brought to some flaw in my argument which causes it to fall apart. The reason I put this on here is that it seems like a leap even to me so I wanted to examine if there was something important I'm missing. It's possible this conversation requires significantly more examination than would be possible on this platform as there appear to be many disagreements on some assumptions which would require clarification.\n!delta because I found the hole in my thinking while typing a response to you which I wouldn't have found if you weren't continuing to challenge what I was saying. Although empiricism is ironically empirically demonstrated to be the most reliable system to approximate truth, this does not mean empirical reasoning is fundamentally superior than all other systems. Although I continue to consider the specific examples I cited as stupid, establishing the norm that the only acceptable system is empiricism may potentially stunt us vs allowing different methods to be utilized which may be better for their purposes.\nWhen I consider the murderer to be unethical, I don't mean their behavior is bad because it's against established norm. I am considering the absolute harm that such an action were to cause regardless of what society has agreed on (assuming the victim would not cause more harm if alive, etc.). If murder was not illegal and there were no guidelines banning it, I would still consider it to be unethical. Although there is some overlap between law and ethics, I am exclusively considering ethics here. That being said, I can't myself be sure whether dominant forms of contemporary epistemology could the best method in every circumstance. Therefore, I think it's more limiting than helpful to hold people accountable for not holding true to what our most advanced philosophy currently considers to be the best methods.\nThanks for the discourse!",
">\n\nThe individual absolutely cannot be held responsible for his belief system, if there is not another belief system that sees that he is fucking up. In his belief system (POV), he is not wrong or even if he thinks he is, it is with the benefit of hindsight. There are instances where he could act against his belief system (lying), but I would argue that he does not truely believe in it.\nI think your definition of stupidity is kind of vague/missing. You are assuming everyone knows the best practices and should behave like a different group of individuals thinks is \"smart\". You would not have any evolution if everyone acted this way, because at some point you have to diverge or dig your heels in. In politics this is the progressives-conservatives tension.\nIt seems like you are missing the value part of decision making here: what you percieve as good is not what another person percieves as good. There are absolutely values that we agree on, like \"human life should be protected\", but there are much more nuanced values that we might disagree on that can lead to \"stupid\" actions.\nAlso, decision making process is quite complicated: you take into account your own experience, experience of others, your estimation of the circumstances and others' estimation of the same circumstances. This is the ideal world, however, you also have to take into account your experience with others and others' experience with others (both relate to trust). If you fundamentally not trust science, you will act extremely stupid in the eyes of the science people, however science people are acting extremely stupid in the eyes of the \"church people\", right?\nIn addition to that, you might completely trust them, but you also have to be completely sure that they understand the circumstances in the same depth as you do in order to take their opinion into account, otherwise you view them as the \"stupid\" ones and discard their guesses.\nI appreciated this conversation as well! Hopefully it will help you find the answer you are looking for :)",
">\n\nWhat I was realizing was that I was assuming that all people are universally most interested in achieving their desired outcomes, but I'm coming to understand that this is something that I can't assume. For example, the ship-owner may care more about being comfortable avoiding responsibility than he cared about the safety and well-being of his ship and crew. There is a moral failing here which involves deliberately avoiding issues through the use of self-delusion, but I think you're correct in that it's not necessarily stupid behavior. \nIn politics, a person may claim that they would like to see something improve or take place, but employing their method regardless of whether it causes that thing to take place or even if it's been tried before and subverts that thing from taking place is more important to them than the change itself even if they would genuinely like to see that change. For example someone may want to consider the solution to end homelessness to be book distribution because they are more interested than doing that than ending homelessness, even if they are also actually interested in ending homelessness. Even though their behavior and stated goal are at odds, I'm not sure this discrepancy can be attributed just to stupid methods of belief formation as motivations which I consider to be perverse with my own biases may also be involved.\nI can't say it still doesn't frustrate me. Counterproductive behavior may be driven by reasons other than a sub-standard epistemological framework. If I consider something to be stupid because it doesn't work or achieves the opposite effect of what was intended and the person doing it may observe that, the actor performing the action may not necessarily care about the effect but rather their actions regardless of what the effect may be. !delta directly this time.",
">\n\nSo in Your View, the grunts who ran into oncoming gunfire (behaving stupidly) on Omaha Beach were \"unethical\", correct?",
">\n\nI'm not sure how you could have drawn that conclusion from my argument. The desired outcome the Normandy invaders was to overrun the German line and invade the continent, which these grunts were doing. If a given soldier were to ignore their training and sense of self-preservation and run into the open for no other reason than the thought occurring to them, that would be counterproductive and probably unethical, but I don't think anyone did that. The individuals deliberately charging into gunfire were risking their lives for a specific tactical purpose, and the sacrifice of many who chose to do so aided what they were intending to do which was to defeat the Axis powers and end WWII.",
">\n\nWould you agree with this statement?\n\"It is smart to run into gunfire\""
] |
>
Wouldn't their best option be to run between gunfire? Or under gunfire, or to the left or right of gunfire?
|
[
"/u/Kwakigra (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOP, this is basically just a lot of words for \"making bad decisions may cause harm to others\", which is not a statement anyone disagrees with.\nI suspect, though, that you mean a much stronger claim here. Can you - ideally much more briefly - say what the consequences you think this statement implies are?",
">\n\nI second the more briefly part, please never again site passages from book or recite poems, make your point as clear and readable as possible. because frankly, I'm not reading all that.",
">\n\nThe essential problem with Clifford's argument is that it suggests that it can be unethical to believe something that is true (if you have insufficient evidence to support it). And that seems like a very dubious claim. It's not clear when believing something true would ever be unethical. And Clifford's reasoning proceeds from an invalid generalization from false insufficiently supported beliefs (such as the belief in the seaworthiness of the ship) to all such beliefs.",
">\n\nI probably should have specified in my original argument that I'm dealing in relative likelihoods. Of course a total guess may be correct when all available evidence supports a conclusion which isn't correct. I believe however that it's been demonstrated that information considered most likely to be true when subject to empirical investigation and critical scrutiny is generally more reliable than what may be considered to be true by intuition, bias, or classical reasoning. Since contemporary epistemology has demonstrated that determining what is most likely to be true given evidence is more reliable than intuition or pure deduction, it is as best as we can do to be most likely to achieve desirable outcomes. This is in contrast to not making that effort at all which is significatnly less likely to produce such outcomes, which I consider to be \"stupid behavior.\" I am thinking in aggregate rather than issue by issue.",
">\n\nYour definition of \"stupid behavior\" seems wrong though. For example, suppose that I am considering whether to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Applying my decision-making process, I decide to wear a helmet, reasoning that this will make me safer while riding my bicycle. Subsequently, while riding, a piece of debris is flung off a nearby truck and hits me a glancing blow in the top of my helmet, knocking me off my bicycle and giving me a concussion; had I not been wearing a helmet, the debris would have missed my head entirely. My decision-making process achieved the opposite of the desired outcome. Was my decision-making process really \"stupid\" and unethical?",
">\n\nIt has been demonstrated that it is significantly less likely for a brain injury to occur through helmet use than through non-use, but of course the risk can't be totally eliminated. Just because it's impossible to be immune from risk doesn't mean the effort to mitigate it isn't worthwhile. In this case I think you would have taken the most care to preserve your brain as you could have, and an issue occurred anyway. In the vast majority of other incidents, the brain would have been preserved. There are no absolutes here, only doing what we can to do what makes the most sense according to our needs and wants.",
">\n\nIf that is the case, why would you make this post? Seems to defeat your own argument",
">\n\nI'm sorry, I'm not following you. Can you explain how I've defeated my own argument?",
">\n\nYou made a stupid post. Why would you do that if it is unethical?",
">\n\nAre you able to explain why my argument is stupid? Can you explain what obvious thing I've failed to consider here?",
">\n\nBecause people don't agree who is stupid, it is subjective....\nAlso do you think stupid people intentionally do stupid things? If you were smart enough to have not made this post, you wouldn't have done it, it is not something you have control over really",
">\n\nI'm sorry, did you read my argument?",
">\n\nYes, it is pretty stupid. Can you respond to my argument?",
">\n\nOk, then allow me to clarify. I'll edit my above post to include a specific definition of stupid behavior for the purposes of my argument. I am considering a decision-making process to be stupid when it either fails totally to achieve the desired outcome or achieves the opposite of the desired outcome. In my examples, I think the desire of Germans at the time was to build a prosperous and successful Germany, those voting on birth control measures intend to limit teenage birthrates or else they would propose no action, and those dying of covid likely didn't want to die from covid and I assume didn't want to infect and kill others as a consequence of their behavior. Although all the individuals in the above cases were either made aware of the relevant factors to their decision making or at least had every opportunity to deliberate on such an impactful and obviously catastrophic decision, they chose instead to their peril to engage in behavior that was directly harmful to themselves or others.",
">\n\nIf Nazi germany had won the war, what the citizens did would not be stupid anymore. Which is why it is a useless and subjective term (as you are using it)\nClearly, people agree your argument is stupid. So you should take this post down or risk being unethical",
">\n\nI'm sorry, the majority of voters who supported the Nazis would not have been better off if they had won. They would have had to live under Nazi rule.",
">\n\n\nElecting you-know-who as chancellor of Germany was a stupid decision by many voters at the time. Most contemporary Germans understand and actively avoid such stupidity. \n\nWell, how you-know-who (I really don't know who you mean) get elected then? \nIs Germany not a democracy? Is the leader not the one with the most support either individually, or via their governing coalition? If most Germans actively avoided such stupidity, how did the stupidity come to pass?",
">\n\nMy argument was not that it was unethical for such an election to be possible, rather my argument was that the German voters who made the mistake of voting in such a way were behaving stupidly in their decision-making when they had the opportunity not to. It is contemporary Germans with the benefit of hindsight who are more likely to be careful to avoid such stupidity when they vote. A contemporary German voting for someone like that is behaving more stupidly than the ones who originally behaved stupidly.",
">\n\nA car crashes and catches fire. A passerby witnesses the accident and runs to try and get the unconscious driver out of the burning vehicle. As he is doing so, the car explodes, killing both the driver and the would-be rescuer. If the passerby had been smart, he would have assessed the dangers before running in to help. Was the passerby unethical in his actions?",
">\n\nAlthough the motivation of the action was admirable, the decision-making process was unethical. If this individual had applied the scrutiny of the situation which you described the damage would have been minimized. That being said I addressed this in my argument. Although the decision-making process was technically unethical, given the circumstances the individual was probably not capable of suitably analyzing the situation quickly and had to have applied a different, less reliable, and deadly method. I would not fault the individual here. I would fault an individual who had every opportunity and as much time and resources as they needed to come to the most likely conclusion, such was the case in my examples. The latter individual has far fewer constraints than the former.",
">\n\nHow about a situation such a a zeroth law rebellion. This is a situation often discussed in media in which an artificial intelligence programmed to reduce human suffering will come to the logical conclusion that the best way to eliminate human suffering is to eliminate humans. After all, the utility of an eternity without any human suffering makes the short term harm insignificant. The A.I. has taken the time to fully analyze the situation and came to the most utilitarian choice it could. Is this an ethical or unethical decision?",
">\n\nIf an individual intends the outcome of their behavior it's beyond the scope of what I'm arguing here. I'm only referring to individuals who intend to benefit themselves or others with their behavior and achieve nothing or harm when the risks would have been obvious is an investigation was performed.\nIn this instance if the A.I. designers weighed the likely possibilities and decided to take the risk anyway to their peril, I might consider them negligent but they would also be outside of my scope. If instead the designers outright dismissed the possibility that the A.I. could do this and deployed it anyway, they would be engaging in unethical stupidity whether the A.I. wipes everyone out or not.",
">\n\n\"Unethical\" and \"causes suffering\" are two seperate concepts.\nTo the aztecs, human sacrifice was ethical. It also caused a lot of suffering.\nA volcano can erupt and kill and burn a lot of people, causing a lot of suffering. Yet calling a volcano unethical would be kind of silly.\nMistakes happen. Even with the best of intentions, most of us will make a stupid decision eventually. Not because off ill intent or lack of moral fiber but because our brain has limited capacity.\nOn the other hand, stupidity can have positive outcomes. Someone building a bomb to kill innocents and failing because they're too dumb to properly make one would be a good thing.\nNow if, after reading what I wrote, you're trying to arrange concepts or justify why the examples of bad outcomes are actually stupidity and the good outcomes are intelligence, then you're trying to shoehorn stupidity and suffering together.\nThey are orthogonal concepts.",
">\n\nThis is a good point about an ethical perspective. I'll edit my post to specify I'm working from a utilitarian perspective. In this case, the aztecs could not have applied modern epistemology to the question of whether or not human sacrifice benefited them. Since the tools were totally unavailable, I can't fault them for not utilizing them even though in theory they could have developed such a methodology. When I say behaving stupidly, I don't mean ignorant, I mean knowledgeable but choosing less reliable methods anyway.\nAs to the unavoidability of behaving stupidly, I mention this. I am dealing with averages and likelihoods rather than absolutes. Although complete chaos can cause good or bad outcomes, I do believe it's important to attempt to behave ethically for the greatest amount of good to befall the greatest number of people.",
">\n\nbut your definition of \"good\" was \n\nwhat is \"good\" is the intended outcome of the behavior which is being engaged in. \n\nThe Aztecs never intended for some sort of direct, immediate materialistic/pragmatic benefit to come from their sacrifices.",
">\n\nTo my understanding the sacrifices were made to achieve an unrelated purpose for religious reasons, and of course I could be incorrect about this. What do you understand as the intended outcome of their sacrifices?",
">\n\nI'm no expert in Aztec history/culture, but that's beside the point.\nI'm simply trying to point out to you that people have very different goals in mind and therefore your definition of \"utilitarian\" perspective may sound logical at first, but is, in fact, meaningless. \nYour view of what's good and mine can be completely opposite.",
">\n\nIt is true that there are more ways to be unethical than from simple stupid behavior, but that is beyond our scope. Of course I understand that someone with the opposite perspective of good from mine would consider me terribly unethical as well. This is only to say that this is a totally different conversation than someone intending an action to benefit themselves or others which does not benefit or harms them instead.",
">\n\nIn a way we already do... the shipowner in this case could probably be sued for negligence or even criminally charged with manslaughter (maybe not this case specifically but in similar other ones).\nBut this liability goes down the more it is shared... it's hard to hold hundreds of millions of voters liable in the same way you can hold a single shady business owner.",
">\n\nInteresting point about negligence. I would like to see how this might play out in our legal system.\nWhen I say hold them responsible I mean socially rather than legally. Rather than consider them to be lacking of an ability to comprehend reality, I think it's more useful to point out that they could have utilized a more reliable method and the fact that they chose not to and caused harm demonstrates that.",
">\n\n\nWhen I say hold them responsible I mean socially rather than legally.Rather than consider them to be lacking of an ability to comprehendreality, I think it's more useful to point out that they could haveutilized a more reliable method and the fact that they chose not to andcaused harm demonstrates that.\n\nI'd say we do that too. People shame each other for their political choices all the time.",
">\n\nSure, but do we shame the process by which they arrived at their conclusion when we found out there simply wasn't one?",
">\n\nFrom what I have seen, yes. In fact it’s a very common criticism of people that just vote for “whoever has an “R” next to their name” or vice versa.",
">\n\nThis is a good point, this is a common criticism. Anecdotally I understand the common explanation for this behavior is stupidity rather than intellectual laziness but it's possible those making the criticism typically intend the latter which is usually taken as the former. Is it your view that their laziness is unethical here or would you consider ethics to be irrelevant to this behavior?",
">\n\nI think \"stupid\" and intellectual laziness are often used interchangeably in common parlance. My observations is that when people criticize people for blind loyalty or willful ignorance, that this is seen as a moral failing. \nBut sometimes they do mean they are just less capable of critical thinking. Especially when people are shamed for \"voting against their own interests.\" Politics often relies on propaganda, which is specifically designed to trick people. If someone does make an effort to be aware but falls to propaganda, I wouldn't fault them for that. As to what level of effort we should expect from someone is subjective...no person has infinite time to personally verify every claim.",
">\n\nI think that we agree. I disagree with the contention that the average person is incapable of critical thinking, but I could be wrong about this of course. Do you have any information demonstrating a significant number of people who are functionally incapable of critical thinking?\nEven though it could be the case that some people who appear to be normal reasoning human beings are actually incapable of critical thought, I don't think it's useful in a democratic system to assume that this is the case. In the case that someone lives and dies entirely ignorant, of course I can't call the decisions they make stupid. If however someone has had their ideas challenged, had a formal education, is aware that there is some disagreement about what is true, and otherwise have every opportunity to choose not to behave stupidly, I think they should be critisized for failing to apply the scrutiny they understand they should have applied. Many of those individuals voting against their own interests are choosing not critically engage with the issue, and those are the people I think are behaving stupidly and unethically.",
">\n\nThe problem with the \"utilitarian perspective\" is, how do you define what's good? What is your evaluation function?",
">\n\nFor the purposes of my argument in the context of stupid behavior, what is \"good\" is the intended outcome of the behavior which is being engaged in. For example, a \"good\" might be an individual intending to limit hunger in their community. Someone attempting to avoid stupid behavior may attempt to ascertain the most effective way to accomplish this. An individual engaging in stupid behavior may have the idea to convince everyone in their community to work harder and make more money and assume that this is absolutely the most effective method. The former individual may have considered this as a possible method, but they would have applied some effort in determining whether this may be the most effective method to accomplish their \"good.\"",
">\n\nSo let's say I am a swimmer, and my goal is to swim faster.\nSo I try different techniques, and some of them resulted in a worse result (i.e slower swim).\nDoes that make my behavior unethical?",
">\n\nIf in this case the swimmer chose to continue with a method which was demonstrated to be subotimal for reasons of reliance on cognitive biases, egotism, laziness, stubbornness, credulity (as opposed to philosophical skepticism), willful ignorance, dismissal of contemporary epistemology, or outright anti-intellectualism, the decision making process would be unethical but the literal behavior would not be. The problem would occur if the swimmer were to apply this same decision-making process to a decision which has the potential to make a major impact on their own life or the lives of others.",
">\n\nOkay, this is an interesting distinction between the thought process and action.\nBut in this case, I would posit that not a single person can rigorously justify even a single stance they hold without appealing to cognitive biases, stubbornness, willful ignorance, subconscious brainwashing they've received from certain ideologies, etc etc etc...",
">\n\nOf course! I am only contending that it is important to be aware that we are vulnerable to such things and attempt to apply methodology to counteract these tendencies which we know effect us, considering the criticism which we receive. I have personally been offended by someone telling me something which I later found to be true, but I would not have accepted the truth if I allowed my ego to overwhelm my methodology. If I had done that, I would have engaged in stupid behavior. That being said, we can't assume we are absolutely correct about anything, we can only be most likely to be correct pending better evidence.",
">\n\nYou are assuming that people knowingly do stupid choices. They might have doubts, but if you want to be extra sure about everything you will never act.\nYou are always taking calculated risks and are trusting your judgements, that stuff is going to turn out fine and even if it doesn't you accept the consequences. \nI don't think that people are acting stupid knowingly. You might hear that you are doing something wrong, but you have to filter out the information and call the shots yourself. If you make the action that people have warned you against and succeed, you are a fucking genious, but if you fail, you look incredibly stupid. \nAnd this is the issue: whether the action was stupid is determined by the outcome, which you can't always predict. More often than not you think you are acting smart, but with the power of retrospective you can see how incredibly stupid you were. \nAnd most of the people are incredibly stupid and only learn by failing themselves.",
">\n\nWe're mostly in agreement as to the unavoidability of stupid behavior. We vastly disagree that most people are incredibly stupid though, although most people including you and I can and likely have made incredibly stupid decisions.\nIt is certainly possible to achieve the desired outcome by chance or through instinct, and most of the time this is the most convenient way to make decisions. It's not possible to even be aware of all the decisions me make in a day. My argument mostly pertains to major decisions effecting lives at a fundamental level. If an individual takes the effort to investigate these issues, considers the factors, and utilize a solid decision making process, I don't think they behaved stupidly even if the outcome is different from what they intended since they did everything they could to manage risk. It is in the case that this work is not done or brushed aside as unnecessary pertaining to a dire decision that I consider to be stupid behavior.",
">\n\n\nIf an individual takes the effort to investigate these issues, \nconsiders the factors, and utilize a solid decision making process, I \ndon't think they behaved stupidly even if the outcome is different from \nwhat they intended since they did everything they could to manage risk.\n\nThis is the point, you never do everything to manage risk all the time. It is literally impossible and there are also a lot of contradicting risks. \nWhat you describe as stupid is your own \"opinion\" from experience that the person making the decision might not have had, therefore he would filter your opinion out as invalid. You might have doubts, but you can't act on all of the doubts that you have, you have to trust yourself and cleanup after, otherwise you are always stuck and don't do anything.\nNo person thinks that what they are doing is stupid. Noone is intentionally stupid.\nYou might say that someone might do some petty stuff as revenge and that might be \"stupid\", but it is stupid in hindsight, it made total sense to the person in the moment of action, otherwise he wouldn't do it.",
">\n\nNo one is intentionally stupid, but individuals may intentionally engage in stupid behavior. It is true that it is unlikely they be aware that they are engaging in stupid behavior, but I would indeed fault them if they dismissed all criticism and never considered whether their decision making may be flawed. If someone murdered another person because they harmed their ego they would be considered at fault, why wouldn't they also be at fault if they failed to observe a legitimate criticism intended to prevent harm because their ego couldn't handle it which if taken seriously would have prevented them from voting for a genocidal maniac? I would consider the latter person at fault even though they didn't mean malice and only made their decision out of deliberately stupid behavior.",
">\n\n\nNo one is intentionally stupid, but individuals may intentionally engage\n in stupid behavior. It is true that it is unlikely they be aware that \nthey are engaging in stupid behavior, but I would indeed fault them if \nthey dismissed all criticism and never considered whether their decision\n making may be flawed.\n\nYou are super contradicting yourself. If they are not aware of engaging in stupid behavior, that means that they have considered the criticism and think it is invalid therefore their behavior is not stupid to them.\n\nIf someone murdered another person because they harmed their ego they \nwould be considered at fault, why wouldn't they also be at fault if they\n failed to observe a legitimate criticism intended to prevent harm \nbecause their ego couldn't handle it which if taken seriously would have\n prevented them from voting for a genocidal maniac?\n\nYou are looking at the outcome and determining the actions are stupid. Again, the people acting didn't think they were making stupid decision. They were not willfully ignorant and even if they were, they think that being ignorant is a good thing.",
">\n\nThis is coming to the core of what I'm arguing. Regardless of that individual's opinion of whether or not their own behavior is harmful, it is harmful. If a murderer considered their victims to have deserved it, we would generally hold them accountable for their actions anyway regardless of their self-perception. Even though that person believed there was nothing wrong with what they were doing, most reasonable people would still consider them at fault for their actions.\nIn this case, this indiviudal who feels completely justified to engage in stupid behavior should be blamed for failing to take responsibility for their deliberately stupid behavior when they could have chosen not to do so. Similarly, the murderer could have chosen not to murder. Each considered their behavior justified. Because this individual believes that it is permissible to make mortal decisions without making any effort to minimize risk or maximise efficacy, I think their stupid behavior should be considered unethical whether it causes harm or not. I consider it to be unethical because such a dysfunctional belief system has no controls to prevent harm.\nThe Shipowner in the example in my post chose to dismiss concerns about the safety of his ship. I don't think he was pre-destined to make the decision, I think he chose to engage in stupidity and was at fault whether the ship made it or not because his decision-making process is reckless and dangerous. This is regardless of how well the shipowner can convince himself he's right.",
">\n\nWhat would it take to change your mind? I have already shown you a contradiction.\nThe Shipowner dismisses concerns because he thinks he knows better. The behavior is \"stupid\", but it also isn't from his point of view.\nYou are conflicting the murderer example with \"being stupid\". Murderer clearly breaks rules. Murderer is not held accountable because he was \"stupid\", he was held accountable because he crossed the line we agreed on as a society.\nDid the Shipowner not follow a mandatory protocol? if he didn't, then he is guilty, but if there was no protocol he is rendered stupid just by the outcome more or less... If the outcome was different, then he would be a genious or it would seem like the experts were in the wrong, because ship was clearly good enough, right?",
">\n\nI appreciate the discourse and you have come the closest so far. The thing which would change my view could take a few forms. I could be convinced that an individual can't possibly be held responsible for their belief system (what we're talking about now). I could be convinced that no system of epistemology can be considered ethically superior to any other. I could be convinced that my proposed definition of stupidity for the purposes of my argument is fundamentally flawed. I could have my attention brought to some flaw in my argument which causes it to fall apart. The reason I put this on here is that it seems like a leap even to me so I wanted to examine if there was something important I'm missing. It's possible this conversation requires significantly more examination than would be possible on this platform as there appear to be many disagreements on some assumptions which would require clarification.\n!delta because I found the hole in my thinking while typing a response to you which I wouldn't have found if you weren't continuing to challenge what I was saying. Although empiricism is ironically empirically demonstrated to be the most reliable system to approximate truth, this does not mean empirical reasoning is fundamentally superior than all other systems. Although I continue to consider the specific examples I cited as stupid, establishing the norm that the only acceptable system is empiricism may potentially stunt us vs allowing different methods to be utilized which may be better for their purposes.\nWhen I consider the murderer to be unethical, I don't mean their behavior is bad because it's against established norm. I am considering the absolute harm that such an action were to cause regardless of what society has agreed on (assuming the victim would not cause more harm if alive, etc.). If murder was not illegal and there were no guidelines banning it, I would still consider it to be unethical. Although there is some overlap between law and ethics, I am exclusively considering ethics here. That being said, I can't myself be sure whether dominant forms of contemporary epistemology could the best method in every circumstance. Therefore, I think it's more limiting than helpful to hold people accountable for not holding true to what our most advanced philosophy currently considers to be the best methods.\nThanks for the discourse!",
">\n\nThe individual absolutely cannot be held responsible for his belief system, if there is not another belief system that sees that he is fucking up. In his belief system (POV), he is not wrong or even if he thinks he is, it is with the benefit of hindsight. There are instances where he could act against his belief system (lying), but I would argue that he does not truely believe in it.\nI think your definition of stupidity is kind of vague/missing. You are assuming everyone knows the best practices and should behave like a different group of individuals thinks is \"smart\". You would not have any evolution if everyone acted this way, because at some point you have to diverge or dig your heels in. In politics this is the progressives-conservatives tension.\nIt seems like you are missing the value part of decision making here: what you percieve as good is not what another person percieves as good. There are absolutely values that we agree on, like \"human life should be protected\", but there are much more nuanced values that we might disagree on that can lead to \"stupid\" actions.\nAlso, decision making process is quite complicated: you take into account your own experience, experience of others, your estimation of the circumstances and others' estimation of the same circumstances. This is the ideal world, however, you also have to take into account your experience with others and others' experience with others (both relate to trust). If you fundamentally not trust science, you will act extremely stupid in the eyes of the science people, however science people are acting extremely stupid in the eyes of the \"church people\", right?\nIn addition to that, you might completely trust them, but you also have to be completely sure that they understand the circumstances in the same depth as you do in order to take their opinion into account, otherwise you view them as the \"stupid\" ones and discard their guesses.\nI appreciated this conversation as well! Hopefully it will help you find the answer you are looking for :)",
">\n\nWhat I was realizing was that I was assuming that all people are universally most interested in achieving their desired outcomes, but I'm coming to understand that this is something that I can't assume. For example, the ship-owner may care more about being comfortable avoiding responsibility than he cared about the safety and well-being of his ship and crew. There is a moral failing here which involves deliberately avoiding issues through the use of self-delusion, but I think you're correct in that it's not necessarily stupid behavior. \nIn politics, a person may claim that they would like to see something improve or take place, but employing their method regardless of whether it causes that thing to take place or even if it's been tried before and subverts that thing from taking place is more important to them than the change itself even if they would genuinely like to see that change. For example someone may want to consider the solution to end homelessness to be book distribution because they are more interested than doing that than ending homelessness, even if they are also actually interested in ending homelessness. Even though their behavior and stated goal are at odds, I'm not sure this discrepancy can be attributed just to stupid methods of belief formation as motivations which I consider to be perverse with my own biases may also be involved.\nI can't say it still doesn't frustrate me. Counterproductive behavior may be driven by reasons other than a sub-standard epistemological framework. If I consider something to be stupid because it doesn't work or achieves the opposite effect of what was intended and the person doing it may observe that, the actor performing the action may not necessarily care about the effect but rather their actions regardless of what the effect may be. !delta directly this time.",
">\n\nSo in Your View, the grunts who ran into oncoming gunfire (behaving stupidly) on Omaha Beach were \"unethical\", correct?",
">\n\nI'm not sure how you could have drawn that conclusion from my argument. The desired outcome the Normandy invaders was to overrun the German line and invade the continent, which these grunts were doing. If a given soldier were to ignore their training and sense of self-preservation and run into the open for no other reason than the thought occurring to them, that would be counterproductive and probably unethical, but I don't think anyone did that. The individuals deliberately charging into gunfire were risking their lives for a specific tactical purpose, and the sacrifice of many who chose to do so aided what they were intending to do which was to defeat the Axis powers and end WWII.",
">\n\nWould you agree with this statement?\n\"It is smart to run into gunfire\"",
">\n\nIn some circumstances. Obviously not generally. In the case of the normandy invasion, yes it was their best option."
] |
>
|
[
"/u/Kwakigra (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nOP, this is basically just a lot of words for \"making bad decisions may cause harm to others\", which is not a statement anyone disagrees with.\nI suspect, though, that you mean a much stronger claim here. Can you - ideally much more briefly - say what the consequences you think this statement implies are?",
">\n\nI second the more briefly part, please never again site passages from book or recite poems, make your point as clear and readable as possible. because frankly, I'm not reading all that.",
">\n\nThe essential problem with Clifford's argument is that it suggests that it can be unethical to believe something that is true (if you have insufficient evidence to support it). And that seems like a very dubious claim. It's not clear when believing something true would ever be unethical. And Clifford's reasoning proceeds from an invalid generalization from false insufficiently supported beliefs (such as the belief in the seaworthiness of the ship) to all such beliefs.",
">\n\nI probably should have specified in my original argument that I'm dealing in relative likelihoods. Of course a total guess may be correct when all available evidence supports a conclusion which isn't correct. I believe however that it's been demonstrated that information considered most likely to be true when subject to empirical investigation and critical scrutiny is generally more reliable than what may be considered to be true by intuition, bias, or classical reasoning. Since contemporary epistemology has demonstrated that determining what is most likely to be true given evidence is more reliable than intuition or pure deduction, it is as best as we can do to be most likely to achieve desirable outcomes. This is in contrast to not making that effort at all which is significatnly less likely to produce such outcomes, which I consider to be \"stupid behavior.\" I am thinking in aggregate rather than issue by issue.",
">\n\nYour definition of \"stupid behavior\" seems wrong though. For example, suppose that I am considering whether to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Applying my decision-making process, I decide to wear a helmet, reasoning that this will make me safer while riding my bicycle. Subsequently, while riding, a piece of debris is flung off a nearby truck and hits me a glancing blow in the top of my helmet, knocking me off my bicycle and giving me a concussion; had I not been wearing a helmet, the debris would have missed my head entirely. My decision-making process achieved the opposite of the desired outcome. Was my decision-making process really \"stupid\" and unethical?",
">\n\nIt has been demonstrated that it is significantly less likely for a brain injury to occur through helmet use than through non-use, but of course the risk can't be totally eliminated. Just because it's impossible to be immune from risk doesn't mean the effort to mitigate it isn't worthwhile. In this case I think you would have taken the most care to preserve your brain as you could have, and an issue occurred anyway. In the vast majority of other incidents, the brain would have been preserved. There are no absolutes here, only doing what we can to do what makes the most sense according to our needs and wants.",
">\n\nIf that is the case, why would you make this post? Seems to defeat your own argument",
">\n\nI'm sorry, I'm not following you. Can you explain how I've defeated my own argument?",
">\n\nYou made a stupid post. Why would you do that if it is unethical?",
">\n\nAre you able to explain why my argument is stupid? Can you explain what obvious thing I've failed to consider here?",
">\n\nBecause people don't agree who is stupid, it is subjective....\nAlso do you think stupid people intentionally do stupid things? If you were smart enough to have not made this post, you wouldn't have done it, it is not something you have control over really",
">\n\nI'm sorry, did you read my argument?",
">\n\nYes, it is pretty stupid. Can you respond to my argument?",
">\n\nOk, then allow me to clarify. I'll edit my above post to include a specific definition of stupid behavior for the purposes of my argument. I am considering a decision-making process to be stupid when it either fails totally to achieve the desired outcome or achieves the opposite of the desired outcome. In my examples, I think the desire of Germans at the time was to build a prosperous and successful Germany, those voting on birth control measures intend to limit teenage birthrates or else they would propose no action, and those dying of covid likely didn't want to die from covid and I assume didn't want to infect and kill others as a consequence of their behavior. Although all the individuals in the above cases were either made aware of the relevant factors to their decision making or at least had every opportunity to deliberate on such an impactful and obviously catastrophic decision, they chose instead to their peril to engage in behavior that was directly harmful to themselves or others.",
">\n\nIf Nazi germany had won the war, what the citizens did would not be stupid anymore. Which is why it is a useless and subjective term (as you are using it)\nClearly, people agree your argument is stupid. So you should take this post down or risk being unethical",
">\n\nI'm sorry, the majority of voters who supported the Nazis would not have been better off if they had won. They would have had to live under Nazi rule.",
">\n\n\nElecting you-know-who as chancellor of Germany was a stupid decision by many voters at the time. Most contemporary Germans understand and actively avoid such stupidity. \n\nWell, how you-know-who (I really don't know who you mean) get elected then? \nIs Germany not a democracy? Is the leader not the one with the most support either individually, or via their governing coalition? If most Germans actively avoided such stupidity, how did the stupidity come to pass?",
">\n\nMy argument was not that it was unethical for such an election to be possible, rather my argument was that the German voters who made the mistake of voting in such a way were behaving stupidly in their decision-making when they had the opportunity not to. It is contemporary Germans with the benefit of hindsight who are more likely to be careful to avoid such stupidity when they vote. A contemporary German voting for someone like that is behaving more stupidly than the ones who originally behaved stupidly.",
">\n\nA car crashes and catches fire. A passerby witnesses the accident and runs to try and get the unconscious driver out of the burning vehicle. As he is doing so, the car explodes, killing both the driver and the would-be rescuer. If the passerby had been smart, he would have assessed the dangers before running in to help. Was the passerby unethical in his actions?",
">\n\nAlthough the motivation of the action was admirable, the decision-making process was unethical. If this individual had applied the scrutiny of the situation which you described the damage would have been minimized. That being said I addressed this in my argument. Although the decision-making process was technically unethical, given the circumstances the individual was probably not capable of suitably analyzing the situation quickly and had to have applied a different, less reliable, and deadly method. I would not fault the individual here. I would fault an individual who had every opportunity and as much time and resources as they needed to come to the most likely conclusion, such was the case in my examples. The latter individual has far fewer constraints than the former.",
">\n\nHow about a situation such a a zeroth law rebellion. This is a situation often discussed in media in which an artificial intelligence programmed to reduce human suffering will come to the logical conclusion that the best way to eliminate human suffering is to eliminate humans. After all, the utility of an eternity without any human suffering makes the short term harm insignificant. The A.I. has taken the time to fully analyze the situation and came to the most utilitarian choice it could. Is this an ethical or unethical decision?",
">\n\nIf an individual intends the outcome of their behavior it's beyond the scope of what I'm arguing here. I'm only referring to individuals who intend to benefit themselves or others with their behavior and achieve nothing or harm when the risks would have been obvious is an investigation was performed.\nIn this instance if the A.I. designers weighed the likely possibilities and decided to take the risk anyway to their peril, I might consider them negligent but they would also be outside of my scope. If instead the designers outright dismissed the possibility that the A.I. could do this and deployed it anyway, they would be engaging in unethical stupidity whether the A.I. wipes everyone out or not.",
">\n\n\"Unethical\" and \"causes suffering\" are two seperate concepts.\nTo the aztecs, human sacrifice was ethical. It also caused a lot of suffering.\nA volcano can erupt and kill and burn a lot of people, causing a lot of suffering. Yet calling a volcano unethical would be kind of silly.\nMistakes happen. Even with the best of intentions, most of us will make a stupid decision eventually. Not because off ill intent or lack of moral fiber but because our brain has limited capacity.\nOn the other hand, stupidity can have positive outcomes. Someone building a bomb to kill innocents and failing because they're too dumb to properly make one would be a good thing.\nNow if, after reading what I wrote, you're trying to arrange concepts or justify why the examples of bad outcomes are actually stupidity and the good outcomes are intelligence, then you're trying to shoehorn stupidity and suffering together.\nThey are orthogonal concepts.",
">\n\nThis is a good point about an ethical perspective. I'll edit my post to specify I'm working from a utilitarian perspective. In this case, the aztecs could not have applied modern epistemology to the question of whether or not human sacrifice benefited them. Since the tools were totally unavailable, I can't fault them for not utilizing them even though in theory they could have developed such a methodology. When I say behaving stupidly, I don't mean ignorant, I mean knowledgeable but choosing less reliable methods anyway.\nAs to the unavoidability of behaving stupidly, I mention this. I am dealing with averages and likelihoods rather than absolutes. Although complete chaos can cause good or bad outcomes, I do believe it's important to attempt to behave ethically for the greatest amount of good to befall the greatest number of people.",
">\n\nbut your definition of \"good\" was \n\nwhat is \"good\" is the intended outcome of the behavior which is being engaged in. \n\nThe Aztecs never intended for some sort of direct, immediate materialistic/pragmatic benefit to come from their sacrifices.",
">\n\nTo my understanding the sacrifices were made to achieve an unrelated purpose for religious reasons, and of course I could be incorrect about this. What do you understand as the intended outcome of their sacrifices?",
">\n\nI'm no expert in Aztec history/culture, but that's beside the point.\nI'm simply trying to point out to you that people have very different goals in mind and therefore your definition of \"utilitarian\" perspective may sound logical at first, but is, in fact, meaningless. \nYour view of what's good and mine can be completely opposite.",
">\n\nIt is true that there are more ways to be unethical than from simple stupid behavior, but that is beyond our scope. Of course I understand that someone with the opposite perspective of good from mine would consider me terribly unethical as well. This is only to say that this is a totally different conversation than someone intending an action to benefit themselves or others which does not benefit or harms them instead.",
">\n\nIn a way we already do... the shipowner in this case could probably be sued for negligence or even criminally charged with manslaughter (maybe not this case specifically but in similar other ones).\nBut this liability goes down the more it is shared... it's hard to hold hundreds of millions of voters liable in the same way you can hold a single shady business owner.",
">\n\nInteresting point about negligence. I would like to see how this might play out in our legal system.\nWhen I say hold them responsible I mean socially rather than legally. Rather than consider them to be lacking of an ability to comprehend reality, I think it's more useful to point out that they could have utilized a more reliable method and the fact that they chose not to and caused harm demonstrates that.",
">\n\n\nWhen I say hold them responsible I mean socially rather than legally.Rather than consider them to be lacking of an ability to comprehendreality, I think it's more useful to point out that they could haveutilized a more reliable method and the fact that they chose not to andcaused harm demonstrates that.\n\nI'd say we do that too. People shame each other for their political choices all the time.",
">\n\nSure, but do we shame the process by which they arrived at their conclusion when we found out there simply wasn't one?",
">\n\nFrom what I have seen, yes. In fact it’s a very common criticism of people that just vote for “whoever has an “R” next to their name” or vice versa.",
">\n\nThis is a good point, this is a common criticism. Anecdotally I understand the common explanation for this behavior is stupidity rather than intellectual laziness but it's possible those making the criticism typically intend the latter which is usually taken as the former. Is it your view that their laziness is unethical here or would you consider ethics to be irrelevant to this behavior?",
">\n\nI think \"stupid\" and intellectual laziness are often used interchangeably in common parlance. My observations is that when people criticize people for blind loyalty or willful ignorance, that this is seen as a moral failing. \nBut sometimes they do mean they are just less capable of critical thinking. Especially when people are shamed for \"voting against their own interests.\" Politics often relies on propaganda, which is specifically designed to trick people. If someone does make an effort to be aware but falls to propaganda, I wouldn't fault them for that. As to what level of effort we should expect from someone is subjective...no person has infinite time to personally verify every claim.",
">\n\nI think that we agree. I disagree with the contention that the average person is incapable of critical thinking, but I could be wrong about this of course. Do you have any information demonstrating a significant number of people who are functionally incapable of critical thinking?\nEven though it could be the case that some people who appear to be normal reasoning human beings are actually incapable of critical thought, I don't think it's useful in a democratic system to assume that this is the case. In the case that someone lives and dies entirely ignorant, of course I can't call the decisions they make stupid. If however someone has had their ideas challenged, had a formal education, is aware that there is some disagreement about what is true, and otherwise have every opportunity to choose not to behave stupidly, I think they should be critisized for failing to apply the scrutiny they understand they should have applied. Many of those individuals voting against their own interests are choosing not critically engage with the issue, and those are the people I think are behaving stupidly and unethically.",
">\n\nThe problem with the \"utilitarian perspective\" is, how do you define what's good? What is your evaluation function?",
">\n\nFor the purposes of my argument in the context of stupid behavior, what is \"good\" is the intended outcome of the behavior which is being engaged in. For example, a \"good\" might be an individual intending to limit hunger in their community. Someone attempting to avoid stupid behavior may attempt to ascertain the most effective way to accomplish this. An individual engaging in stupid behavior may have the idea to convince everyone in their community to work harder and make more money and assume that this is absolutely the most effective method. The former individual may have considered this as a possible method, but they would have applied some effort in determining whether this may be the most effective method to accomplish their \"good.\"",
">\n\nSo let's say I am a swimmer, and my goal is to swim faster.\nSo I try different techniques, and some of them resulted in a worse result (i.e slower swim).\nDoes that make my behavior unethical?",
">\n\nIf in this case the swimmer chose to continue with a method which was demonstrated to be subotimal for reasons of reliance on cognitive biases, egotism, laziness, stubbornness, credulity (as opposed to philosophical skepticism), willful ignorance, dismissal of contemporary epistemology, or outright anti-intellectualism, the decision making process would be unethical but the literal behavior would not be. The problem would occur if the swimmer were to apply this same decision-making process to a decision which has the potential to make a major impact on their own life or the lives of others.",
">\n\nOkay, this is an interesting distinction between the thought process and action.\nBut in this case, I would posit that not a single person can rigorously justify even a single stance they hold without appealing to cognitive biases, stubbornness, willful ignorance, subconscious brainwashing they've received from certain ideologies, etc etc etc...",
">\n\nOf course! I am only contending that it is important to be aware that we are vulnerable to such things and attempt to apply methodology to counteract these tendencies which we know effect us, considering the criticism which we receive. I have personally been offended by someone telling me something which I later found to be true, but I would not have accepted the truth if I allowed my ego to overwhelm my methodology. If I had done that, I would have engaged in stupid behavior. That being said, we can't assume we are absolutely correct about anything, we can only be most likely to be correct pending better evidence.",
">\n\nYou are assuming that people knowingly do stupid choices. They might have doubts, but if you want to be extra sure about everything you will never act.\nYou are always taking calculated risks and are trusting your judgements, that stuff is going to turn out fine and even if it doesn't you accept the consequences. \nI don't think that people are acting stupid knowingly. You might hear that you are doing something wrong, but you have to filter out the information and call the shots yourself. If you make the action that people have warned you against and succeed, you are a fucking genious, but if you fail, you look incredibly stupid. \nAnd this is the issue: whether the action was stupid is determined by the outcome, which you can't always predict. More often than not you think you are acting smart, but with the power of retrospective you can see how incredibly stupid you were. \nAnd most of the people are incredibly stupid and only learn by failing themselves.",
">\n\nWe're mostly in agreement as to the unavoidability of stupid behavior. We vastly disagree that most people are incredibly stupid though, although most people including you and I can and likely have made incredibly stupid decisions.\nIt is certainly possible to achieve the desired outcome by chance or through instinct, and most of the time this is the most convenient way to make decisions. It's not possible to even be aware of all the decisions me make in a day. My argument mostly pertains to major decisions effecting lives at a fundamental level. If an individual takes the effort to investigate these issues, considers the factors, and utilize a solid decision making process, I don't think they behaved stupidly even if the outcome is different from what they intended since they did everything they could to manage risk. It is in the case that this work is not done or brushed aside as unnecessary pertaining to a dire decision that I consider to be stupid behavior.",
">\n\n\nIf an individual takes the effort to investigate these issues, \nconsiders the factors, and utilize a solid decision making process, I \ndon't think they behaved stupidly even if the outcome is different from \nwhat they intended since they did everything they could to manage risk.\n\nThis is the point, you never do everything to manage risk all the time. It is literally impossible and there are also a lot of contradicting risks. \nWhat you describe as stupid is your own \"opinion\" from experience that the person making the decision might not have had, therefore he would filter your opinion out as invalid. You might have doubts, but you can't act on all of the doubts that you have, you have to trust yourself and cleanup after, otherwise you are always stuck and don't do anything.\nNo person thinks that what they are doing is stupid. Noone is intentionally stupid.\nYou might say that someone might do some petty stuff as revenge and that might be \"stupid\", but it is stupid in hindsight, it made total sense to the person in the moment of action, otherwise he wouldn't do it.",
">\n\nNo one is intentionally stupid, but individuals may intentionally engage in stupid behavior. It is true that it is unlikely they be aware that they are engaging in stupid behavior, but I would indeed fault them if they dismissed all criticism and never considered whether their decision making may be flawed. If someone murdered another person because they harmed their ego they would be considered at fault, why wouldn't they also be at fault if they failed to observe a legitimate criticism intended to prevent harm because their ego couldn't handle it which if taken seriously would have prevented them from voting for a genocidal maniac? I would consider the latter person at fault even though they didn't mean malice and only made their decision out of deliberately stupid behavior.",
">\n\n\nNo one is intentionally stupid, but individuals may intentionally engage\n in stupid behavior. It is true that it is unlikely they be aware that \nthey are engaging in stupid behavior, but I would indeed fault them if \nthey dismissed all criticism and never considered whether their decision\n making may be flawed.\n\nYou are super contradicting yourself. If they are not aware of engaging in stupid behavior, that means that they have considered the criticism and think it is invalid therefore their behavior is not stupid to them.\n\nIf someone murdered another person because they harmed their ego they \nwould be considered at fault, why wouldn't they also be at fault if they\n failed to observe a legitimate criticism intended to prevent harm \nbecause their ego couldn't handle it which if taken seriously would have\n prevented them from voting for a genocidal maniac?\n\nYou are looking at the outcome and determining the actions are stupid. Again, the people acting didn't think they were making stupid decision. They were not willfully ignorant and even if they were, they think that being ignorant is a good thing.",
">\n\nThis is coming to the core of what I'm arguing. Regardless of that individual's opinion of whether or not their own behavior is harmful, it is harmful. If a murderer considered their victims to have deserved it, we would generally hold them accountable for their actions anyway regardless of their self-perception. Even though that person believed there was nothing wrong with what they were doing, most reasonable people would still consider them at fault for their actions.\nIn this case, this indiviudal who feels completely justified to engage in stupid behavior should be blamed for failing to take responsibility for their deliberately stupid behavior when they could have chosen not to do so. Similarly, the murderer could have chosen not to murder. Each considered their behavior justified. Because this individual believes that it is permissible to make mortal decisions without making any effort to minimize risk or maximise efficacy, I think their stupid behavior should be considered unethical whether it causes harm or not. I consider it to be unethical because such a dysfunctional belief system has no controls to prevent harm.\nThe Shipowner in the example in my post chose to dismiss concerns about the safety of his ship. I don't think he was pre-destined to make the decision, I think he chose to engage in stupidity and was at fault whether the ship made it or not because his decision-making process is reckless and dangerous. This is regardless of how well the shipowner can convince himself he's right.",
">\n\nWhat would it take to change your mind? I have already shown you a contradiction.\nThe Shipowner dismisses concerns because he thinks he knows better. The behavior is \"stupid\", but it also isn't from his point of view.\nYou are conflicting the murderer example with \"being stupid\". Murderer clearly breaks rules. Murderer is not held accountable because he was \"stupid\", he was held accountable because he crossed the line we agreed on as a society.\nDid the Shipowner not follow a mandatory protocol? if he didn't, then he is guilty, but if there was no protocol he is rendered stupid just by the outcome more or less... If the outcome was different, then he would be a genious or it would seem like the experts were in the wrong, because ship was clearly good enough, right?",
">\n\nI appreciate the discourse and you have come the closest so far. The thing which would change my view could take a few forms. I could be convinced that an individual can't possibly be held responsible for their belief system (what we're talking about now). I could be convinced that no system of epistemology can be considered ethically superior to any other. I could be convinced that my proposed definition of stupidity for the purposes of my argument is fundamentally flawed. I could have my attention brought to some flaw in my argument which causes it to fall apart. The reason I put this on here is that it seems like a leap even to me so I wanted to examine if there was something important I'm missing. It's possible this conversation requires significantly more examination than would be possible on this platform as there appear to be many disagreements on some assumptions which would require clarification.\n!delta because I found the hole in my thinking while typing a response to you which I wouldn't have found if you weren't continuing to challenge what I was saying. Although empiricism is ironically empirically demonstrated to be the most reliable system to approximate truth, this does not mean empirical reasoning is fundamentally superior than all other systems. Although I continue to consider the specific examples I cited as stupid, establishing the norm that the only acceptable system is empiricism may potentially stunt us vs allowing different methods to be utilized which may be better for their purposes.\nWhen I consider the murderer to be unethical, I don't mean their behavior is bad because it's against established norm. I am considering the absolute harm that such an action were to cause regardless of what society has agreed on (assuming the victim would not cause more harm if alive, etc.). If murder was not illegal and there were no guidelines banning it, I would still consider it to be unethical. Although there is some overlap between law and ethics, I am exclusively considering ethics here. That being said, I can't myself be sure whether dominant forms of contemporary epistemology could the best method in every circumstance. Therefore, I think it's more limiting than helpful to hold people accountable for not holding true to what our most advanced philosophy currently considers to be the best methods.\nThanks for the discourse!",
">\n\nThe individual absolutely cannot be held responsible for his belief system, if there is not another belief system that sees that he is fucking up. In his belief system (POV), he is not wrong or even if he thinks he is, it is with the benefit of hindsight. There are instances where he could act against his belief system (lying), but I would argue that he does not truely believe in it.\nI think your definition of stupidity is kind of vague/missing. You are assuming everyone knows the best practices and should behave like a different group of individuals thinks is \"smart\". You would not have any evolution if everyone acted this way, because at some point you have to diverge or dig your heels in. In politics this is the progressives-conservatives tension.\nIt seems like you are missing the value part of decision making here: what you percieve as good is not what another person percieves as good. There are absolutely values that we agree on, like \"human life should be protected\", but there are much more nuanced values that we might disagree on that can lead to \"stupid\" actions.\nAlso, decision making process is quite complicated: you take into account your own experience, experience of others, your estimation of the circumstances and others' estimation of the same circumstances. This is the ideal world, however, you also have to take into account your experience with others and others' experience with others (both relate to trust). If you fundamentally not trust science, you will act extremely stupid in the eyes of the science people, however science people are acting extremely stupid in the eyes of the \"church people\", right?\nIn addition to that, you might completely trust them, but you also have to be completely sure that they understand the circumstances in the same depth as you do in order to take their opinion into account, otherwise you view them as the \"stupid\" ones and discard their guesses.\nI appreciated this conversation as well! Hopefully it will help you find the answer you are looking for :)",
">\n\nWhat I was realizing was that I was assuming that all people are universally most interested in achieving their desired outcomes, but I'm coming to understand that this is something that I can't assume. For example, the ship-owner may care more about being comfortable avoiding responsibility than he cared about the safety and well-being of his ship and crew. There is a moral failing here which involves deliberately avoiding issues through the use of self-delusion, but I think you're correct in that it's not necessarily stupid behavior. \nIn politics, a person may claim that they would like to see something improve or take place, but employing their method regardless of whether it causes that thing to take place or even if it's been tried before and subverts that thing from taking place is more important to them than the change itself even if they would genuinely like to see that change. For example someone may want to consider the solution to end homelessness to be book distribution because they are more interested than doing that than ending homelessness, even if they are also actually interested in ending homelessness. Even though their behavior and stated goal are at odds, I'm not sure this discrepancy can be attributed just to stupid methods of belief formation as motivations which I consider to be perverse with my own biases may also be involved.\nI can't say it still doesn't frustrate me. Counterproductive behavior may be driven by reasons other than a sub-standard epistemological framework. If I consider something to be stupid because it doesn't work or achieves the opposite effect of what was intended and the person doing it may observe that, the actor performing the action may not necessarily care about the effect but rather their actions regardless of what the effect may be. !delta directly this time.",
">\n\nSo in Your View, the grunts who ran into oncoming gunfire (behaving stupidly) on Omaha Beach were \"unethical\", correct?",
">\n\nI'm not sure how you could have drawn that conclusion from my argument. The desired outcome the Normandy invaders was to overrun the German line and invade the continent, which these grunts were doing. If a given soldier were to ignore their training and sense of self-preservation and run into the open for no other reason than the thought occurring to them, that would be counterproductive and probably unethical, but I don't think anyone did that. The individuals deliberately charging into gunfire were risking their lives for a specific tactical purpose, and the sacrifice of many who chose to do so aided what they were intending to do which was to defeat the Axis powers and end WWII.",
">\n\nWould you agree with this statement?\n\"It is smart to run into gunfire\"",
">\n\nIn some circumstances. Obviously not generally. In the case of the normandy invasion, yes it was their best option.",
">\n\nWouldn't their best option be to run between gunfire? Or under gunfire, or to the left or right of gunfire?"
] |
You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?
|
[] |
>
Sorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?"
] |
>
What makes it a business?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business."
] |
>
Whatever you have to tell the IRS.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?"
] |
>
Many people run a "business" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS."
] |
>
Whether people do it or not, its illegal.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality"
] |
>
But that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal."
] |
>
There is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?"
] |
>
In the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year.
So, your view is sort of what's happening.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry."
] |
>
!delta
That's awesome
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening."
] |
>
While I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a "jailable" offense?
I agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?
What other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges?
I would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome"
] |
>
While I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a "jailable" offense?
Yeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes."
] |
>
The dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter.
Most animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes."
] |
>
The problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.
Restricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog."
] |
>
I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and
allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a
license to practice when considered as a business.
This sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters."
] |
>
I think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out."
] |
>
If someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.
You won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.
Most people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said."
] |
>
If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.
What makes you say that?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get."
] |
>
Because many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?"
] |
>
What problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?
It sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.
Years ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.
Since then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.
The dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.
I'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog."
] |
>
that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.
Completely projecting your anecdote, this is false.
If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.
Incorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems."
] |
>
So if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?
And this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.
Does that person deserve to go to jail for that?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that."
] |
>
See my edit
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?"
] |
>
You’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit"
] |
>
It did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach."
] |
>
What do you mean by "jailable"? A night in jail? A year?
Do you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business."
] |
>
While I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices.
Usually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.
ETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them.
Honestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?"
] |
>
My grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.
The idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.
For one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.
Dogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.
Why would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a "local area's homeless dog populations" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen."
] |
>
This is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance.
Yes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc."
] |
>
On par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.
What are you using for the overall evaluation of "better" here?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that"
] |
>
u/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?"
] |
>
If I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?",
">\n\nu/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\nDon't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards."
] |
>
Call spay and neuter.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?",
">\n\nu/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\nDon't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nIf I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals?"
] |
>
Right, I understand the process behind removing their genitals, but I was asking why that should be the case automatically. Should I want to deprive their biology? Should that be my automatic stance?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?",
">\n\nu/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\nDon't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nIf I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals?",
">\n\nCall spay and neuter."
] |
>
Full animal Shelters are the evidence of why pet owners should deprive breedable pets of genitalia.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?",
">\n\nu/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\nDon't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nIf I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals?",
">\n\nCall spay and neuter.",
">\n\nRight, I understand the process behind removing their genitals, but I was asking why that should be the case automatically. Should I want to deprive their biology? Should that be my automatic stance?"
] |
>
I think you have things backward.
Most dogs in shelters are not purpose-bred. They're the offspring of dogs owned by irresponsible people. "Accidental" litters.
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?",
">\n\nu/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\nDon't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nIf I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals?",
">\n\nCall spay and neuter.",
">\n\nRight, I understand the process behind removing their genitals, but I was asking why that should be the case automatically. Should I want to deprive their biology? Should that be my automatic stance?",
">\n\nFull animal Shelters are the evidence of why pet owners should deprive breedable pets of genitalia."
] |
>
Oi m8 you got a loicens for ye dag to shag?
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?",
">\n\nu/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\nDon't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nIf I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals?",
">\n\nCall spay and neuter.",
">\n\nRight, I understand the process behind removing their genitals, but I was asking why that should be the case automatically. Should I want to deprive their biology? Should that be my automatic stance?",
">\n\nFull animal Shelters are the evidence of why pet owners should deprive breedable pets of genitalia.",
">\n\nI think you have things backward. \nMost dogs in shelters are not purpose-bred. They're the offspring of dogs owned by irresponsible people. \"Accidental\" litters."
] |
>
I don’t think the government should have this much power this doesn’t need regulations strays are strays that’s it
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?",
">\n\nu/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\nDon't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nIf I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals?",
">\n\nCall spay and neuter.",
">\n\nRight, I understand the process behind removing their genitals, but I was asking why that should be the case automatically. Should I want to deprive their biology? Should that be my automatic stance?",
">\n\nFull animal Shelters are the evidence of why pet owners should deprive breedable pets of genitalia.",
">\n\nI think you have things backward. \nMost dogs in shelters are not purpose-bred. They're the offspring of dogs owned by irresponsible people. \"Accidental\" litters.",
">\n\nOi m8 you got a loicens for ye dag to shag?"
] |
>
|
[
"You mean that you can't own two dogs of different genders if they are both capable of breeding?",
">\n\nSorry I didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and allowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a license to practice when considered as a business.",
">\n\nWhat makes it a business?",
">\n\nWhatever you have to tell the IRS.",
">\n\nMany people run a \"business\" and never claim anything to the IRS. And those that do probably have a license to operate as a breeder by their own municipality",
">\n\nWhether people do it or not, its illegal.",
">\n\nBut that's the issue. If they sold one puppy, that would be a business, right? So if anyone has a puppies, you are fine with them giving them away, just not exchanging money for them?",
">\n\nThere is a difference between breeding golden retrievers that sell for thousands a pop, and providing a homing fee to someone trying to buy an animal. If the small-time breeder isn't doing enough to alert the IRS; then they probably just aren't a big enough fish to fry.",
">\n\nIn the US, 25 states already regulate breeding and require a license... with more added every year. \nSo, your view is sort of what's happening.",
">\n\n!delta\nThat's awesome",
">\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\nI agree that breeders should be licensed, but what would stop licensed breeders from trying to weed out their competition by calling the police on a citizens whose dog happened to get pregnant naturally (even by accident...they are animals after all) and sending people to jail who aren't breeders, but whose dog just happen to pregnant and have a litter of puppies?\nWhat other unintended consequnces could come from jailing an unlicensed dog breeder? Could this cause problems with courts being too over-whelmed already and local DA's deciding not to press charges? \nI would think substantial fines would be more appropriate, and we should reserve jails for more violent and egregious crimes.",
">\n\n\nWhile I don't disagree with the spirit of your CMV, I would challenge the part of making it a \"jailable\" offense?\n\nYeah, in a country with huge issues around mass incarceration, we don't need a new jailable offense that will overwhelmingly target people who lack the money or sophistication to get registered but want to sell a few litters to make ends meet. I don't disagree with the goal, but please let avoid jailing more people for newly created crimes.",
">\n\nThe dogs in shelters typically didn't come from breeders, rehoming purebred puppies is easy so most breeders would end up cutting prices or giving away dogs before giving them to a shelter. \nMost animals in an animal shelter come from local stray populations. And most people who would be willing to adopt a puppy wouldn't be willing to adopt an adult stary dog.",
">\n\nThe problem is, people who want pure bred dogs generally want them because of some characteristic of the breed, and they will not be adopting adult pitbull mixes from the shelters. Where I live, the shelters are 75% full of adult pitbull mixes, and that's a completely different dog from a golden doodle.\nRestricting the breeding of pure bred dogs will only increase the cost of pure bred puppies. It will do very little to reduce the number of dogs who are euthanized in shelters.",
">\n\n\nI didn't clarify. Dogs should be able to have litters of puppies and \nallowed for them to be given away, but it should be regulated with a \nlicense to practice when considered as a business.\n\nThis sounds like you believe that the abandoned dogs are the $2000 puppies that got bought from breeders, and not exactly the 'my dogs had pups and i can't keep them all' puppies that are given away for free on Facebook, and left in a cardboard box when patience runs out.",
">\n\nI think they were trying to clarify to account for accidental litters being acceptable... you could have the right interpretation, but I don't think their view includes what you said.",
">\n\nIf someone is going to a breeder to get a dog, they won't go to a shelter period. They are dead set on a breed to the point of spending thousands of dollars.\nYou won't meaningfully increase shelter dog adoption rates. All you will do is make people drive another 100 miles to get to the Labrador or Griffon breeder out in the sticks. If they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\nMost people don't want to deal with the emotional baggage shelter dogs have. And then also shelter dogs are usually not great working dogs. They are mutts who don't have the same innate talents like pointing that people go to breeders to get.",
">\n\n\nIf they don't do that, they just won't get a dog.\n\nWhat makes you say that?",
">\n\nBecause many people who buy these specific breeds are looking for working dogs. And you just aren't going to get that from a shelter dog.",
">\n\nWhat problem are you trying to solve, and is licensure the best way to go about it?\nIt sounds like your problem is that people are breeding dogs while other dogs are being put down because nobody wants them. But are the people deliberately breeding dogs significantly contributing to the dogs being put down because nobody wants them? Probably some, but I don't think it's a lot.\nYears ago my wife and I adopted a stray. She was two years old when when adopted her, and had not been socialized well. Eventually she bit somebody and we had to have her put down - it was too big of a legal liability for us to risk having it happen again and more severely.\nSince then, we've made it a rule to only adopt puppies. If we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\nThe dogs being put down because nobody wants them aren't puppies. They tend to be older strays that weren't well trained or well socialized, that nobody feels safe having that dog in their home. Those dogs aren't generally coming from breeders - breeders like to place dogs in homes when they're young.\nI'm on board with the idea of penalizing breeders who are abandoning or putting down dogs that they've bred because they couldn't find it a home, but I don't think licensure is necessary to achieve that, and I also don't think that simply reducing the number of deliberate breeders is going to improve adoption rates for older dogs that end up in shelters with socialization problems.",
">\n\n\nthat nobody feels safe having that dog in their home.\n\nCompletely projecting your anecdote, this is false.\n\nIf we have an animal from about 12 weeks we can take care to socialize and train it properly in its formative period.\n\nIncorrect. You can increase the likelihood you're able to properly socialize it. You don't have ultimate control over that.",
">\n\nSo if I own a female dog, and she gets knocked up by another dog before I am able to get her spayed, I should go to jail?\nAnd this is something that actually happened with someone I know. He had the appointment to get her spayed, and then the dog went into heat for the first time, and the vet wouldn’t spay her until she was out of heat.\nDoes that person deserve to go to jail for that?",
">\n\nSee my edit",
">\n\nYou’re edit doesn’t really answer the question. Pets get pregnant accidentally — more often in places with high homless pet populations and low spay/neuter rates) Why is it better to jail their owner (a slow and expensive process that may leave the dog homeless) rather than something less punitive like paying for low cost spay neuter programs or just giving more money to shelters and adoption outreach.",
">\n\nIt did answer the question. Your scenario would be allowed, as an accidental pregnancy is not part of a business.",
">\n\nWhat do you mean by \"jailable\"? A night in jail? A year? \nDo you generally believe that more crimes should be punished with jail time?",
">\n\nWhile I don’t disagree with the issue, I could see this leading to inequitable business practices. \nUsually you see more dogs in shelters and on the streets in more impoverished communities. So basically you’d be giving less business opportunities to people in areas where they need it the most and giving the upper hand to people who need it less.\nETA- also, it’s not usually pure bred dogs on the street anyways. A lot of times you have to sign a contract to get your dog spayed/ neutered if you get the dog from a breeder. It’s mostly street dogs in shelters or people who were unable/unwilling to spay/neuter their dog. There should be a bigger push, more free services that offer these spay/neuter. As well as more organizations that go into the streets to get dogs to spay/ neuter them. \nHonestly, ideal world and potentially unpopular opinion but if we had only breeders that required proof of spay/neuter that would be better. For business practices to be more equitable you would need to make sure the barrier to entry was low enough for everyone as well as a possible sliding scale for puppies for people who can’t affords the outrageous price tag on some dogs but would still be great dog owners. Reputable breeders require applications and look heavily into where their puppies will live. And this would obviously only work if we had make sure all the dogs are off the streets, spayed/neutered and in happy homes. As well as requiring all dogs that aren’t apart of breeding programs to be spayed/neutered so there wasn’t any surprise litter. (Also by breeding program, I don’t mean pregnant in a cage for the dogs whole life, I mean a happy gal living in a happy home who’s maybe had a litter or two) Obviously, this is utopian and would almost never happen.",
">\n\nMy grandpa lived in a rural area and raised and trained beagles for the purpose of hunting. He derived a great pleasure from trading and discussing hunting dogs with other old codgers at the Monday trading days in Rural Mississippi.\nThe idea that he, to continue a practice he'd been doing since nearly before humans had social security numbers, without having some sort of government board of pencil pushers decide whether or not to allow him to do so... that that would improve the world is something I'm suspicious of.\nFor one thing, may dogs have uses other than vanity and companionship.\nDogs have uses as tools in agriculture and hunting, protecting livestock, hunting game, that are separate from their other uses as human companions.\nWhy would you have same group that decides how many licenses based on a \"local area's homeless dog populations\" decide also for dogs bred for utility uses such as hunting, seeing eye dogs, drug dogs etc.",
">\n\n\nThis is the worst trait of humanity in my eyes; how speciesist we are in arrogance. \n\nYes, people are better than animals. If you think you're on par with a turtle... well you're free to believe that",
">\n\nOn par in what sense? Try a lifespan contest with the right tortoise and you have no chance.\nWhat are you using for the overall evaluation of \"better\" here?",
">\n\nu/MikeLapine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\nDon't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nIf I own a male and female dog as pets what lengths ought I go to to make sure they don't become pregnant? Should I automatically deprive them of their genitals?",
">\n\nCall spay and neuter.",
">\n\nRight, I understand the process behind removing their genitals, but I was asking why that should be the case automatically. Should I want to deprive their biology? Should that be my automatic stance?",
">\n\nFull animal Shelters are the evidence of why pet owners should deprive breedable pets of genitalia.",
">\n\nI think you have things backward. \nMost dogs in shelters are not purpose-bred. They're the offspring of dogs owned by irresponsible people. \"Accidental\" litters.",
">\n\nOi m8 you got a loicens for ye dag to shag?",
">\n\nI don’t think the government should have this much power this doesn’t need regulations strays are strays that’s it"
] |
In those tweets, Wren outed the accuser by name following media reports in which he chose to remain anonymous out of privacy concerns. She accused him of being fired from campaigns because he was a “habitual liar"—claims the lawsuit also says are false and defamatory.
If there was a campaign volunteer who was a "habitual liar", why would they assign him to drive and chaperone a GOP VIP like Matt Schlapp? A habitual liar would certainly tell Schlapp a bunch of lies that would embarrass Herschel Walker's campaign.
Wren and the Schlapps better have evidence that this guy was fired from the campaign for being a habitual liar. If the firing occurred after he made the accusation against Schlapp, that won't be enough. "Habitual" would mean the guy lied regularly, and about more than the Schlapp assault.
The lawsuit seeks a total of $9.4 million in damages: $3.85 million against Schlapp for the alleged assault, $1.85 million from both Schlapp and his wife for the alleged defamation, and an additional $1.85 million from the couple for the conspiracy charge—and "such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate."
Oh god, I want this guy and his attorney to bankrupt the Schlapps.
|
[] |
>
|
[
"In those tweets, Wren outed the accuser by name following media reports in which he chose to remain anonymous out of privacy concerns. She accused him of being fired from campaigns because he was a “habitual liar\"—claims the lawsuit also says are false and defamatory.\n\nIf there was a campaign volunteer who was a \"habitual liar\", why would they assign him to drive and chaperone a GOP VIP like Matt Schlapp? A habitual liar would certainly tell Schlapp a bunch of lies that would embarrass Herschel Walker's campaign. \nWren and the Schlapps better have evidence that this guy was fired from the campaign for being a habitual liar. If the firing occurred after he made the accusation against Schlapp, that won't be enough. \"Habitual\" would mean the guy lied regularly, and about more than the Schlapp assault. \n\nThe lawsuit seeks a total of $9.4 million in damages: $3.85 million against Schlapp for the alleged assault, $1.85 million from both Schlapp and his wife for the alleged defamation, and an additional $1.85 million from the couple for the conspiracy charge—and \"such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.\"\n\nOh god, I want this guy and his attorney to bankrupt the Schlapps."
] |
Let me guess, you like being stepped on?
|
[] |
>
I hope OP replys "No"
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?"
] |
>
Idk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.
If that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\""
] |
>
People fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈"
] |
>
Then you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person"
] |
>
It’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile."
] |
>
NO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable."
] |
>
Thank you for saying so
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!"
] |
>
hi
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!",
">\n\nThank you for saying so"
] |
>
I think this might just be factually, statistically wrong
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!",
">\n\nThank you for saying so",
">\n\nhi"
] |
>
I think what some men refer to as 'resting bitch face' is just a woman who is at that moment not interested in performing any emotional labor to present themselves to people in any particular way (happy, open to interactions, whatever). In those scenarios, from their point of view it's not a "bitch" face, it's a neutral face.
There are also scenarios where a woman (intentionally or otherwise) presents an expression that reflects currently being vigilant and in no mood for any interactions, esp bullshit ones, from anyone. I don't consider that to be "resting bitch face" or any other resting/neutral expression.
I read faces like that as "resting predator face" ;-)
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!",
">\n\nThank you for saying so",
">\n\nhi",
">\n\nI think this might just be factually, statistically wrong"
] |
>
I also like it and feel jealous of those with RBF. I don’t have it at all. I look happy all the time, even if I’m upset. Resting smile face, I call it.
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!",
">\n\nThank you for saying so",
">\n\nhi",
">\n\nI think this might just be factually, statistically wrong",
">\n\nI think what some men refer to as 'resting bitch face' is just a woman who is at that moment not interested in performing any emotional labor to present themselves to people in any particular way (happy, open to interactions, whatever). In those scenarios, from their point of view it's not a \"bitch\" face, it's a neutral face.\nThere are also scenarios where a woman (intentionally or otherwise) presents an expression that reflects currently being vigilant and in no mood for any interactions, esp bullshit ones, from anyone. I don't consider that to be \"resting bitch face\" or any other resting/neutral expression.\nI read faces like that as \"resting predator face\" ;-)"
] |
>
i have that all the time. whats the snap? /j
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!",
">\n\nThank you for saying so",
">\n\nhi",
">\n\nI think this might just be factually, statistically wrong",
">\n\nI think what some men refer to as 'resting bitch face' is just a woman who is at that moment not interested in performing any emotional labor to present themselves to people in any particular way (happy, open to interactions, whatever). In those scenarios, from their point of view it's not a \"bitch\" face, it's a neutral face.\nThere are also scenarios where a woman (intentionally or otherwise) presents an expression that reflects currently being vigilant and in no mood for any interactions, esp bullshit ones, from anyone. I don't consider that to be \"resting bitch face\" or any other resting/neutral expression.\nI read faces like that as \"resting predator face\" ;-)",
">\n\nI also like it and feel jealous of those with RBF. I don’t have it at all. I look happy all the time, even if I’m upset. Resting smile face, I call it."
] |
>
My ex used to tell me my face pissed him off
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!",
">\n\nThank you for saying so",
">\n\nhi",
">\n\nI think this might just be factually, statistically wrong",
">\n\nI think what some men refer to as 'resting bitch face' is just a woman who is at that moment not interested in performing any emotional labor to present themselves to people in any particular way (happy, open to interactions, whatever). In those scenarios, from their point of view it's not a \"bitch\" face, it's a neutral face.\nThere are also scenarios where a woman (intentionally or otherwise) presents an expression that reflects currently being vigilant and in no mood for any interactions, esp bullshit ones, from anyone. I don't consider that to be \"resting bitch face\" or any other resting/neutral expression.\nI read faces like that as \"resting predator face\" ;-)",
">\n\nI also like it and feel jealous of those with RBF. I don’t have it at all. I look happy all the time, even if I’m upset. Resting smile face, I call it.",
">\n\ni have that all the time. whats the snap? /j"
] |
>
i think active bitch is also face is attractive.
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!",
">\n\nThank you for saying so",
">\n\nhi",
">\n\nI think this might just be factually, statistically wrong",
">\n\nI think what some men refer to as 'resting bitch face' is just a woman who is at that moment not interested in performing any emotional labor to present themselves to people in any particular way (happy, open to interactions, whatever). In those scenarios, from their point of view it's not a \"bitch\" face, it's a neutral face.\nThere are also scenarios where a woman (intentionally or otherwise) presents an expression that reflects currently being vigilant and in no mood for any interactions, esp bullshit ones, from anyone. I don't consider that to be \"resting bitch face\" or any other resting/neutral expression.\nI read faces like that as \"resting predator face\" ;-)",
">\n\nI also like it and feel jealous of those with RBF. I don’t have it at all. I look happy all the time, even if I’m upset. Resting smile face, I call it.",
">\n\ni have that all the time. whats the snap? /j",
">\n\nMy ex used to tell me my face pissed him off"
] |
>
|
[
"Let me guess, you like being stepped on?",
">\n\nI hope OP replys \"No\"",
">\n\nIdk what you mean by RBF but I've heard it commonly describe a face that is just strictly emotionless. Not even in a trying, sociopathic way. Just the feeling you get when you put one foot in front of the other to move earth in the direction you wanna be.\nIf that's all it takes for me to be at least a 7 then get over here shorty I got a face for you to look at 😈",
">\n\nPeople fear the RBF. I feel like I get extra consideration when faced with minor inconveniences and people look relieved when I’m polite like a normal person",
">\n\nThen you'd probably cum at the sight of me. My default face is Mike Erhmantraut. My scowl males that look like a smile.",
">\n\nIt’s not unattractive per se. It’s just unapproachable.",
">\n\nNO, don't find it attractive! It's my weapon against creeps!",
">\n\nThank you for saying so",
">\n\nhi",
">\n\nI think this might just be factually, statistically wrong",
">\n\nI think what some men refer to as 'resting bitch face' is just a woman who is at that moment not interested in performing any emotional labor to present themselves to people in any particular way (happy, open to interactions, whatever). In those scenarios, from their point of view it's not a \"bitch\" face, it's a neutral face.\nThere are also scenarios where a woman (intentionally or otherwise) presents an expression that reflects currently being vigilant and in no mood for any interactions, esp bullshit ones, from anyone. I don't consider that to be \"resting bitch face\" or any other resting/neutral expression.\nI read faces like that as \"resting predator face\" ;-)",
">\n\nI also like it and feel jealous of those with RBF. I don’t have it at all. I look happy all the time, even if I’m upset. Resting smile face, I call it.",
">\n\ni have that all the time. whats the snap? /j",
">\n\nMy ex used to tell me my face pissed him off",
">\n\ni think active bitch is also face is attractive."
] |
What does being a science teacher have to do with it?
|
[] |
>
OP is an idiot 😂
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?"
] |
>
Correct answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂"
] |
>
I think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related."
] |
>
I know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.
I’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years"
] |
>
True, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you.
But I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres."
] |
>
Im in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though."
] |
>
It’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.
PS I blast Canon in D in my car.
PPS I am not a science teacher.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot."
] |
>
PS I blast Canon in D in my car.
cellists' rage intensifies
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher."
] |
>
Have you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies"
] |
>
Engineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again."
] |
>
Holst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car."
] |
>
The planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets."
] |
>
I do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.
I like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.
I wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to"
] |
>
I am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:
The public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span.
When it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes.
This one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.
The same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music.
When it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled "fugue" or "rondo".
Not saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening "snobbery".
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it."
] |
>
Well said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a "song" now.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\"."
] |
>
Believe me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now."
] |
>
"I do something" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy" isn't the same thing.
This is gatekeeping.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No"
] |
>
I’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping."
] |
>
The best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it"
] |
>
I find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played."
] |
>
Lmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music."
] |
>
It made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it."
] |
>
Dumb take.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with."
] |
>
I was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take."
] |
>
Me and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years."
] |
>
A NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre."
] |
>
I do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D."
] |
>
Honestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out"
] |
>
Well, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol
("Science teacher" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus"
] |
>
I don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.
While I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because "kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.
And can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.
Symphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.
Really, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.
Some of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.
And these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.
It all makes for a very imposing "genre" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a "Classical Music At The Movies" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life."
] |
>
You clearly haven’t met my cats. They listen to jazz and classical… although the romance period is a bit to energetic. They prefer contemporary or classical for focus/relaxation.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.",
">\n\nI don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.\nWhile I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because \"kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit\" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.\nAnd can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.\nSymphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.\nReally, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.\nSome of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.\nAnd these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.\nIt all makes for a very imposing \"genre\" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a \"Classical Music At The Movies\" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same."
] |
>
They sound cool asf
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.",
">\n\nI don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.\nWhile I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because \"kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit\" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.\nAnd can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.\nSymphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.\nReally, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.\nSome of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.\nAnd these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.\nIt all makes for a very imposing \"genre\" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a \"Classical Music At The Movies\" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same.",
">\n\nYou clearly haven’t met my cats. They listen to jazz and classical… although the romance period is a bit to energetic. They prefer contemporary or classical for focus/relaxation."
] |
>
Ever since the pandemic I’ve only been listening to Classical Japanese music. I particularly like the jiuta songs. I have no idea what’s going on anymore with current music. I’m sure at some point that will change but for now it is what it is.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.",
">\n\nI don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.\nWhile I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because \"kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit\" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.\nAnd can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.\nSymphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.\nReally, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.\nSome of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.\nAnd these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.\nIt all makes for a very imposing \"genre\" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a \"Classical Music At The Movies\" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same.",
">\n\nYou clearly haven’t met my cats. They listen to jazz and classical… although the romance period is a bit to energetic. They prefer contemporary or classical for focus/relaxation.",
">\n\nThey sound cool asf"
] |
>
wasaait, what's wrong with reading? it's mid January, I'm finishing my second book already
dude wtf? it's not even an opinion, don't judge people by your low standards
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.",
">\n\nI don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.\nWhile I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because \"kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit\" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.\nAnd can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.\nSymphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.\nReally, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.\nSome of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.\nAnd these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.\nIt all makes for a very imposing \"genre\" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a \"Classical Music At The Movies\" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same.",
">\n\nYou clearly haven’t met my cats. They listen to jazz and classical… although the romance period is a bit to energetic. They prefer contemporary or classical for focus/relaxation.",
">\n\nThey sound cool asf",
">\n\nEver since the pandemic I’ve only been listening to Classical Japanese music. I particularly like the jiuta songs. I have no idea what’s going on anymore with current music. I’m sure at some point that will change but for now it is what it is."
] |
>
100% agree. I was this guy at 15. I only listened to the most technical of death metal bands and classical because my taste in music was so refined and superior to all the sheep around me listening to their bubble gum pop and hip hop. Fuckin cringe lookin back at that time in my life. And guess how much classical I actually listened to? basically none.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.",
">\n\nI don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.\nWhile I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because \"kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit\" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.\nAnd can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.\nSymphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.\nReally, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.\nSome of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.\nAnd these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.\nIt all makes for a very imposing \"genre\" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a \"Classical Music At The Movies\" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same.",
">\n\nYou clearly haven’t met my cats. They listen to jazz and classical… although the romance period is a bit to energetic. They prefer contemporary or classical for focus/relaxation.",
">\n\nThey sound cool asf",
">\n\nEver since the pandemic I’ve only been listening to Classical Japanese music. I particularly like the jiuta songs. I have no idea what’s going on anymore with current music. I’m sure at some point that will change but for now it is what it is.",
">\n\nwasaait, what's wrong with reading? it's mid January, I'm finishing my second book already\ndude wtf? it's not even an opinion, don't judge people by your low standards"
] |
>
This is exactly what I’m talking about!
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.",
">\n\nI don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.\nWhile I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because \"kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit\" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.\nAnd can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.\nSymphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.\nReally, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.\nSome of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.\nAnd these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.\nIt all makes for a very imposing \"genre\" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a \"Classical Music At The Movies\" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same.",
">\n\nYou clearly haven’t met my cats. They listen to jazz and classical… although the romance period is a bit to energetic. They prefer contemporary or classical for focus/relaxation.",
">\n\nThey sound cool asf",
">\n\nEver since the pandemic I’ve only been listening to Classical Japanese music. I particularly like the jiuta songs. I have no idea what’s going on anymore with current music. I’m sure at some point that will change but for now it is what it is.",
">\n\nwasaait, what's wrong with reading? it's mid January, I'm finishing my second book already\ndude wtf? it's not even an opinion, don't judge people by your low standards",
">\n\n100% agree. I was this guy at 15. I only listened to the most technical of death metal bands and classical because my taste in music was so refined and superior to all the sheep around me listening to their bubble gum pop and hip hop. Fuckin cringe lookin back at that time in my life. And guess how much classical I actually listened to? basically none."
] |
>
What era are you defining as “classical”? Because it’s not a monolith or single era. What people call “classical” music falls under one of several era/genre umbrellas: Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassic, etc.
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.",
">\n\nI don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.\nWhile I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because \"kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit\" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.\nAnd can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.\nSymphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.\nReally, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.\nSome of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.\nAnd these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.\nIt all makes for a very imposing \"genre\" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a \"Classical Music At The Movies\" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same.",
">\n\nYou clearly haven’t met my cats. They listen to jazz and classical… although the romance period is a bit to energetic. They prefer contemporary or classical for focus/relaxation.",
">\n\nThey sound cool asf",
">\n\nEver since the pandemic I’ve only been listening to Classical Japanese music. I particularly like the jiuta songs. I have no idea what’s going on anymore with current music. I’m sure at some point that will change but for now it is what it is.",
">\n\nwasaait, what's wrong with reading? it's mid January, I'm finishing my second book already\ndude wtf? it's not even an opinion, don't judge people by your low standards",
">\n\n100% agree. I was this guy at 15. I only listened to the most technical of death metal bands and classical because my taste in music was so refined and superior to all the sheep around me listening to their bubble gum pop and hip hop. Fuckin cringe lookin back at that time in my life. And guess how much classical I actually listened to? basically none.",
">\n\nThis is exactly what I’m talking about!"
] |
>
Wym 'baroque'? It's just an umbrella term, do you mean italian baroque, german baroque, french baroque, spanish baroque or english baroque? Or are you going to tell me that there are people who REALLY think Purcell and Zelenka sound the same??
Yeah, let's stick to 'classic' for OP's discussion
|
[
"What does being a science teacher have to do with it?",
">\n\nOP is an idiot 😂",
">\n\nCorrect answer. OP knows nothing about science or classical music so presumes they are related.",
">\n\nI think the problem is when someone says they like doing something, most people think that means they’re always doing it or doing it hard, or like you, they think people need to be blasting music out of their car for 5 hours straight. I’m not always listening to my favorite music or favorite genres and songs. I like classical music and listen to it but I’m not playing it every day or even every week. I love snowboarding but I don’t go every week or spend a whole weekend snowboarding. I have a lot of favorites, too 3s and things I love doing that I haven’t actively engaged with for years",
">\n\nI know what you mean. I’m not talking about the people that do it occasionally and say they like it. Like I like ice skating. But I maybe do it a few times a year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a main hobby or anything.\nI’m talking about the people who insist they listen to classical music like crazy. Like it’s in their top 3 favorite genres.",
">\n\nTrue, I guess maybe if they constantly post about it, I do know a guy who does this with jazz music, he insists that he’s a huge jazz fanatic and constantly posts about it on social media. The way he posts about makes me assume he’s not as crazy about it as he really is, I used to be close to him too, I know for sure he’s never gone to a jazz concert or event. So from that angle I do get you. \nBut I would probably put classical in my top 3, but can’t say I can easily name tracks or tunes. I just prefer the sound overall. I don’t think putting something in your top 3 means you have to be all about that life though.",
">\n\nIm in my mid 30s and I sure do. It relaxes me a lot.",
">\n\nIt’s one of the most popular genres of music in the world and has been around for 100s of years. Maybe you should give it a try instead of whatever you’re attempting with this post.\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\nPPS I am not a science teacher.",
">\n\n\nPS I blast Canon in D in my car.\n\ncellists' rage intensifies",
">\n\nHave you missed Two set violin? They pretty much made classical music cool again.",
">\n\nEngineer here. Classical was my second most listened to genre on Spotify. Classic rock, classical, blues. My teen daughter also loves the same genres. Will say it trends more towards modern composers like Hans Zimmer, John Williams and such but occasionally Holst, Mendelssohn, etc. And yes, will even listen to such in the car.",
">\n\nHolst is one of my favorites! I love The Planets.",
">\n\nThe planets are incredible. Jupiter is one of the best pieces of music I have ever played. And Mars and Jupiter are so fun to listen to",
">\n\nI do. The songs have a complexity and a cadence to them that modern music lacks.\nI like modern music too, but classical is different in a way that is good. Bach songs remind me of spring.\nI wish modern musicians would make classical style music. I feel a lot of genres, especially trance and techno, would benefit a lot from it.",
">\n\nI am a former professional classical musician. I have my BS and have even published a book. The problem is:\n\nThe public's concept of music is shaped almost entirely by modern (post-1960's) popular music. The expectations they bring to music is shaped almost entirely by hip-hop/rock/pop. For the most part, and I know this is a generalization, this is music that is 3 to 5 minutes long, doesn't change key, is built almost entirely by repeating the same 3-4 phrases, and has lyrics. Most of the public just doesn't have the patience for an 8 to 10 minute movement of a sonata/symphony that might not even repeat a musical idea more than once, that is entirely instrumental. Indeed, it took me a long time to enjoy listening to classical music, because I just wasn't used to giving music that much of my attention span. \n\nWhen it comes down to it, most classical music, as well as most highbrow music from around the world, asks a lot out of the listener. The majority of people just aren't used to paying close attention for long periods of time. I think this is understandable. Just don't tell me how much you love Tchaikovsky after you turn him off after 3 minutes. \n\nThis one is going to be controversial, but in my experience, its true. People tend to associate music with stereotypes. Even I am guilty of this. I am often hesitant to embrace EDM because I picture rave kids with pacifiers and glow sticks. Not judging you if that's your thing, but that's something I don't want to be associated with. I know that's a stereotype and I'm sure there's many different fashion choices people make when attending EDM events, but I just don't relate to the community of people who enjoy this music, and that gets in the way of my enjoyment of it.\n\nThe same logic can be applied to classical music. Many people hear composers as disparate as Bach, Beethoven, and Debussy, and their minds immediately go to conservative old white people. Historically, the kind of people who enjoy classical music have the stereotype of not being sexy or hip. That's just not a community people want to identify with. I've seen a plethora of youtube videos that even call classical music racist. As outrageous as it might seem, many people are buying into that idea, and that makes them hesitant to embrace this kind of music. \nWhen it comes down to it, contemporary culture imposes the idea of music onto the public in ways that keep them from genuinely enjoying classical music. You have to re-conceptualize your idea of music in order to bring the expectations required to find this music enjoyable. To be fair, much of this music was written for people who were educated in the appreciation of culture and the arts. These kinds of people knew what to listen for and knew what assumptions to make when listening to something titled \"fugue\" or \"rondo\". \nNot saying it's a bad thing that this kind of audience doesn't really exist in large numbers anymore, but it's unfortunate that so many people are quick to call that kind informed listening \"snobbery\".",
">\n\nWell said. The domination of pop music is stifling to the understanding of Classical. The delivery system of streaming services doesn't help. Everything is a \"song\" now.",
">\n\nBelieve me when I say I listen to classical. Do I do it often tho? No",
">\n\n\"I do something\" and 'I'm a total devoted / obsessed fanboy\" isn't the same thing.\nThis is gatekeeping.",
">\n\nI’m talking about the people who pretend they are devoted to it. Ik people can enjoy something but not obsessive over it",
">\n\nThe best way to enjoy classical music is to hear it live. I go to concerts a few times a year, but yeah listening to it all the time? I have a playlist but it aint my most played.",
">\n\nI find it hard to believe for someone that doesn't play any classical instrument, but for people who do I can believe it. It's a lot easier to develop an appreciation for classical music when you play classical instruments or study music.",
">\n\nLmao, Canon in D is a meme among classical musicians and listeners. If you think that all classical music is like that, it's no wonder you can't believe anyone would enjoy listening to it.",
">\n\nIt made the OP lose all credibility beyond the already shit opinion to begin with.",
">\n\nDumb take.",
">\n\nI was listening to Beethoven and Schubert like crazy at 15. Ironically, I stopped listening after 18/19 but will still sometimes go back. I even acquired a taste for Chopin, Mozart, Vivaldi, and Liszt during those years.",
">\n\nMe and my younger sibling often listen to classical FM when we drive. Most of my youtube follows are classical musicians as well, and yet I don't play an instrument. It's a valid genre.",
">\n\nA NY classical station had a fund drive many years ago. They said if enough people pledged in the next hour, they would not play the Canon in D.",
">\n\nI do every now and then. If it's not reggae it's classical. I'm a firm believer that music has an effect on you and I've noticed these 2 always mellow me out",
">\n\nHonestly it calms us down when we listen. I can't listen to loud crap anymore. I'm 40 for the record. Also, we've gotten our kids used to listening to it while they do their homework. It calls them down too and gets them to focus",
">\n\nWell, I got Bach to Black Sabbath, Debussy to Daft Punk, Tansen (look him up) to Tender, and a whole lotta other things on my list. My playlist contains music of different era/decades, genres, and languages. I understand/speak 5 languages. Depending on my mood, I blast whatever the hell I want, and it doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about it or belives it or not lol \n(\"Science teacher\" 🙄🙄🙄 Buddy, I listened to Mozart while painting when I was in high school). People dont ALWAYS do the things they're into. I don't draw/paint/hike/shoot photos/travel/listen to my fav music/read books/stargaze/make or build stuff etc everyday :/ It doesnt mean I'm not into them. I'm an Administrator by profession, and it means jackshit in this regard, because one's job title/profession isnt who they are as a person, it's not their personality, and it has little to do with everything they enjoy/are interested in in their personal life.",
">\n\nI don't think there's any need to doubt someone who lists classic music among their interests, just because you've observed the fairly obvious, that this category of music is engaged with differently than pop music and other rarely all-instrumental genres.\nWhile I have absolutely driven down the street with classical music on blast, what I'm not doing in that situation is singing along with it. For, again, obvious reasons. And because \"kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit\" really only fits that one piece of music. And because I can't hit those opera notes.\nAnd can I rattle off my favorite pieces Mozart wrote, by opus and movement? No, I'd have to go to my playlist for that. So knowing that I would be put on the spot, here, I wouldn't similarly interrogate someone else who expresses a fondness for classic music. Doesn't mean they're favorites any less than Love Is The Drug by Roxy Music or House of the Rising Sun by The Animals.\nSymphonies have their slower movements, which can almost disappear into environmental noise, and operas have their sections that are exposition or conversation put to music. I can generally only put one on, rather than a curated playlist of the crowd-pleasing moments, when I'm in a very particular headspace.\nReally, I think classical music is just an overly broad term.\nSome of my favorite tracks that music services lump together as part of the genre are works meant to replicate the jovial arrangements that might have been played at court for festivals in the Middle Ages, which I got into when playing Europa Universalis 1 & 2.\nAnd these are nothing like the music of the Baroque era, and later the Romantic period, and even later works by artists recording new orchestral music in the 20th century. Let alone contemporary flamenco guitar pieces from Spain. Even before widening our scope beyond Europe to what is generally, again, lumped together as World Music.\nIt all makes for a very imposing \"genre\" to approach and identify with, and I respect someone who makes an effort. Either because they like the challenge it represents to engage with beyond a \"Classical Music At The Movies\" compilation, or because without any kind of grounding in musical theory, they nevertheless can appreciate, as audiences have for centuries, really well written and conducted orchestral pieces, or the stripped-down chamber music versions of the same.",
">\n\nYou clearly haven’t met my cats. They listen to jazz and classical… although the romance period is a bit to energetic. They prefer contemporary or classical for focus/relaxation.",
">\n\nThey sound cool asf",
">\n\nEver since the pandemic I’ve only been listening to Classical Japanese music. I particularly like the jiuta songs. I have no idea what’s going on anymore with current music. I’m sure at some point that will change but for now it is what it is.",
">\n\nwasaait, what's wrong with reading? it's mid January, I'm finishing my second book already\ndude wtf? it's not even an opinion, don't judge people by your low standards",
">\n\n100% agree. I was this guy at 15. I only listened to the most technical of death metal bands and classical because my taste in music was so refined and superior to all the sheep around me listening to their bubble gum pop and hip hop. Fuckin cringe lookin back at that time in my life. And guess how much classical I actually listened to? basically none.",
">\n\nThis is exactly what I’m talking about!",
">\n\nWhat era are you defining as “classical”? Because it’s not a monolith or single era. What people call “classical” music falls under one of several era/genre umbrellas: Baroque, Rococo, Neoclassic, etc."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.