Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1rwgbw

I think cosplayers like Jessica Nigri might as well be considered porn stars, CMV

I simply don't understand how I'm not supposed to view a girl in an outfit like the ones we typically see in a non-sexual way. Maybe I'm just a sex addict, but I seem to not see what other people see if the downvotes I received in a comment thread recently are anything to go by. Maybe people downvote me so the girls who cosplay don't take offense and stop cosplaying, which would mean there's nothing to get off to, I don't know. I simply see it as bringing the sexual fantasies of people, often men, to life. Especially when a lot of female characters are created by men and when a girl cosplays a male character she sexualizes them. Even Halloween costumes sell themselves as "slutty". Even if it's about liberating yourself, it's a sexual liberation.

I think cosplayers like Jessica Nigri might as well be considered porn stars, CMV. I simply don't understand how I'm not supposed to view a girl in an outfit like the ones we typically see in a non-sexual way. Maybe I'm just a sex addict, but I seem to not see what other people see if the downvotes I received in a comment thread recently are anything to go by. Maybe people downvote me so the girls who cosplay don't take offense and stop cosplaying, which would mean there's nothing to get off to, I don't know. I simply see it as bringing the sexual fantasies of people, often men, to life. Especially when a lot of female characters are created by men and when a girl cosplays a male character she sexualizes them. Even Halloween costumes sell themselves as "slutty". Even if it's about liberating yourself, it's a sexual liberation.

t3_1xjhqm

I believe the Brony sub-culture is filled not with people who like the My Little Pony show, but sad, lonely people looking for a social outlet instead CMV.

This is obviously a generalisation, of course I'm sure there are a few people who like the show and are part of the sub-culture simply because they think it's a good show, but for the most part I can't help but feel the vast majority of "Bronies" are mostly people looking for a friend, and wouldnt otherwise give the show a second chance if the massive following didn't exist. I say this for a couple of reasons: a) The show is okay, but not really anything special. It's certainly a good kids show, but by adult standards the plot points, characters, basically everything about the show just doesn't hold up. Its not any better than any of the shows I watched as a kid, so its massive following makes no sense if everyone was a Brony simply because the show was great. b) Even if I'm missing something and the show IS great, it's massive, fervent, vocal, almost religious fan-base makes no sense if the shows quality if the only reason for that fan-bases' existance. You don't see shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Wire, or even similar shows like Adventure Time or The Regular Show with massive cult followings like you do with My Little Pony. Numbers wise My Little Pony isn't any more porpular than any of those shows, so how do you explain the fan-base if the shows quality is the only reason everyone wants to support it so fervently? Wouldn't those other shows then also have a fervent fan-base? If the shows quality isn't the reason for it's big, odd following, then what is? The vast majority of Bronies are single, teenaged to mid 20s men who really have no business watching a show like My Little Pony, and likely wouldn't if it didn't mean they would get to interact with people living similar lives to their own. I know how it must feel being overly nerdy and awkward in a society that doesnt really have much respect for either, and I can see why a big, friendly, exciting, equally awkward and socially inept group of people welcoming you in would be massively appealing. But I can't see how it's healthy. Replacing something unhappy in your life -- the fact that you have low self-esteem, few friends, etc, etc -- with something that tells you "hey it's okay to be YOU, look at all these people just like you who are so happy with themselves!" instead of "maybe you would be happier if you evaluated your life and made some important changes!" is ultimately lazy and will invariably only lead to further unhappyness down the road. I suppose my problem is the disingenousness of it all. I don't care that it's a show about Ponies. It could be a football team or video game and the issue would remain the same: saying you love something simply because it allows you to forget about your unhappyness instead of allowing you to change it isn't a good thing.

I believe the Brony sub-culture is filled not with people who like the My Little Pony show, but sad, lonely people looking for a social outlet instead CMV. This is obviously a generalisation, of course I'm sure there are a few people who like the show and are part of the sub-culture simply because they think it's a good show, but for the most part I can't help but feel the vast majority of "Bronies" are mostly people looking for a friend, and wouldnt otherwise give the show a second chance if the massive following didn't exist. I say this for a couple of reasons: a) The show is okay, but not really anything special. It's certainly a good kids show, but by adult standards the plot points, characters, basically everything about the show just doesn't hold up. Its not any better than any of the shows I watched as a kid, so its massive following makes no sense if everyone was a Brony simply because the show was great. b) Even if I'm missing something and the show IS great, it's massive, fervent, vocal, almost religious fan-base makes no sense if the shows quality if the only reason for that fan-bases' existance. You don't see shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men, The Wire, or even similar shows like Adventure Time or The Regular Show with massive cult followings like you do with My Little Pony. Numbers wise My Little Pony isn't any more porpular than any of those shows, so how do you explain the fan-base if the shows quality is the only reason everyone wants to support it so fervently? Wouldn't those other shows then also have a fervent fan-base? If the shows quality isn't the reason for it's big, odd following, then what is? The vast majority of Bronies are single, teenaged to mid 20s men who really have no business watching a show like My Little Pony, and likely wouldn't if it didn't mean they would get to interact with people living similar lives to their own. I know how it must feel being overly nerdy and awkward in a society that doesnt really have much respect for either, and I can see why a big, friendly, exciting, equally awkward and socially inept group of people welcoming you in would be massively appealing. But I can't see how it's healthy. Replacing something unhappy in your life -- the fact that you have low self-esteem, few friends, etc, etc -- with something that tells you "hey it's okay to be YOU, look at all these people just like you who are so happy with themselves!" instead of "maybe you would be happier if you evaluated your life and made some important changes!" is ultimately lazy and will invariably only lead to further unhappyness down the road. I suppose my problem is the disingenousness of it all. I don't care that it's a show about Ponies. It could be a football team or video game and the issue would remain the same: saying you love something simply because it allows you to forget about your unhappyness instead of allowing you to change it isn't a good thing.

t3_5g4ehh

CMV: I'm not a feminist.

I'll start out with saying that I'm for equality. I consider men, women, white people, black people, straight people and gay people to all be equal. I try not to discriminate against anyone based on race, gender or sexuality. I have several reasons not to call myself a feminist, but the biggest one is this: Several famous and/or powerful people that also consider themselves feminists have done things in the name of feminism that I consider to be horrible. A few examples: Zara Larsson, an artist from Sweden. She posted this on twitter: "Fy fan för er killar som får tjejer att känna sig osäkra när de går på festival. Jag hatar killar. Hatar hatar hatar." Roughly translates to "Damn you who guys who make girls going to festivals feel unsafe. **I hate guys. Hate hate hate.**" I agree with the first line, but then she doesn't make a single effort to say "I hate the guys who rape", instead she says "I hate all guys". She obviously hate men, but how can you hate men if you're for equal rights? Lot's of media in Sweden promote her and that tweet too. Zarna Joshi, a feminist who got 'famous' after the 'Hugh Mungus' affair. TL;DW, she walked up to a man to ask for his name, he jokingly replied 'Hugh Mungus', she freaked out, claimed he sexually harassed and raped her. The story doesn't end there though, she started a kickstarter where people could pay for the 'damages' she had endured. She got hundreds of dollars, and then made a few videos, including one named 'Surrounded by Patriarchy' and another one named 'Internalized Oppression'. Gudrun Schyman, a politician in Sweden who runs the Feminist Initiative party. In 2006 they proposed taxing men more. Schyman called it an Equality Tax. Those are my arguments, give me some good counterarguments! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I'm not a feminist. I'll start out with saying that I'm for equality. I consider men, women, white people, black people, straight people and gay people to all be equal. I try not to discriminate against anyone based on race, gender or sexuality. I have several reasons not to call myself a feminist, but the biggest one is this: Several famous and/or powerful people that also consider themselves feminists have done things in the name of feminism that I consider to be horrible. A few examples: Zara Larsson, an artist from Sweden. She posted this on twitter: "Fy fan för er killar som får tjejer att känna sig osäkra när de går på festival. Jag hatar killar. Hatar hatar hatar." Roughly translates to "Damn you who guys who make girls going to festivals feel unsafe. **I hate guys. Hate hate hate.**" I agree with the first line, but then she doesn't make a single effort to say "I hate the guys who rape", instead she says "I hate all guys". She obviously hate men, but how can you hate men if you're for equal rights? Lot's of media in Sweden promote her and that tweet too. Zarna Joshi, a feminist who got 'famous' after the 'Hugh Mungus' affair. TL;DW, she walked up to a man to ask for his name, he jokingly replied 'Hugh Mungus', she freaked out, claimed he sexually harassed and raped her. The story doesn't end there though, she started a kickstarter where people could pay for the 'damages' she had endured. She got hundreds of dollars, and then made a few videos, including one named 'Surrounded by Patriarchy' and another one named 'Internalized Oppression'. Gudrun Schyman, a politician in Sweden who runs the Feminist Initiative party. In 2006 they proposed taxing men more. Schyman called it an Equality Tax. Those are my arguments, give me some good counterarguments!

t3_1iu4to

The Israel/Palestine conflict is no different from any other, and it sucks for the Palestinians but they lost. CMV

All through history there have been conflicts and stealing land from other people, most famously from the Native Americans, but also in *literally every country's history*. We put on a show of giving them reserves but we all know that we stole their land and it's ours now and there's nothing they can do about it. So why is Israel so terrible for doing the same thing? They were attacked, they won, now they have more land. Edit: Further explanation Everybody acts like Israel keeping the land that they won by war is a terrible thing, yet literally every other country has done so. I find it hypocritical to complain about Israel, and especially to expect Israel to change anything, while living in Canada or the US, or even in Europe where every country was formed out of the blood of war.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is no different from any other, and it sucks for the Palestinians but they lost. CMV. All through history there have been conflicts and stealing land from other people, most famously from the Native Americans, but also in *literally every country's history*. We put on a show of giving them reserves but we all know that we stole their land and it's ours now and there's nothing they can do about it. So why is Israel so terrible for doing the same thing? They were attacked, they won, now they have more land. Edit: Further explanation Everybody acts like Israel keeping the land that they won by war is a terrible thing, yet literally every other country has done so. I find it hypocritical to complain about Israel, and especially to expect Israel to change anything, while living in Canada or the US, or even in Europe where every country was formed out of the blood of war.

t3_23oqxw

CMV: I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who commit suicide by throwing themselves in front of a train

Lately this concept has struck close home, and I've realised I found those people just extremely selfish. I know that when one brings him or herself to jump in front of a moving train, that person has gone through a *very* bad time. An action like that as a cause, obviously. But let's face it: of all of the quick and painless ways to kill yourself, why would you pick getting run over by a train? You are not only mentally scarring the driver, and pehaps passengers, for the rest of his life, you are also causing massive problems with the train schedules. These suicides often take place during rush hours, and I've seen enough "jumpers" causing hours of delays for hundreds of people. For some of them, maybe really important and precious hours they just can't lose. And all because you didn't jump of a high bridge. Call me a heartless bastard, but I'm curious to see how you guys will change my view.

CMV: I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who commit suicide by throwing themselves in front of a train. Lately this concept has struck close home, and I've realised I found those people just extremely selfish. I know that when one brings him or herself to jump in front of a moving train, that person has gone through a *very* bad time. An action like that as a cause, obviously. But let's face it: of all of the quick and painless ways to kill yourself, why would you pick getting run over by a train? You are not only mentally scarring the driver, and pehaps passengers, for the rest of his life, you are also causing massive problems with the train schedules. These suicides often take place during rush hours, and I've seen enough "jumpers" causing hours of delays for hundreds of people. For some of them, maybe really important and precious hours they just can't lose. And all because you didn't jump of a high bridge. Call me a heartless bastard, but I'm curious to see how you guys will change my view.

t3_4lwbn8

CMV:There is no legitimate reason for employers to discipline an ordinary employee for discussing his or her salary/pay rate with co-workers.

Edit: See notes below for a summary of my reaction to comments so far. Edit2: [This is a helpful article](http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/301989789/pay-secrecy-policies-at-work-often-illegal-and-misunderstood) describing what is currently legal and illegal in the US for employers to do, and how easily/hard it is to enforce. My post is inspired by [this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/heres-why-equal-pay-activists-are-looking-toward-maryland/2016/05/27/9c82ce48-2134-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_mdpayequity-0820pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory) that discusses a new law in Maryland that makes it illegal for employers to fire someone for discussing how much they are paid. I suppose I can understand why a company would seek to have a policy that employees may not discuss their pay with one another: namely, by depriving their employees the information of how much their co-workers are getting paid, the company gets an advantage in pay negotiations with each individual employee. However, I do not see this as sufficiently legitimate reason for companies to have such a policy. At best, it improves company profits at the expense of worker compensation. At worst, it covers up corporate inefficiencies like personal favoritism or improper discrimination. I cannot see any reason why a company would want to hide how much it pays each employee from other employees other than the above reasons. It is also my view (and this is not the one I am looking to have changed) that in making a raw choice between having high, but fairly-negotiated employee compensation and having high company profits, society is better off with higher employee compensation. Therefore, I support making it illegal to have a company policy forbidding employees to share compensation information with one another. Please note: I am not looking to debate the use of my term "legitimate". I understand companies have a right to make a profit, and to look for the cheapest labor. I am not saying that these things are "illegitimate" in the ordinary sense of the word. I am using the term here merely to state that I don't think there are any *other* appropriate reasons why companies would seek to hide such information from its employees. I am open to changing my view. Both as to the general question, as well as possibly to specific categories of businesses or employees for whom this practice makes sense aside from being a way to keep wages low. Thank you in advance for helping me understand these issues better. EDIT 1: Many, many of the comments I'm getting are along the lines of: "Most employees don't realize that there are legitimate reasons why a co-worker might be paid more than them. So if they learn that a co-worker is paid more than them, they will ask annoying questions or else their productivity will suffer because they will be demoralized." I do not find this line of reasoning persuasive. There is widespread information the Western economy for workers to understand factors that go into compensation, including experience, expertise, productivity, longevity with the company etc. I don't think people in this thread have any special access to such considerations not present in the workforce as a whole. I think employees can handle it, and would likely be less demoralized than they are now with an employer who forbids them to discuss compensation information -- which I'm sure many employees already assume is to cover up unfair employer pay practices. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:There is no legitimate reason for employers to discipline an ordinary employee for discussing his or her salary/pay rate with co-workers. Edit: See notes below for a summary of my reaction to comments so far. Edit2: [This is a helpful article](http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/301989789/pay-secrecy-policies-at-work-often-illegal-and-misunderstood) describing what is currently legal and illegal in the US for employers to do, and how easily/hard it is to enforce. My post is inspired by [this article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/heres-why-equal-pay-activists-are-looking-toward-maryland/2016/05/27/9c82ce48-2134-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_mdpayequity-0820pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory) that discusses a new law in Maryland that makes it illegal for employers to fire someone for discussing how much they are paid. I suppose I can understand why a company would seek to have a policy that employees may not discuss their pay with one another: namely, by depriving their employees the information of how much their co-workers are getting paid, the company gets an advantage in pay negotiations with each individual employee. However, I do not see this as sufficiently legitimate reason for companies to have such a policy. At best, it improves company profits at the expense of worker compensation. At worst, it covers up corporate inefficiencies like personal favoritism or improper discrimination. I cannot see any reason why a company would want to hide how much it pays each employee from other employees other than the above reasons. It is also my view (and this is not the one I am looking to have changed) that in making a raw choice between having high, but fairly-negotiated employee compensation and having high company profits, society is better off with higher employee compensation. Therefore, I support making it illegal to have a company policy forbidding employees to share compensation information with one another. Please note: I am not looking to debate the use of my term "legitimate". I understand companies have a right to make a profit, and to look for the cheapest labor. I am not saying that these things are "illegitimate" in the ordinary sense of the word. I am using the term here merely to state that I don't think there are any *other* appropriate reasons why companies would seek to hide such information from its employees. I am open to changing my view. Both as to the general question, as well as possibly to specific categories of businesses or employees for whom this practice makes sense aside from being a way to keep wages low. Thank you in advance for helping me understand these issues better. EDIT 1: Many, many of the comments I'm getting are along the lines of: "Most employees don't realize that there are legitimate reasons why a co-worker might be paid more than them. So if they learn that a co-worker is paid more than them, they will ask annoying questions or else their productivity will suffer because they will be demoralized." I do not find this line of reasoning persuasive. There is widespread information the Western economy for workers to understand factors that go into compensation, including experience, expertise, productivity, longevity with the company etc. I don't think people in this thread have any special access to such considerations not present in the workforce as a whole. I think employees can handle it, and would likely be less demoralized than they are now with an employer who forbids them to discuss compensation information -- which I'm sure many employees already assume is to cover up unfair employer pay practices.

t3_2q7xly

CMV: Pet rehoming fees are not good for animals.

This isn't adoption fees, like those that go back to the shelter that neutered them and gave the animals necessary vet care and shots. I mean that people on Craigslist or classified ads, and some rescue organizations, who insist on a rehoming fee of 200-500 for what is a mutt puppy, with no papers or shots. Even if it does discourage irresponsible owners or puppy flippers, it is taking money away from what could be a pet fund or a few vet visits. I think if you truly care if it's a good home they should have to bring necessary supplies like food, bowls, crate, litter box, terrarium, blanket, toys, etc, to show the interested party have invested in the dog/cat/ lizard and are prepared for it. Not only that, but I think if you're being forced to rehome an animal, you have no right to judge another family's ability to give a "forever home" for the animal anyways. I think if you're asking for a fee, you should own up to the fact you're choosing cash over the animal, and not try to play it like it's meant for the good of the animal.

CMV: Pet rehoming fees are not good for animals. This isn't adoption fees, like those that go back to the shelter that neutered them and gave the animals necessary vet care and shots. I mean that people on Craigslist or classified ads, and some rescue organizations, who insist on a rehoming fee of 200-500 for what is a mutt puppy, with no papers or shots. Even if it does discourage irresponsible owners or puppy flippers, it is taking money away from what could be a pet fund or a few vet visits. I think if you truly care if it's a good home they should have to bring necessary supplies like food, bowls, crate, litter box, terrarium, blanket, toys, etc, to show the interested party have invested in the dog/cat/ lizard and are prepared for it. Not only that, but I think if you're being forced to rehome an animal, you have no right to judge another family's ability to give a "forever home" for the animal anyways. I think if you're asking for a fee, you should own up to the fact you're choosing cash over the animal, and not try to play it like it's meant for the good of the animal.

t3_1gych5

Feminism in modern western societies is not only unnecessary but harmful to both men and women. CMV!

In most modern western societies (USA, UK, Sweden, etc) civil rights have reached the point that sex based stereotyping, double standards, etc afflict men and women roughly equally. Yes women can hardly ever fill combat roles in the military, but they also cannot be drafted while men can. Yes women are shamed for having sex frequently while men are praised for the same thing; however, men are shamed for not having sex very often while a woman who does the same will be viewed as classy or refined. Yes women have to deal with reproductive rights but nobody is forcing them to get their clits cut out, whereas male infants are dying, getting diseases, or being accidentally castrated every day from male circumcision (not to mention the negative effects of a perfectly implemented procedure). Yes women are sexually harassed more often than men; men, however are treated as subhumans if they dare to report being sexually harassed. (society also pressures men into far lower rates of reporting all victimization.) Please note that I am not trying to marginalize the injustices done to women; I am simply trying to dispel the infantile idea of seeing patriarchy in these societies, it is a disgusting insult to countries where women are oppressed by real patriarchy. Feminist's manufactured idea of rape culture does nothing but dis-empower women by encouraging them to feel oppressed by half the population. I could go on about issues along these lines but I'm going to leave it to this link to show you how disgustingly skewed rape percentages, reports of victimization etc are http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/ Please don't bother posting unless you have read it, as this article was actually what changed my feminist views to my current ones. Lastly I believe that anyone who preaches feminism as opposed to humanism in the societies I described are doing nothing but promoting hate and inequality. If you have evidence to CMV, please present it.

Feminism in modern western societies is not only unnecessary but harmful to both men and women. CMV!. In most modern western societies (USA, UK, Sweden, etc) civil rights have reached the point that sex based stereotyping, double standards, etc afflict men and women roughly equally. Yes women can hardly ever fill combat roles in the military, but they also cannot be drafted while men can. Yes women are shamed for having sex frequently while men are praised for the same thing; however, men are shamed for not having sex very often while a woman who does the same will be viewed as classy or refined. Yes women have to deal with reproductive rights but nobody is forcing them to get their clits cut out, whereas male infants are dying, getting diseases, or being accidentally castrated every day from male circumcision (not to mention the negative effects of a perfectly implemented procedure). Yes women are sexually harassed more often than men; men, however are treated as subhumans if they dare to report being sexually harassed. (society also pressures men into far lower rates of reporting all victimization.) Please note that I am not trying to marginalize the injustices done to women; I am simply trying to dispel the infantile idea of seeing patriarchy in these societies, it is a disgusting insult to countries where women are oppressed by real patriarchy. Feminist's manufactured idea of rape culture does nothing but dis-empower women by encouraging them to feel oppressed by half the population. I could go on about issues along these lines but I'm going to leave it to this link to show you how disgustingly skewed rape percentages, reports of victimization etc are http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/ Please don't bother posting unless you have read it, as this article was actually what changed my feminist views to my current ones. Lastly I believe that anyone who preaches feminism as opposed to humanism in the societies I described are doing nothing but promoting hate and inequality. If you have evidence to CMV, please present it.

t3_6dhsfn

CMV: Weak preparations containing opiates should be available over-the-counter.

Paregoric is an herbal tincture containing opium and number of other ingredients like licorice, camphor, and anise. It's been available since the early 1700's and it's use only declined due to government crack-downs on products containing opiates. Mild preparations containing morphine or similar ingredients are very effective at controlling diarrhea, coughs, and pain while not producing strong enough effects to get the person totally hooked on it. Plus, the other herbs in the product would probably make you ill if you attempted to take a large enough dose to get a recreational high off of it. Cough syrups containing codeine should also be easier to get. Codeine is super weak as far as opiates go, the effects are only slightly pleasant compared to stronger opiates and even if you managed to get physically addicted to it, the withdrawal symptoms would be comparatively mild. Perhaps a limit could be placed on the amount of purchases one could make in a set time. I'm not saying *nobody* would get hooked on these mild preparations, just that the convenience of them being available would outweigh the damage they would do to outliers. A lot of the damage that drug use does to society is a result of crimes being committed by addicts seeking their next fix. If an addict could just pop on down to CVS and grab a bottle of something to keep himself from going into full-blown withdrawals, I think that would help greatly to reduce desperation-induced criminal acts. EDIT: I'm talking about the United States _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Weak preparations containing opiates should be available over-the-counter. Paregoric is an herbal tincture containing opium and number of other ingredients like licorice, camphor, and anise. It's been available since the early 1700's and it's use only declined due to government crack-downs on products containing opiates. Mild preparations containing morphine or similar ingredients are very effective at controlling diarrhea, coughs, and pain while not producing strong enough effects to get the person totally hooked on it. Plus, the other herbs in the product would probably make you ill if you attempted to take a large enough dose to get a recreational high off of it. Cough syrups containing codeine should also be easier to get. Codeine is super weak as far as opiates go, the effects are only slightly pleasant compared to stronger opiates and even if you managed to get physically addicted to it, the withdrawal symptoms would be comparatively mild. Perhaps a limit could be placed on the amount of purchases one could make in a set time. I'm not saying *nobody* would get hooked on these mild preparations, just that the convenience of them being available would outweigh the damage they would do to outliers. A lot of the damage that drug use does to society is a result of crimes being committed by addicts seeking their next fix. If an addict could just pop on down to CVS and grab a bottle of something to keep himself from going into full-blown withdrawals, I think that would help greatly to reduce desperation-induced criminal acts. EDIT: I'm talking about the United States

t3_23npyz

CMV: Suicide is ethically neutral.

My belief that the ethical worth of an action depends on its consequences for happiness and suffering informs my perspective on this issue. Because it does not necessarily cause more suffering than it alleviates, suicide is not inherently unethical. Even in instances when the depression of the suicidal person is mild, suicide can be ethically permissible. People do not have ethical obligations to their future selves, because those future selves are non-existent. Human actions do not happen in a vacuum. Since we are social beings living in a social context, our actions often have unintended consequences. Suicide is only unethical when surviving loved ones suffer as a result of the suicide. Suicidal people who leave notes that provide closure to friends and family, or who gradually distance themselves from loved ones, mitigate the suffering caused by their suicide and thus increase its moral worth. Happiness and suffering are impossible to precisely quantify, but if a rational person would conclude that the actual suffering of a suicidal person exceeded the potential suffering of surviving loved ones, the suicide would be ethically permissible. The last surviving man on Earth could commit suicide with ethical justification. A single mother who was beloved by her community and experiencing a temporary rough patch would be wrong to commit suicide. Waiting to die rather than choosing to die is not ethically obligatory. The philosophical arguments against suicide qua suicide contain sophistry that disguise unjustified taboo morality.

CMV: Suicide is ethically neutral. My belief that the ethical worth of an action depends on its consequences for happiness and suffering informs my perspective on this issue. Because it does not necessarily cause more suffering than it alleviates, suicide is not inherently unethical. Even in instances when the depression of the suicidal person is mild, suicide can be ethically permissible. People do not have ethical obligations to their future selves, because those future selves are non-existent. Human actions do not happen in a vacuum. Since we are social beings living in a social context, our actions often have unintended consequences. Suicide is only unethical when surviving loved ones suffer as a result of the suicide. Suicidal people who leave notes that provide closure to friends and family, or who gradually distance themselves from loved ones, mitigate the suffering caused by their suicide and thus increase its moral worth. Happiness and suffering are impossible to precisely quantify, but if a rational person would conclude that the actual suffering of a suicidal person exceeded the potential suffering of surviving loved ones, the suicide would be ethically permissible. The last surviving man on Earth could commit suicide with ethical justification. A single mother who was beloved by her community and experiencing a temporary rough patch would be wrong to commit suicide. Waiting to die rather than choosing to die is not ethically obligatory. The philosophical arguments against suicide qua suicide contain sophistry that disguise unjustified taboo morality.

t3_3omnwp

CMV: We should not be focusing on extending lives, but rather improving the quality of life.

I see all of this discussion about, "how can we cure cancer?" "how do we prevent heart disease?" But what's the point? I feel a *little* bad for saying this, but why? Now don't get me wrong, I have grandparents and I love them dearly. But I think we need to put our emotions aside when it comes to trying to improve the world around us. But instead of focusing on life extension we could, I don't know, throw as much money as we can at improving the mental health of the world. I don't know about you but I would much rather have a short happy life rather than a miserable long one. The mind is capable of developing disease just like any other organ in the body but nobody seems to recognize it as real illness. Depression? suck it up. Schizophrenia? stay away from my children and don't hurt anyone. Then of course there is the important point of over population. What if we all just started living to 120 year old. Then what? Do we just stand shoulder-to-shoulder 24/7? Do we get one serving of petri-dish rice each day because there is basically no food? And of course back to the original topic, this would drastically reduce the quality of life. It's a tough situation we're in these days. We have the ability to stave off death but that begs the question, should we? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We should not be focusing on extending lives, but rather improving the quality of life. I see all of this discussion about, "how can we cure cancer?" "how do we prevent heart disease?" But what's the point? I feel a *little* bad for saying this, but why? Now don't get me wrong, I have grandparents and I love them dearly. But I think we need to put our emotions aside when it comes to trying to improve the world around us. But instead of focusing on life extension we could, I don't know, throw as much money as we can at improving the mental health of the world. I don't know about you but I would much rather have a short happy life rather than a miserable long one. The mind is capable of developing disease just like any other organ in the body but nobody seems to recognize it as real illness. Depression? suck it up. Schizophrenia? stay away from my children and don't hurt anyone. Then of course there is the important point of over population. What if we all just started living to 120 year old. Then what? Do we just stand shoulder-to-shoulder 24/7? Do we get one serving of petri-dish rice each day because there is basically no food? And of course back to the original topic, this would drastically reduce the quality of life. It's a tough situation we're in these days. We have the ability to stave off death but that begs the question, should we?

t3_6o2x9r

CMV A pension is better than a smartphone. The efficient operation of markets has destroyed the American middle class. Only political interference with efficient markets could restore prosperity. CMV

I am on mobile, so I don't have an abundance of links to data, but this is such a discussed topic that I doubt more than few people would deny that the economic conditions of the median American have declined precipitously since the 1970s. My argument is that the primary cause of this is that there is an irreducible tension between the profitability of capital and renumeration of labor. Because any society with private control of capital will be financially unequal, and because financial inequality will reproduce political inequality in republican systems like the U.S. , the only way to restore a broadly prosperous society is through political domination of capital. Whether that takes place under a democratic socialist government or a fascistic state capitalist one, the point is that ceteris paribus the conditions of the average American worker will continue to decline when private capital is allowed to allocate itself to maximize profitability. There is no plausible market-respecting solution to an immiseration that was caused the the efficient operation of markets. This is your pretty standard 21st century Marxism, but I am seeking to have my view changed because believers in markets driving prosperity are still so common. I have not, however, yet seen a convincing argument explaining how the declines in living standards were caused by something besides efficient markets or how efficient markets could ever raise the income of workers. The closest thing I have seen to that is an argument that American compensation has continued to rise, but has been eaten up by healthcare costs. Under an isolated interpretation of certain data, this is plausible. But under a political-economic analysis, we appreciate that bourgeois cartels in the health care industry have exercised their political influence in successful rent seeking that explains the explosion of these costs. Once again the only way to counteract that trend would be for a powerful state to discipline these rapacious insurance and pharmaceutical industries, possibly by abolishing them. At this point, even a Cuban model of state socialism would deliver better healthcare outcomes to the majority of Americans. The possibility of breakthroughs in medical research is no defense when most people will never have access that will allow them to benefit from the breakthroughs. CMV

CMV A pension is better than a smartphone. The efficient operation of markets has destroyed the American middle class. Only political interference with efficient markets could restore prosperity. CMV. I am on mobile, so I don't have an abundance of links to data, but this is such a discussed topic that I doubt more than few people would deny that the economic conditions of the median American have declined precipitously since the 1970s. My argument is that the primary cause of this is that there is an irreducible tension between the profitability of capital and renumeration of labor. Because any society with private control of capital will be financially unequal, and because financial inequality will reproduce political inequality in republican systems like the U.S. , the only way to restore a broadly prosperous society is through political domination of capital. Whether that takes place under a democratic socialist government or a fascistic state capitalist one, the point is that ceteris paribus the conditions of the average American worker will continue to decline when private capital is allowed to allocate itself to maximize profitability. There is no plausible market-respecting solution to an immiseration that was caused the the efficient operation of markets. This is your pretty standard 21st century Marxism, but I am seeking to have my view changed because believers in markets driving prosperity are still so common. I have not, however, yet seen a convincing argument explaining how the declines in living standards were caused by something besides efficient markets or how efficient markets could ever raise the income of workers. The closest thing I have seen to that is an argument that American compensation has continued to rise, but has been eaten up by healthcare costs. Under an isolated interpretation of certain data, this is plausible. But under a political-economic analysis, we appreciate that bourgeois cartels in the health care industry have exercised their political influence in successful rent seeking that explains the explosion of these costs. Once again the only way to counteract that trend would be for a powerful state to discipline these rapacious insurance and pharmaceutical industries, possibly by abolishing them. At this point, even a Cuban model of state socialism would deliver better healthcare outcomes to the majority of Americans. The possibility of breakthroughs in medical research is no defense when most people will never have access that will allow them to benefit from the breakthroughs. CMV

t3_3ghms4

CMV: Children should have the vote.

Note: I'm from the UK where voting age is 18 (or 16 in all Scottish independence referendums). I believe that all children should be eligible to a vote. My argument for this is that decisions of government (or, say, as a result of plebiscite) also impact children's lives and, if anything, have a greater impact in the long term than for adults as they typically have longer to live through the repercussions. To clarify, my practical view of an implementation of this is that a responsible guardian would vote on behalf of the child until such a point as the guardian feels the child is suitably mature to make their own decision or the child has reached a certain age. ----- Edit: I feel people are paying too much attention to the suggestion for implementation rather than the overall idea. Nevertheless, I edit the suggestion to be that whenever the child wishes to adopt the decision over their vote and can get an adult to vouch for them, the child and not the guardian should vote. I have awarded a delta for this. ---- I shall attempt to debunk a couple of reactions I think will quickly come to many minds: *More babies means more POWER, mwah-ha-ha!!! -No, I don't think that any person falling within even an extreme definition of sane would attempt to influence an election by simply having more and more children. *Would this not lead to greater pandering and unfairly positive treatment of families? What about people who are without children? -Whilst I would agree that families would perhaps get more positive treatment than they currently do, that is sort of my argument. Consider a single parent with two children; those are three people, not one and so surely their access to decision making should reflect this fact. Should there be better deals for families as a result of such an electoral reform (and perhaps worse deals for those without), is this not simply fairer and more reflective? Further note that I'm aware there are other groups without the right to vote who perhaps should have it, but that is not the subject of this CMV. ----- Edit 2: Far too many of people who've responded seem to think that a person's only motivation when voting can be self-interest. ----- _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Children should have the vote. Note: I'm from the UK where voting age is 18 (or 16 in all Scottish independence referendums). I believe that all children should be eligible to a vote. My argument for this is that decisions of government (or, say, as a result of plebiscite) also impact children's lives and, if anything, have a greater impact in the long term than for adults as they typically have longer to live through the repercussions. To clarify, my practical view of an implementation of this is that a responsible guardian would vote on behalf of the child until such a point as the guardian feels the child is suitably mature to make their own decision or the child has reached a certain age. ----- Edit: I feel people are paying too much attention to the suggestion for implementation rather than the overall idea. Nevertheless, I edit the suggestion to be that whenever the child wishes to adopt the decision over their vote and can get an adult to vouch for them, the child and not the guardian should vote. I have awarded a delta for this. ---- I shall attempt to debunk a couple of reactions I think will quickly come to many minds: *More babies means more POWER, mwah-ha-ha!!! -No, I don't think that any person falling within even an extreme definition of sane would attempt to influence an election by simply having more and more children. *Would this not lead to greater pandering and unfairly positive treatment of families? What about people who are without children? -Whilst I would agree that families would perhaps get more positive treatment than they currently do, that is sort of my argument. Consider a single parent with two children; those are three people, not one and so surely their access to decision making should reflect this fact. Should there be better deals for families as a result of such an electoral reform (and perhaps worse deals for those without), is this not simply fairer and more reflective? Further note that I'm aware there are other groups without the right to vote who perhaps should have it, but that is not the subject of this CMV. ----- Edit 2: Far too many of people who've responded seem to think that a person's only motivation when voting can be self-interest. -----

t3_3p072r

CMV: There is little to no benefit for a guy to have a baby face

I am told that "I'll appreciate that baby face when I'm older!" but I don't see how. I am currently nineteen, and my baby face only seems to be a negative in my life. My dating pool is limited because I look like a sixteen year old at best, and I don't plan on dating people who look my age because I don't want to be a pedophile. I am going to be carded for alcohol well into my thirties and I will be taken less seriously at jobs and job interviews because I look like I have less experience than I do. The only benefit seems to be hooking up with younger girls when you're older, I don't feel I will be attracted to/like talking to girls that are that much younger than me, or that I will feel creepy when I do. What else is there? Student discounts? Fellow baby faces, change my view!

CMV: There is little to no benefit for a guy to have a baby face. I am told that "I'll appreciate that baby face when I'm older!" but I don't see how. I am currently nineteen, and my baby face only seems to be a negative in my life. My dating pool is limited because I look like a sixteen year old at best, and I don't plan on dating people who look my age because I don't want to be a pedophile. I am going to be carded for alcohol well into my thirties and I will be taken less seriously at jobs and job interviews because I look like I have less experience than I do. The only benefit seems to be hooking up with younger girls when you're older, I don't feel I will be attracted to/like talking to girls that are that much younger than me, or that I will feel creepy when I do. What else is there? Student discounts? Fellow baby faces, change my view!

t3_2xnm3v

CMV: I believe Christians who are not constantly preaching are assholes.

Hypothetically, there's a bomb in a building with a timer for 10 hours counting down and I know about it. If I do not do everything in my power to warn the people in the building, I'm a jerk. If I only spend one hour warning people, then go home and watch TV I'm an asshole who cares more about myself than the people in the building. If I save 20 people, but leave another 300 in the building and call it a day, I'm still a jerk. Assuming Christians honestly believe in an afterlife, and honestly believe that people who do not believe in Jesus will spend an eternity in hell, if they do not do everything in their power to try and save those that they care about, they are assholes. Instead I see most Christians content to spend an hour or two on the weekend at Church surrounded by other Christians, living lives no different from non-believers. These people are assholes. Please, Change My View. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe Christians who are not constantly preaching are assholes. Hypothetically, there's a bomb in a building with a timer for 10 hours counting down and I know about it. If I do not do everything in my power to warn the people in the building, I'm a jerk. If I only spend one hour warning people, then go home and watch TV I'm an asshole who cares more about myself than the people in the building. If I save 20 people, but leave another 300 in the building and call it a day, I'm still a jerk. Assuming Christians honestly believe in an afterlife, and honestly believe that people who do not believe in Jesus will spend an eternity in hell, if they do not do everything in their power to try and save those that they care about, they are assholes. Instead I see most Christians content to spend an hour or two on the weekend at Church surrounded by other Christians, living lives no different from non-believers. These people are assholes. Please, Change My View.

t3_3a31ye

CMV: Game hunting should not be used as an argument against gun control

The purpose of gun control is to reduce violence. A number of people arguing against gun control bring up the tradition of hunting in America and how strict gun control violates the second amendment. Here are my views, CMV! • Sure, banning guns violates the second amendment, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I feel like people are incredibly fearful of accepting a document like the Constitution as possibly flawed, even though it's been proven so many times. Why is this right so important to people? In a country where the accidental gun violence rate is greater than its self-defense use rate, protection is hardly an argument. People cling to all these different rights without ever questioning why they care. If violence were to decrease if you gave up your gun (like it did in Australia), why does it matter? Instead of cowering from the idea of abolishing the second amendment, consider the lives possibly saved as a result. •"I can't hunt anymore!" Good. It seems vaguely psychopathic to me that people kill for the hell of it. It makes them happy to end the lives of living, breathing creatures. It seems primal in a sense and I don't think that people should see it as some right that they need to protect it. People would never justify shooting an innocent dog, so why do they justify shooting other animals for fun? • I am not necessarily saying gun control works (though in many contexts, it does), more arguing that if it does work, why are people so reluctant to give up their guns? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Game hunting should not be used as an argument against gun control. The purpose of gun control is to reduce violence. A number of people arguing against gun control bring up the tradition of hunting in America and how strict gun control violates the second amendment. Here are my views, CMV! • Sure, banning guns violates the second amendment, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I feel like people are incredibly fearful of accepting a document like the Constitution as possibly flawed, even though it's been proven so many times. Why is this right so important to people? In a country where the accidental gun violence rate is greater than its self-defense use rate, protection is hardly an argument. People cling to all these different rights without ever questioning why they care. If violence were to decrease if you gave up your gun (like it did in Australia), why does it matter? Instead of cowering from the idea of abolishing the second amendment, consider the lives possibly saved as a result. •"I can't hunt anymore!" Good. It seems vaguely psychopathic to me that people kill for the hell of it. It makes them happy to end the lives of living, breathing creatures. It seems primal in a sense and I don't think that people should see it as some right that they need to protect it. People would never justify shooting an innocent dog, so why do they justify shooting other animals for fun? • I am not necessarily saying gun control works (though in many contexts, it does), more arguing that if it does work, why are people so reluctant to give up their guns?

t3_21jj28

CMV: The government should not recognize any marriages.

I think that the government should not recognize marriages of any kind. I'm not saying people getting married is a bad thing, but I don't think that it's the government's business. The government should instead have a contractual union which would grant the benefits of marriage to people. This would help people who wouldn't get married now, so that, for example, caretakers, etc., could have visitation rights while not being married to somebody. You could also have a multitude of involved people. This contract could be voided by unanimous declaration of both parties. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The government should not recognize any marriages. I think that the government should not recognize marriages of any kind. I'm not saying people getting married is a bad thing, but I don't think that it's the government's business. The government should instead have a contractual union which would grant the benefits of marriage to people. This would help people who wouldn't get married now, so that, for example, caretakers, etc., could have visitation rights while not being married to somebody. You could also have a multitude of involved people. This contract could be voided by unanimous declaration of both parties.

t3_1bcen3

I believe that Affirmative Action should not exist. CMV

This mostly relates to college acceptance and similar practices. People should not be accepted into a college because of their race or sex, whether they are a minority or majority. As a college is an academic environment, the one thing that should matter is performance. I felt uncomfortable answering what race I was on entrance exams for this very reason. Even though they give you an option of "choose not to answer," the only people with the incentive to choose that option would obviously be the ones at the disadvantage if they answer truthfully.

I believe that Affirmative Action should not exist. CMV. This mostly relates to college acceptance and similar practices. People should not be accepted into a college because of their race or sex, whether they are a minority or majority. As a college is an academic environment, the one thing that should matter is performance. I felt uncomfortable answering what race I was on entrance exams for this very reason. Even though they give you an option of "choose not to answer," the only people with the incentive to choose that option would obviously be the ones at the disadvantage if they answer truthfully.

t3_68viuf

CMV: The US should stop granting federal financial aid to students who choose to attend for-profit collegiate institutions and institutions outside of the USA.

First, I'd like to say I'm not an expert on economics, the education system, or federal financial aid. I would like to state my opinion and I would like someone with a good argument and evidence to change my view. Many for-profit schools across the country are marketed as quicker and easier routes to a job, profession, or trade. From what I have read, these schools are not accredited by an organization that is recognized by the majority of traditional American colleges and the credits are not transferable. The education you get from these colleges are mediocre at best, and they often lie about their credentials. Sources for the above statements: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/27/pf/college/devry-university-ftc/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/02/pf/college/for-profit-college-degree/ https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/17/employers-shy-away-from-online-for-profit-graduates It is my understanding that these schools are usually expensive, and often leave the unemployed graduate in crippling debt. Many of these students end up defaulting on their loans and destroying their whole lives over a false promise that the US government supports by granting them the means to obtain that education through loans. Furthermore, and this is where I have some expertise, I believe that for-profit medical schools in the Caribbean, which market themselves as an alternative route for US citizens to become doctors, fall along these same lines. These schools accept thousands and thousands of applicants every year who did not have the credentials, grades, or ability to be accepted by a US medical school. The acceptance criteria are many standards of deviation lower when compared to those of US medical schools. These schools charge outrageous prices for the education, with the average debt from a Caribbean program being $300,000-$500,000. Each student is eligible to receive federal funding to attend these off-shore institutions. However, these schools are incredibly poor at placing their graduates into jobs as resident physicians. Only 33% of all the students who enter into an off-shore medical school makes it to graduation and obtains a position inside the US. The rest are left with a worthless degree and crippling debt they are never able to pay off. The US government currently pays for US citizens to attend these offshore scam schools (not just medical schools), and the schools can charge in tuition whatever they wish, because the government would fund them. Sources below: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/nyregion/23caribbean.html http://www.valuemd.com/american-university-caribbean-auc/243777-caribbean-medical-schools-longer-viable-option-md.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/second-chance-med-school.html?_r=0 I firmly believe that for-profit institutions and offshore medical schools are working only for their investors and consider the student nothing more than the product. We need to end US government financial support to students who choose to attend them. I don't care so much that they exist, but that US taxpayer dollars are paying for these scams to exist. Change my view! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The US should stop granting federal financial aid to students who choose to attend for-profit collegiate institutions and institutions outside of the USA. First, I'd like to say I'm not an expert on economics, the education system, or federal financial aid. I would like to state my opinion and I would like someone with a good argument and evidence to change my view. Many for-profit schools across the country are marketed as quicker and easier routes to a job, profession, or trade. From what I have read, these schools are not accredited by an organization that is recognized by the majority of traditional American colleges and the credits are not transferable. The education you get from these colleges are mediocre at best, and they often lie about their credentials. Sources for the above statements: http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/27/pf/college/devry-university-ftc/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/02/pf/college/for-profit-college-degree/ https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/17/employers-shy-away-from-online-for-profit-graduates It is my understanding that these schools are usually expensive, and often leave the unemployed graduate in crippling debt. Many of these students end up defaulting on their loans and destroying their whole lives over a false promise that the US government supports by granting them the means to obtain that education through loans. Furthermore, and this is where I have some expertise, I believe that for-profit medical schools in the Caribbean, which market themselves as an alternative route for US citizens to become doctors, fall along these same lines. These schools accept thousands and thousands of applicants every year who did not have the credentials, grades, or ability to be accepted by a US medical school. The acceptance criteria are many standards of deviation lower when compared to those of US medical schools. These schools charge outrageous prices for the education, with the average debt from a Caribbean program being $300,000-$500,000. Each student is eligible to receive federal funding to attend these off-shore institutions. However, these schools are incredibly poor at placing their graduates into jobs as resident physicians. Only 33% of all the students who enter into an off-shore medical school makes it to graduation and obtains a position inside the US. The rest are left with a worthless degree and crippling debt they are never able to pay off. The US government currently pays for US citizens to attend these offshore scam schools (not just medical schools), and the schools can charge in tuition whatever they wish, because the government would fund them. Sources below: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/nyregion/23caribbean.html http://www.valuemd.com/american-university-caribbean-auc/243777-caribbean-medical-schools-longer-viable-option-md.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/education/edlife/second-chance-med-school.html?_r=0 I firmly believe that for-profit institutions and offshore medical schools are working only for their investors and consider the student nothing more than the product. We need to end US government financial support to students who choose to attend them. I don't care so much that they exist, but that US taxpayer dollars are paying for these scams to exist. Change my view!

t3_502ncn

CMV: African countries benefited from English colonization.

Despite the racist attitudes of the time and atrocities committed, English colonization improved the condition of the countries colonized. Specifically, I think most countries colonized by England are better off today than they would have been otherwise. The English brought with them advanced European ideals and technology. Schools, hospitals, universities, and various infrastructure were built by the English due to their efforts to make the colonies profitable. Without the English influence, modern African countries would be worse off today. Of course the colonizers were extreme racists and committed many crimes, but the good outweighs the bad. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: African countries benefited from English colonization. Despite the racist attitudes of the time and atrocities committed, English colonization improved the condition of the countries colonized. Specifically, I think most countries colonized by England are better off today than they would have been otherwise. The English brought with them advanced European ideals and technology. Schools, hospitals, universities, and various infrastructure were built by the English due to their efforts to make the colonies profitable. Without the English influence, modern African countries would be worse off today. Of course the colonizers were extreme racists and committed many crimes, but the good outweighs the bad.

t3_5os14w

CMV: Medical insurance in America is a scam whereby for-profit companies exploit customers' fear of high medical bills to establish themselves as parasitic intermediaries between patients and medical providers, thereby further raising the cost of medical bills.

In 2016, my health insurance company spent $800 on my medical expenses and made about $8,200 off my premiums. The vast majority of my expenses did not include an insurance discount (even though they were in-network), meaning they would've cost the same if I'd been uninsured. The end result of this is I spent over $11,000 in medical expenses (most of it in premiums) while insured, whereas I would've only spent $3,000 had I been uninsured. The doctors and health care professionals I've spoken to say that medical pricing is deliberately inflated to gain an advantage against health insurance companies when it comes to negotiating payments. For instance, the "actual price" of a procedure might be $500, but the medical provider claims it's $5,000 so the insurance company can feel good about negotiating down to $750. (Imagine my surprise when I realized insurance companies don't actually bother to negotiate everything.) The consequence of this medical price gouging was that uninsured people were often stuck paying, or trying to pay, the artificially inflated price. This made everyone terrified of the prospect of being uninsured and having to declare bankruptcy over unexpected (and ridiculous) medical bills, like an $8,000 MRI. This well-justified fear essentially made health insurance a requirement for anyone who could afford it. So, now, you've got this middleman (your medical insurance company) between you and your doctor, and this guy is interfering in your medical care by refusing to cover certain procedures and profiting off the promise that he will lower, or limit your exposure to, the high prices he himself conveniently caused to be raised. Someone please change my mind! **Edit 1:** Maybe "racket" is a better word than "scam" for how I'm thinking about this, as /u/jehearttlse pointed out. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Medical insurance in America is a scam whereby for-profit companies exploit customers' fear of high medical bills to establish themselves as parasitic intermediaries between patients and medical providers, thereby further raising the cost of medical bills. In 2016, my health insurance company spent $800 on my medical expenses and made about $8,200 off my premiums. The vast majority of my expenses did not include an insurance discount (even though they were in-network), meaning they would've cost the same if I'd been uninsured. The end result of this is I spent over $11,000 in medical expenses (most of it in premiums) while insured, whereas I would've only spent $3,000 had I been uninsured. The doctors and health care professionals I've spoken to say that medical pricing is deliberately inflated to gain an advantage against health insurance companies when it comes to negotiating payments. For instance, the "actual price" of a procedure might be $500, but the medical provider claims it's $5,000 so the insurance company can feel good about negotiating down to $750. (Imagine my surprise when I realized insurance companies don't actually bother to negotiate everything.) The consequence of this medical price gouging was that uninsured people were often stuck paying, or trying to pay, the artificially inflated price. This made everyone terrified of the prospect of being uninsured and having to declare bankruptcy over unexpected (and ridiculous) medical bills, like an $8,000 MRI. This well-justified fear essentially made health insurance a requirement for anyone who could afford it. So, now, you've got this middleman (your medical insurance company) between you and your doctor, and this guy is interfering in your medical care by refusing to cover certain procedures and profiting off the promise that he will lower, or limit your exposure to, the high prices he himself conveniently caused to be raised. Someone please change my mind! **Edit 1:** Maybe "racket" is a better word than "scam" for how I'm thinking about this, as /u/jehearttlse pointed out.

t3_2z0g2o

Sexless Saturday - 03/14/15

You may have seen the recent discussions about the popularity of gender topics. We tried Genderless January as an attempt to deal with it, but the feedback was mixed. Sexless Saturday is an alternative option we're trying out. **During today, all gender related topics will be removed.** Any questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and give us your feedback.

Sexless Saturday - 03/14/15. You may have seen the recent discussions about the popularity of gender topics. We tried Genderless January as an attempt to deal with it, but the feedback was mixed. Sexless Saturday is an alternative option we're trying out. **During today, all gender related topics will be removed.** Any questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and give us your feedback.

t3_4cdxrp

CMV: I think modern human society is doomed because of climate change and our inaction towards stopping it. Change my view.

So I have been reading up on climate change and how it relates to the future, and needless to say I am scared shitless. For those not in the know, climate change is going to make the world a much much much worse place due to, but not limited too: multi meter sea level rise, droughts, famines, floods, superstorms, mass displacement in the millions or possibly billions. Again, I cannot stress enough how terrible climate change is. Humanity can technically avoid a catastrophe of this scale, but I think we won't. At this point, I have pretty much given up hope on a prosperous future for my theoretical children and grandchildren. Current projections estimate that we have between 30 and 50 years of relatively "stable" climate, but after that, things start to get bad; or more bad. I don't think we will do enough to stop the problem due largely to greed, corruption, hubris, and plain naivety. I don't think there is a very happy future for humanity in the coming decades and centuries. I for one, am just praying that I die before things start getting too bad. So CMV, can any of you really tell me I'm wrong? I doubt it, but I'm hoping for anything to make be feel less hopeless.

CMV: I think modern human society is doomed because of climate change and our inaction towards stopping it. Change my view. So I have been reading up on climate change and how it relates to the future, and needless to say I am scared shitless. For those not in the know, climate change is going to make the world a much much much worse place due to, but not limited too: multi meter sea level rise, droughts, famines, floods, superstorms, mass displacement in the millions or possibly billions. Again, I cannot stress enough how terrible climate change is. Humanity can technically avoid a catastrophe of this scale, but I think we won't. At this point, I have pretty much given up hope on a prosperous future for my theoretical children and grandchildren. Current projections estimate that we have between 30 and 50 years of relatively "stable" climate, but after that, things start to get bad; or more bad. I don't think we will do enough to stop the problem due largely to greed, corruption, hubris, and plain naivety. I don't think there is a very happy future for humanity in the coming decades and centuries. I for one, am just praying that I die before things start getting too bad. So CMV, can any of you really tell me I'm wrong? I doubt it, but I'm hoping for anything to make be feel less hopeless.

t3_2893td

CMV: Am I the only one who doesn't fins Monty Python funny?

My roommate loves everything Monty Python and he incessantly tries to get me to watch the sketches and the Holy Grail and I can't stand it! Every time someone comes over, he asks if they like it and there hasn't been a single person to say they dislike it so I come to the interwebs to see why their bits are funny. For example he made me sit down and watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail again and the beginning scene where the two are arguing about a swallow and a coconut and the weight of the coconut migrates north while the swallow isn't native to the area or something to that effect, I don't see what is funny! He is cracking up and I'm like what the ....? His argument is that because I love the movie Airplane! I should love this movie. So can someone explain why Monty Python is funny?

CMV: Am I the only one who doesn't fins Monty Python funny?. My roommate loves everything Monty Python and he incessantly tries to get me to watch the sketches and the Holy Grail and I can't stand it! Every time someone comes over, he asks if they like it and there hasn't been a single person to say they dislike it so I come to the interwebs to see why their bits are funny. For example he made me sit down and watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail again and the beginning scene where the two are arguing about a swallow and a coconut and the weight of the coconut migrates north while the swallow isn't native to the area or something to that effect, I don't see what is funny! He is cracking up and I'm like what the ....? His argument is that because I love the movie Airplane! I should love this movie. So can someone explain why Monty Python is funny?

t3_2dmipe

CMV: Life is meaningless, and there's no point to trying to prolong it as much as possible.

Whatever we do, ultimately, has no meaning. In the grand scheme of things, we are but a tiny speck of dust on a meaningless planet. That's why i say that trying to prolong life is absolutely useless. This includes tries to reanimate dying people, trying to find a special formula for immortality, and similar medical/engineering advances. Instead of finding ways to prolong life, we could better spend resources to make the life we've got more pleasurable. This would be a much better way to spend our time and resources, by actively trying to become a better and happier society, where death is just part of the cycle, with no taboos attached to it.

CMV: Life is meaningless, and there's no point to trying to prolong it as much as possible. Whatever we do, ultimately, has no meaning. In the grand scheme of things, we are but a tiny speck of dust on a meaningless planet. That's why i say that trying to prolong life is absolutely useless. This includes tries to reanimate dying people, trying to find a special formula for immortality, and similar medical/engineering advances. Instead of finding ways to prolong life, we could better spend resources to make the life we've got more pleasurable. This would be a much better way to spend our time and resources, by actively trying to become a better and happier society, where death is just part of the cycle, with no taboos attached to it.

t3_21unlx

CMV: Reddit (and the internet in general) has changed how I view white people and my whole outlook on life.

I know I shouldn't, but this site has kinda fucked up my mind a little. I've never experienced racism in my life, and I'm black (well, Native American and Welsh also) and I live in the deep south (Middle Georgia). Never had a problem, so for a large part of my life I was "racially unconscious" that I was black. I was never raised to judge someone based on the color of their skin. Fast forward about a month ago and I find out the dark side of things. I think it's safe to assume Reddit is majorly white right? So there's bound to be a few racist "jokes" here and there I don't mind. However, I'm starting to think these "jokes" aren't jokes at all, just outright racism disguised as such. I dug deeper and find out about some insanely racist subs like /r/GreatApes, /r/TrayvonMartin, /r/ImGoingToHellForThis (which for the most part is a circle jerk about how "le niggers are badd!111!"). Topix's forum, which I'm assuming are just lonely white guys sitting around talking shit about how black people are "inferior" and how them damn black are stealing "our" women. And last but not least, we get Stormfront. From what I hear around here I don't have to explain this one. I also don't think some white people understand what exactly white privilege is because I see countless post and such complaining about white rights and reverse racism (which doesn't mean what they think it means). A common theme on Reddit (and the internet) involving black people are basing everything about us on stereotypes; Single parents, deadbeat dads, speaking improper English, welfare, etc. To be honest I wasn't even aware these stereotypes existed because of my family, as some black people would say "acts white". There are no "deadbeat dads", they work, speak correctly, and have very loving families. Even during the Civil Rights movement my family was well respected, some of my great grandfather's best friends were white doctors, judges, officers, etc. And this was in GA in the 30's-70's. Looking at myself, I'm an 19 year old and probably what you'd call an Oreo. I'm "black on the outside and white on the inside." (whatever that even means) I caught crap for it from my black friends for not being one of them. A white guy said I'm one of the "good blacks". I've also had white people invite me to parties because "I'm one of them." But, I feel no matter how I act I'm never going to be "accepted". Which ties into dating. I like girls of every race. I don't discriminate, however I feel the favor isn't returned. Online dating is hell, I'm a pretty good looking guy (so I'm told) I think it's funny my average looking white friends do better than me, haha. I've never been rejected before because of my race. (Maybe I was and I was just naive about it) I'm also certain I'm going to run into problem from girls who won't date me because I'm black or parents disowning their children because of me. No matter how "white" I act. I'd like to finish by saying I don't hate white people I've just become consciously aware. Sorry about the wall of text, I had to vent a bit. I really appreciate any answers I get, thanks!

CMV: Reddit (and the internet in general) has changed how I view white people and my whole outlook on life. I know I shouldn't, but this site has kinda fucked up my mind a little. I've never experienced racism in my life, and I'm black (well, Native American and Welsh also) and I live in the deep south (Middle Georgia). Never had a problem, so for a large part of my life I was "racially unconscious" that I was black. I was never raised to judge someone based on the color of their skin. Fast forward about a month ago and I find out the dark side of things. I think it's safe to assume Reddit is majorly white right? So there's bound to be a few racist "jokes" here and there I don't mind. However, I'm starting to think these "jokes" aren't jokes at all, just outright racism disguised as such. I dug deeper and find out about some insanely racist subs like /r/GreatApes, /r/TrayvonMartin, /r/ImGoingToHellForThis (which for the most part is a circle jerk about how "le niggers are badd!111!"). Topix's forum, which I'm assuming are just lonely white guys sitting around talking shit about how black people are "inferior" and how them damn black are stealing "our" women. And last but not least, we get Stormfront. From what I hear around here I don't have to explain this one. I also don't think some white people understand what exactly white privilege is because I see countless post and such complaining about white rights and reverse racism (which doesn't mean what they think it means). A common theme on Reddit (and the internet) involving black people are basing everything about us on stereotypes; Single parents, deadbeat dads, speaking improper English, welfare, etc. To be honest I wasn't even aware these stereotypes existed because of my family, as some black people would say "acts white". There are no "deadbeat dads", they work, speak correctly, and have very loving families. Even during the Civil Rights movement my family was well respected, some of my great grandfather's best friends were white doctors, judges, officers, etc. And this was in GA in the 30's-70's. Looking at myself, I'm an 19 year old and probably what you'd call an Oreo. I'm "black on the outside and white on the inside." (whatever that even means) I caught crap for it from my black friends for not being one of them. A white guy said I'm one of the "good blacks". I've also had white people invite me to parties because "I'm one of them." But, I feel no matter how I act I'm never going to be "accepted". Which ties into dating. I like girls of every race. I don't discriminate, however I feel the favor isn't returned. Online dating is hell, I'm a pretty good looking guy (so I'm told) I think it's funny my average looking white friends do better than me, haha. I've never been rejected before because of my race. (Maybe I was and I was just naive about it) I'm also certain I'm going to run into problem from girls who won't date me because I'm black or parents disowning their children because of me. No matter how "white" I act. I'd like to finish by saying I don't hate white people I've just become consciously aware. Sorry about the wall of text, I had to vent a bit. I really appreciate any answers I get, thanks!

t3_38tqlc

CMV: No company, individual or affiliation should ever be allowed to waive the right to legal proceedings, the right to class action lawsuits or change the time line to undertake legal action.

i was browsing https://tosdr.org/ when I noticed that the majority of companies have terms and conditions that ensure their customers cannot take certain legal remedies. I was shocked: surely there should NEVER be any exemption of the legal rights of the individual because of a contract. Surely terms such as this should constitute Unfair Terms? I would argue that there should be certain inalienable rights for individuals by law, including the right ownership of all data (so a company cannot store your data indefinitely without consent, and cannot resell without consent). There should also be the right to take legal proceedings for breach of common or statute law, or for a breach of statutory duty, and these rights can never be violated or amended. No company should ever be above the law, and it should be illegal to have contract terms that cause someone to restrict their legal freedoms. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: No company, individual or affiliation should ever be allowed to waive the right to legal proceedings, the right to class action lawsuits or change the time line to undertake legal action. i was browsing https://tosdr.org/ when I noticed that the majority of companies have terms and conditions that ensure their customers cannot take certain legal remedies. I was shocked: surely there should NEVER be any exemption of the legal rights of the individual because of a contract. Surely terms such as this should constitute Unfair Terms? I would argue that there should be certain inalienable rights for individuals by law, including the right ownership of all data (so a company cannot store your data indefinitely without consent, and cannot resell without consent). There should also be the right to take legal proceedings for breach of common or statute law, or for a breach of statutory duty, and these rights can never be violated or amended. No company should ever be above the law, and it should be illegal to have contract terms that cause someone to restrict their legal freedoms.

t3_3gmy6x

CMV: Most spies or spy agencies in most recent spy movies would be horrible at their jobs in the real world.

In the recent spy movies we've had, there are very few spies that would make good spies. Recent films: * November Man: Senior CIA operative is involved with his target and tells no-one, creating a massive conflict of interest. It makes him go against his CIA superiors. * A Most Wanted Man: Covert ops spy gets his cover blown by relatively minor political attaché *working for the same government*. * RED series: zero stealth on the part of agencies in the films and the team of spies. Operative methods seem to be to blow/shoot shit up. * James Bond Series: Gets things done but in a usually very apparent and traceable way. Prone to get dangerously sidetracked from the mission by things that really don't matter. MI6 is infiltrated pretty often in the series, and there seems to be an issue with operational stealth on their end too. * Mission Impossible: See James Bond. Substitute MI6 with whatever Hawk works with. * Kingsman: See Mission Impossible. Substitute MI6 with "The Kingsmen". * Cold Light of Day: Agent tells a bunch of people he's an agent. * Bourne Series: Agency who is supposed to track Bourne is pretty bad at tracking Bourne, is infiltrated, is corrupt... Also likes to blow things up. Spy movie is too often synonymous with action movie, and it pisses me off, since spy work is almost exactly the opposite. *Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy* was a good one though. Most spy movies are more about super soldiers than super spies. CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Most spies or spy agencies in most recent spy movies would be horrible at their jobs in the real world. In the recent spy movies we've had, there are very few spies that would make good spies. Recent films: * November Man: Senior CIA operative is involved with his target and tells no-one, creating a massive conflict of interest. It makes him go against his CIA superiors. * A Most Wanted Man: Covert ops spy gets his cover blown by relatively minor political attaché *working for the same government*. * RED series: zero stealth on the part of agencies in the films and the team of spies. Operative methods seem to be to blow/shoot shit up. * James Bond Series: Gets things done but in a usually very apparent and traceable way. Prone to get dangerously sidetracked from the mission by things that really don't matter. MI6 is infiltrated pretty often in the series, and there seems to be an issue with operational stealth on their end too. * Mission Impossible: See James Bond. Substitute MI6 with whatever Hawk works with. * Kingsman: See Mission Impossible. Substitute MI6 with "The Kingsmen". * Cold Light of Day: Agent tells a bunch of people he's an agent. * Bourne Series: Agency who is supposed to track Bourne is pretty bad at tracking Bourne, is infiltrated, is corrupt... Also likes to blow things up. Spy movie is too often synonymous with action movie, and it pisses me off, since spy work is almost exactly the opposite. *Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy* was a good one though. Most spy movies are more about super soldiers than super spies. CMV!

t3_472nb3

CMV:National Margarita Day should not be in february

Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! _____ In Connecticut, this is one of the warmest February 22nd's I can remember, and yet it is still too damn cold for Margaritas. I suggest that it be switched with National Bourbon day (June 14th), because it is ludicrous to have a day dedicated to Margaritas in the winter when you have a day dedicated to Bourbon in the summer. Tonight I plan on enjoying a glass of bourbon, and on June 14th I will have a margarita - mark my words. Join me if you like, in a revolution against the establishment of booze-days. The 99% deserve warm weather for National Margarita Day! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:National Margarita Day should not be in february. Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! _____ In Connecticut, this is one of the warmest February 22nd's I can remember, and yet it is still too damn cold for Margaritas. I suggest that it be switched with National Bourbon day (June 14th), because it is ludicrous to have a day dedicated to Margaritas in the winter when you have a day dedicated to Bourbon in the summer. Tonight I plan on enjoying a glass of bourbon, and on June 14th I will have a margarita - mark my words. Join me if you like, in a revolution against the establishment of booze-days. The 99% deserve warm weather for National Margarita Day! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_44vbkk

CMV: Modern Art isn't art at all.

From [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI): >An empty room with the lights switching on and off, a blue canvass with a white line down the middle, a urinal, people running around in a circle with their fingers up each other's butts, this masterpiece (blank canvas with black scribble on it), an unmade bed, Yoko Ono screaming like a demented bitch, Modern Art or Conceptual Art isn't art at all. It's one big circle jerk of pretentious twats trying to make themselves look sophisticated by ascribing meaning to something that's completely meaningless. I agree with this video as well as [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc) from PragerU (not a real university) about how bad modern art is. It seems to have gone from creating something aesthetically beautiful that evokes emotion to simply appealing to scatological and offensiveness to evoke emotion. [Dipping Christ in urine](http://deeperstory.projects.cacpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pisschrist_Extendo_by_Erevis.jpg), [the Virgin Mary encrusted in elephant dung](https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/holy-virgin-mary.jpeg?quality=75&strip=color&w=814), [a female German police officer pissing on the floor](http://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/article/de/32419.jpg), [a large dog pissing on the LA Museum of Modern Art](http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/2013/03/01/richard_jackson_bad_dog_pee_orange_county_museum_art_1/lead_large.jpg) are just some examples of celebrated modern art that has little aesthetic value and resorts to filth and bodily functions to illicit emotions. And then there's much of other art that doesn't seem to require much talent. Apparently there have been several instances where janitorial staff mistook modern art for trash and disposed of it. There's the famous case of Pierre Brassau, a chimpanzee given an easel and paint brushes, whose "art" was celebrated by critics. [Toddlers fooling art critics](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499240/Toddler-fools-art-world-buying-tomato-ketchup-paintings.html). Pranksters putting a [cheap IKEA print](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002712/Pranksters-cheap-IKEA-print-art-gallery-ask-experts-value-saying-worth-nearly-2million.html) in a frame and it is praised by gallery viewers. I can pay $35 at some Wine and Painting studio and within 2 hours produce a somewhat similar version of "[A Starry Night](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/1280px-Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg). With just a bit of effort, I could probably create a very close copy of that (and many other impressionist) pieces of art that would be indistinguishable from the original to the average lay person. I cannot say the same for the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, The Persistence of Memory, the Birth of Venus or the Milkmade, just give a few examples. How is it considered "great art" when someone with minimal training in art can faithfully replicate a "masterpiece" with minimal effort? So change my view that much of modern art is talentless crap that does little more than to our base repulsion of excrement in order to illicit an emotional response or that's so abstract that meaning is attached to it when it's indistinguishable for trash or so simplistic a lay person could easily recreate it. **EDIT I simply took the title for my post from the first Youtube video linked, and admittedly it is not a good representation of what I'm asking you to change my view on. Yes modern art is technically art. My contention is that it's just shit, compared to the vast majority of classical art before the impressionist era.**

CMV: Modern Art isn't art at all. From [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI): >An empty room with the lights switching on and off, a blue canvass with a white line down the middle, a urinal, people running around in a circle with their fingers up each other's butts, this masterpiece (blank canvas with black scribble on it), an unmade bed, Yoko Ono screaming like a demented bitch, Modern Art or Conceptual Art isn't art at all. It's one big circle jerk of pretentious twats trying to make themselves look sophisticated by ascribing meaning to something that's completely meaningless. I agree with this video as well as [this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc) from PragerU (not a real university) about how bad modern art is. It seems to have gone from creating something aesthetically beautiful that evokes emotion to simply appealing to scatological and offensiveness to evoke emotion. [Dipping Christ in urine](http://deeperstory.projects.cacpro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Pisschrist_Extendo_by_Erevis.jpg), [the Virgin Mary encrusted in elephant dung](https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/holy-virgin-mary.jpeg?quality=75&strip=color&w=814), [a female German police officer pissing on the floor](http://www.thelocal.de/userdata/images/article/de/32419.jpg), [a large dog pissing on the LA Museum of Modern Art](http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/2013/03/01/richard_jackson_bad_dog_pee_orange_county_museum_art_1/lead_large.jpg) are just some examples of celebrated modern art that has little aesthetic value and resorts to filth and bodily functions to illicit emotions. And then there's much of other art that doesn't seem to require much talent. Apparently there have been several instances where janitorial staff mistook modern art for trash and disposed of it. There's the famous case of Pierre Brassau, a chimpanzee given an easel and paint brushes, whose "art" was celebrated by critics. [Toddlers fooling art critics](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499240/Toddler-fools-art-world-buying-tomato-ketchup-paintings.html). Pranksters putting a [cheap IKEA print](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002712/Pranksters-cheap-IKEA-print-art-gallery-ask-experts-value-saying-worth-nearly-2million.html) in a frame and it is praised by gallery viewers. I can pay $35 at some Wine and Painting studio and within 2 hours produce a somewhat similar version of "[A Starry Night](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/1280px-Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg). With just a bit of effort, I could probably create a very close copy of that (and many other impressionist) pieces of art that would be indistinguishable from the original to the average lay person. I cannot say the same for the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, The Persistence of Memory, the Birth of Venus or the Milkmade, just give a few examples. How is it considered "great art" when someone with minimal training in art can faithfully replicate a "masterpiece" with minimal effort? So change my view that much of modern art is talentless crap that does little more than to our base repulsion of excrement in order to illicit an emotional response or that's so abstract that meaning is attached to it when it's indistinguishable for trash or so simplistic a lay person could easily recreate it. **EDIT I simply took the title for my post from the first Youtube video linked, and admittedly it is not a good representation of what I'm asking you to change my view on. Yes modern art is technically art. My contention is that it's just shit, compared to the vast majority of classical art before the impressionist era.**

t3_21fkh6

CMV: I believe if a species is no longer able to reproduce they would become extinct. By this definition, wouldn't homosexuality be seen as something of a bad thing in humans?

Full Disclaimer i am in full favor of Same-Sex marriage and have voted in favor of it. But this is more of a philosophical question and something i wonder. If everyone in our species adapted the behavior before our scientific breakthroughs (artificial insemination and so on), wouldn't this have been considered a plague/virus? (wrong terminology) I am curious how science would explain something like this. I imagine if any other animal went from bisexuality to homosexuality, they'd be extinct? Or could evolution be so quick to allow self-insemination _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe if a species is no longer able to reproduce they would become extinct. By this definition, wouldn't homosexuality be seen as something of a bad thing in humans?. Full Disclaimer i am in full favor of Same-Sex marriage and have voted in favor of it. But this is more of a philosophical question and something i wonder. If everyone in our species adapted the behavior before our scientific breakthroughs (artificial insemination and so on), wouldn't this have been considered a plague/virus? (wrong terminology) I am curious how science would explain something like this. I imagine if any other animal went from bisexuality to homosexuality, they'd be extinct? Or could evolution be so quick to allow self-insemination

t3_1e9l9g

Movie adaptations will almost always be poorly recieved, regardless of how good the movie is, solely because it is adapted. CMV.

**This should say "be devalued" rather than "poorly recieved". Thank you for pointing out all the good movies, but that's not exactly what I meant.** This is especially true of adaptations of literary classics or extremely popular works. The best example being The Great Gatsby. The movie was, by almost any measure, brilliant. The acting, the setting, the music (even though they had Jay-Z, it really worked), were all amazing. I feel that it perfectly captured the life of excess, extravagence, and debauchery described in the book. But it has gotten mediocre reviews. Enders Game looks like it will be another very accurate and well-made adaptation. And I'm sure that it will be recieved as decent, but not great. Partly because people will always be comparing the book to the film, and partly because there is no value added to the story by putting it in film format. You can't add surprises or twists without outraging the purists; you can't make a word for word reproduction without boring the audience. It's a lose-lose. To be fair, some of the best films are adaptations (The Godfather, the Lord of the Rings, ect) but they very rare, and are still usually recieved far less warmly than the books. Edit: view changed. Well done /u/cahpahkah.

Movie adaptations will almost always be poorly recieved, regardless of how good the movie is, solely because it is adapted. CMV. **This should say "be devalued" rather than "poorly recieved". Thank you for pointing out all the good movies, but that's not exactly what I meant.** This is especially true of adaptations of literary classics or extremely popular works. The best example being The Great Gatsby. The movie was, by almost any measure, brilliant. The acting, the setting, the music (even though they had Jay-Z, it really worked), were all amazing. I feel that it perfectly captured the life of excess, extravagence, and debauchery described in the book. But it has gotten mediocre reviews. Enders Game looks like it will be another very accurate and well-made adaptation. And I'm sure that it will be recieved as decent, but not great. Partly because people will always be comparing the book to the film, and partly because there is no value added to the story by putting it in film format. You can't add surprises or twists without outraging the purists; you can't make a word for word reproduction without boring the audience. It's a lose-lose. To be fair, some of the best films are adaptations (The Godfather, the Lord of the Rings, ect) but they very rare, and are still usually recieved far less warmly than the books. Edit: view changed. Well done /u/cahpahkah.

t3_24hut2

CMV: BuzzFeed is the greatest website of all time and will become history's most prominent media org

They're the 10th largest website in the US and like 120 globally...and they're still growing. Disney tried to purchase them recently but BuzzFeed told them to screw off because they couldn't afford them. How can they possibly not become the most successful, prominent news org in the history of mankind when they're on such a roll? They're content is ultra-viral and in addition to that they've started to hire pullitzer prize winning journalists. The NYT can't complete because they're broke and 20 years behind the industry in every meaningful way. Thought Catalog doesn't have deep enough pockets, nor does the Atlantic. BuzzFeed is the future of the industry. They'll eventually become their own conglomerate seeing as they already control the online content/journalism industry via content partnerships and their BuzzFeed network (other sites using buzzfeed's ads and analytics software). And on social (the biggest and most important aspect of media), they're LIGHT YEARS above everyone else because Jonah Peretti is friends w/Zuckerberg (and BuzzFeed pays FB for better placement in their algorithms). Disprove all of this. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: BuzzFeed is the greatest website of all time and will become history's most prominent media org. They're the 10th largest website in the US and like 120 globally...and they're still growing. Disney tried to purchase them recently but BuzzFeed told them to screw off because they couldn't afford them. How can they possibly not become the most successful, prominent news org in the history of mankind when they're on such a roll? They're content is ultra-viral and in addition to that they've started to hire pullitzer prize winning journalists. The NYT can't complete because they're broke and 20 years behind the industry in every meaningful way. Thought Catalog doesn't have deep enough pockets, nor does the Atlantic. BuzzFeed is the future of the industry. They'll eventually become their own conglomerate seeing as they already control the online content/journalism industry via content partnerships and their BuzzFeed network (other sites using buzzfeed's ads and analytics software). And on social (the biggest and most important aspect of media), they're LIGHT YEARS above everyone else because Jonah Peretti is friends w/Zuckerberg (and BuzzFeed pays FB for better placement in their algorithms). Disprove all of this.

t3_71eo0p

CMV: The fix for world hunger must include sterilisation.

I think the only proper solution to ending world hunger will have to include sterilisation of the poor/hungry. I don't mean forceful sterilisation or anything crazy; But a well conducted globally coordinated food-for-sterilisation program. It seems that all efforts to simply supply starving people world-wide with food results in the people inevitably multiplying vigorously due to their newfound resources, causing a much bigger problem 12-15 years down the track. 'Teaching them to fish' also seems to be a short sighted solution because it would take the resources of the entire western world to solve the problem with modern technology. You can't teach someone to fish when there are massive educational problems, and societal problems like war-lords enslaving anyone strong enough to fight such that they don't have time to farm anyway. Not only that be the resources themselves are limited, with world population heading to 10 billion in the near future, most of the growth frighteningly enough is coming from the starving parts of the world. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The fix for world hunger must include sterilisation. I think the only proper solution to ending world hunger will have to include sterilisation of the poor/hungry. I don't mean forceful sterilisation or anything crazy; But a well conducted globally coordinated food-for-sterilisation program. It seems that all efforts to simply supply starving people world-wide with food results in the people inevitably multiplying vigorously due to their newfound resources, causing a much bigger problem 12-15 years down the track. 'Teaching them to fish' also seems to be a short sighted solution because it would take the resources of the entire western world to solve the problem with modern technology. You can't teach someone to fish when there are massive educational problems, and societal problems like war-lords enslaving anyone strong enough to fight such that they don't have time to farm anyway. Not only that be the resources themselves are limited, with world population heading to 10 billion in the near future, most of the growth frighteningly enough is coming from the starving parts of the world.

t3_4gnda3

CMV: Though the situation shouldn't remain as it is, I don't believe we should let people use whatever bathroom they identify with.

Took me a little while to word the title right but I think I got there in the end. When you make a law it's important in most situations that you make it clear cut of whether someone is breaking it or not. This should not be left to discretion of police officers as they should be enforcing laws, not judging them. This is to avoid human bias as well as other issues. With that said it's difficult to create a clear cut law which lets, true honest trans people use the bathroom while excluding those who would use it for more vulgar things. Since there is no way to 'prove' whether someone is actually trans gendered it would make a law like that impossible with out either giving it to the discretion of police officers (see above) or putting a condition in along the lines that they must: 'look like the opposite gender'. Creating a condition that a trans person must look like the opposite gender isn't good because then it becomes a matter of whether or not they look like a male/female. There is also a matter of gender neutral clothing and looks as well as situations, such as school uniforms where the person can't be in the clothes for the gender they identify as. The law shouldn't depend on fashion. The argument "Not many people will try and a abuse this law" Will not change my view. We can't just rely on people's good intentions all the time and need to put safeguards in case of abuse of the system. Even though I don't think that things should stay the way they currently are, simply letting people use the bathroom they identify as isn't the solution and instead would require a big re-design on how bathrooms are approached. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Though the situation shouldn't remain as it is, I don't believe we should let people use whatever bathroom they identify with. Took me a little while to word the title right but I think I got there in the end. When you make a law it's important in most situations that you make it clear cut of whether someone is breaking it or not. This should not be left to discretion of police officers as they should be enforcing laws, not judging them. This is to avoid human bias as well as other issues. With that said it's difficult to create a clear cut law which lets, true honest trans people use the bathroom while excluding those who would use it for more vulgar things. Since there is no way to 'prove' whether someone is actually trans gendered it would make a law like that impossible with out either giving it to the discretion of police officers (see above) or putting a condition in along the lines that they must: 'look like the opposite gender'. Creating a condition that a trans person must look like the opposite gender isn't good because then it becomes a matter of whether or not they look like a male/female. There is also a matter of gender neutral clothing and looks as well as situations, such as school uniforms where the person can't be in the clothes for the gender they identify as. The law shouldn't depend on fashion. The argument "Not many people will try and a abuse this law" Will not change my view. We can't just rely on people's good intentions all the time and need to put safeguards in case of abuse of the system. Even though I don't think that things should stay the way they currently are, simply letting people use the bathroom they identify as isn't the solution and instead would require a big re-design on how bathrooms are approached.

t3_1bvasx

I think America should cut our military budget in half. CMV

We already have the largest military in the world and spend more than 3 times as much as next rest of the top ten military spenders combined. I can't see ANY reason that having that much expenditure benefits us at all and I think we're just throwing away money. I would love to actually think that we were doing something smart with it.

I think America should cut our military budget in half. CMV. We already have the largest military in the world and spend more than 3 times as much as next rest of the top ten military spenders combined. I can't see ANY reason that having that much expenditure benefits us at all and I think we're just throwing away money. I would love to actually think that we were doing something smart with it.

t3_602p0p

CMV: I should bite the bullet and buy a Mac. It's overpriced, but at least it's reliable.

I used to dislike Apple, but I realized that all my efforts to avoid buying a Mac didn't work. Now, I decided I'll either buy an Imac or a Macbook Air. I'm a broke student. I'll work, liquidate junk I'm not using, be very frugal, save money. But I want a computer that I know can last me 5 years (10 if I want it to). I hate to be anecdotal, but just about everyone I know who has a Mac has owned it for a long while. This is a large cost for me. I don't take it lightly. It will hurt. But it's the right decision in the long run. People like my grandparents think its crazy to spend that kind of money on one thing and look at me like I'm trying to make a fashion statement. But if my bank account had eroded $200 at a time, no alarms would have sounded off. In the past 5 years: * I bought an $700 gaming PC that broke down after 2 years. Plus $150 for the monitor. * I bought a Kindle Fire for $100 and it was crap. YGWYPF. * I bought a $250 Chromebook with a bad display, bad speaker and was missing lots of features on PC/Mac. * I bought a $500 laptop which broke down a year later due to power supply problems. Not even going to get it repaired. It's a sunk cost. I put Linux on there, but it's a headache. It still can only do slightly more than a tablet. * I bought a $200 Nvidia Shield K1 tablet. I have it now. It's great for what it is, but it still can't run professional apps. And it's a hassle to do things that a real computer would do with ease. I can't edit videos or record music. That's $1800 in 5 years. I could've gotten a Mac for half of that and it would've likely been running to this day rather than a bunch of stop-gap computers. I want my view point to be changed. I really do. If I could spend half the money and get a machine that's just as capable yet still reliable, I would.

CMV: I should bite the bullet and buy a Mac. It's overpriced, but at least it's reliable. I used to dislike Apple, but I realized that all my efforts to avoid buying a Mac didn't work. Now, I decided I'll either buy an Imac or a Macbook Air. I'm a broke student. I'll work, liquidate junk I'm not using, be very frugal, save money. But I want a computer that I know can last me 5 years (10 if I want it to). I hate to be anecdotal, but just about everyone I know who has a Mac has owned it for a long while. This is a large cost for me. I don't take it lightly. It will hurt. But it's the right decision in the long run. People like my grandparents think its crazy to spend that kind of money on one thing and look at me like I'm trying to make a fashion statement. But if my bank account had eroded $200 at a time, no alarms would have sounded off. In the past 5 years: * I bought an $700 gaming PC that broke down after 2 years. Plus $150 for the monitor. * I bought a Kindle Fire for $100 and it was crap. YGWYPF. * I bought a $250 Chromebook with a bad display, bad speaker and was missing lots of features on PC/Mac. * I bought a $500 laptop which broke down a year later due to power supply problems. Not even going to get it repaired. It's a sunk cost. I put Linux on there, but it's a headache. It still can only do slightly more than a tablet. * I bought a $200 Nvidia Shield K1 tablet. I have it now. It's great for what it is, but it still can't run professional apps. And it's a hassle to do things that a real computer would do with ease. I can't edit videos or record music. That's $1800 in 5 years. I could've gotten a Mac for half of that and it would've likely been running to this day rather than a bunch of stop-gap computers. I want my view point to be changed. I really do. If I could spend half the money and get a machine that's just as capable yet still reliable, I would.

t3_4g04of

CMV: Universities should eliminate upper division general education course requirements.

Most high school students are required to complete general education courses in a variety of topics including algebra, geometry, statistics, calculus, nutrition, chemistry, biology, anatomy, political science, national and world history. Once these students achieve their high school diploma and go on to college they are once again be required to take more general education classes in lower division. Sometimes the students learn a new topic or something they did not take in high school; this makes the lower division general education courses necessary. However, it is unnecessary to waste funding and professors time as well as the students money requiring another set of general education at the upper division level. Students are often frustrated with struggling to get into these impacted courses that they typically have no real interest in. Upper division general education should be offered as electives, giving the students the opportunity to choose their classes as adults. Once a college student reaches the upper division level they should be focusing on their major and looking for internships in their field of interest. These upper division requirements take away from the purpose of declaring a major at a university. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Universities should eliminate upper division general education course requirements. Most high school students are required to complete general education courses in a variety of topics including algebra, geometry, statistics, calculus, nutrition, chemistry, biology, anatomy, political science, national and world history. Once these students achieve their high school diploma and go on to college they are once again be required to take more general education classes in lower division. Sometimes the students learn a new topic or something they did not take in high school; this makes the lower division general education courses necessary. However, it is unnecessary to waste funding and professors time as well as the students money requiring another set of general education at the upper division level. Students are often frustrated with struggling to get into these impacted courses that they typically have no real interest in. Upper division general education should be offered as electives, giving the students the opportunity to choose their classes as adults. Once a college student reaches the upper division level they should be focusing on their major and looking for internships in their field of interest. These upper division requirements take away from the purpose of declaring a major at a university.

t3_5lb7kv

CMV: locking threads is partially a sign of laziness and partially a sign of not caring about a community

/r/science has >1000 mods. /r/askscience has 411. I haven't had any issues from adding moderators, either finding them or with unruly ones. The worst thing that any mod I've added has done in the time I've been moderating, IIRC, is remove a meta thread and become idle. Clearly it is possible to add mods until you have enough from all over the world to remove any number of rulebreaking comments at any time. With mod permissions and the wiki system, adding mods presents minimal potential for trolling and any that does happen is largely easily undone. Therefore if mods lock a thread instead of adding enough new mods to handle the flood of rulebreaking stuff, it's a sign that they don't care enough about a given community to let them speak. CMV.

CMV: locking threads is partially a sign of laziness and partially a sign of not caring about a community. /r/science has >1000 mods. /r/askscience has 411. I haven't had any issues from adding moderators, either finding them or with unruly ones. The worst thing that any mod I've added has done in the time I've been moderating, IIRC, is remove a meta thread and become idle. Clearly it is possible to add mods until you have enough from all over the world to remove any number of rulebreaking comments at any time. With mod permissions and the wiki system, adding mods presents minimal potential for trolling and any that does happen is largely easily undone. Therefore if mods lock a thread instead of adding enough new mods to handle the flood of rulebreaking stuff, it's a sign that they don't care enough about a given community to let them speak. CMV.

t3_2dm1ar

CMV: Kids are better off growing up dirty.

I grew up on a farm that had livestock and I had been helping out in some capacity since I could walk. My dad got out of dairy farming in the early 90's crisis so when I was first walking in the barn I'd fall in the shit gutter sometimes. One time I was sucking milk off a teat and the cow kicked me into the gutter as my dad turned it on. I was covered in shit and couldn't get out. I ended up on top of the shit pile outside. After this he got into pigs and I was paid in beanie babies and legos for my efforts pitching the shit. I've been through a lot of stuff and the only time I had ever been seriously sick was when I had chickenpox. It got to the point that whenever there was a serious flu I'd do stuff like ask potentially sick people to cough in my face and lick doorknobs. When I was in college a flu got about a third of my dorm and I did the same thing. I got the sniffles a little but a lot of people were down hard.

CMV: Kids are better off growing up dirty. I grew up on a farm that had livestock and I had been helping out in some capacity since I could walk. My dad got out of dairy farming in the early 90's crisis so when I was first walking in the barn I'd fall in the shit gutter sometimes. One time I was sucking milk off a teat and the cow kicked me into the gutter as my dad turned it on. I was covered in shit and couldn't get out. I ended up on top of the shit pile outside. After this he got into pigs and I was paid in beanie babies and legos for my efforts pitching the shit. I've been through a lot of stuff and the only time I had ever been seriously sick was when I had chickenpox. It got to the point that whenever there was a serious flu I'd do stuff like ask potentially sick people to cough in my face and lick doorknobs. When I was in college a flu got about a third of my dorm and I did the same thing. I got the sniffles a little but a lot of people were down hard.

t3_1wapoa

The Grammys are a sham. CMV.

The Grammy awards only exist to get millions of people to watch tv so that advertisers can reach a bigger audience, and to get "credibility" to celebrity musicians so that people pay even more attention to them. They only highlight the current super-huge celebrity musicians who are only there because they're the most marketable. Actually good musicians and songwriters never get Grammys because advertisers know that very few people actually give a shit about good music. I haven't gone through all of the winners this year, but seriously? Thrift Shop winning best rap song? Get Lucky winning record of the year? Girl on Fire winning best R&B album? This is all about money, nothing else. I know that everyone's taste in music is different and I admit that I am not the ultimate authority on good music, but some of this shit is just so obviously meant to cater to the lowest common denominator. "Blurred Lines" nominated for best pop vocal album? Be honest. Would ANYONE have given a shit about that horrid song if the music video had anything other than naked models? Change my view.

The Grammys are a sham. CMV. The Grammy awards only exist to get millions of people to watch tv so that advertisers can reach a bigger audience, and to get "credibility" to celebrity musicians so that people pay even more attention to them. They only highlight the current super-huge celebrity musicians who are only there because they're the most marketable. Actually good musicians and songwriters never get Grammys because advertisers know that very few people actually give a shit about good music. I haven't gone through all of the winners this year, but seriously? Thrift Shop winning best rap song? Get Lucky winning record of the year? Girl on Fire winning best R&B album? This is all about money, nothing else. I know that everyone's taste in music is different and I admit that I am not the ultimate authority on good music, but some of this shit is just so obviously meant to cater to the lowest common denominator. "Blurred Lines" nominated for best pop vocal album? Be honest. Would ANYONE have given a shit about that horrid song if the music video had anything other than naked models? Change my view.

t3_4mvhuo

CMV: English should not be mandatory in the HSC curriculum

In australia, the HSC is the final course and exam of high school. You can choose what subjects you want to study, but 2 units (of at least 10, with most courses being 2 unit) english. I believe that this is a stupid requirement and should be abolished. aI have three arguments: 1/ The skills learnt in HSC english have no use unless going into an english-based field. I have no need to be able to create a creative writing piece, or analyse some text in relation to some abstract topic. The general mathematics course would be much more useful to the average person. 2/ It disadvantages those who have english as a second language. It is hard enough for those with english as a second language, they do not need the extra difficulty of the english exam unfairly lowering their ATAR marks. 3/The basic concepts in HSC english have already been taught in years 9-10. The only thing in the HSC course is a deeper look into the stuff already learnt in years 9-10, with different texts. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: English should not be mandatory in the HSC curriculum. In australia, the HSC is the final course and exam of high school. You can choose what subjects you want to study, but 2 units (of at least 10, with most courses being 2 unit) english. I believe that this is a stupid requirement and should be abolished. aI have three arguments: 1/ The skills learnt in HSC english have no use unless going into an english-based field. I have no need to be able to create a creative writing piece, or analyse some text in relation to some abstract topic. The general mathematics course would be much more useful to the average person. 2/ It disadvantages those who have english as a second language. It is hard enough for those with english as a second language, they do not need the extra difficulty of the english exam unfairly lowering their ATAR marks. 3/The basic concepts in HSC english have already been taught in years 9-10. The only thing in the HSC course is a deeper look into the stuff already learnt in years 9-10, with different texts.

t3_5bjm8w

CMV: Nuclear Power is the best alternative power solution to replace current conventional power infrastructure of both the short and long term.

Over the last few months I find myself constantly debating with people that nuclear power should be the future. Most people seem to think that solar and wind for example are better solutions, but I firmly believe in nuclear. The efficiency is there. The new tech for reactors, like Flouride and Thorium Salt reactors have huge upsides, fusion may not be that far away with increased funding, [as seen here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png). The arguments against nuclear mostly cite disasters like Fukushima, and Chernobyl. Though Nuclear seems to have a great safety record all things considered(6 "disasters" is 100 years or so). Of course there are all the people who associate nuclear with weaponry, but that is just ignorant of the true benefits nuclear provides. I would always retort back that currently the efficiency and value of photo-voltaic cells and wind turbines isn't there, and tidal and geo-thermal power are both costly and may not provide a large enough upside if developed. Not only that but the technology for tidal is quite far off. Hydro seems to follow but the environmental impact is huge over time, where as coal produces more net ionizing radiation than nuclear does. Next you have LNG, but the extraction and transport seem to cause issues(Living in BC this is a pretty big debate as we are trying to really jump start heavy extraction and export of LNG to the Asia-Pacific region.) So, CMV about nuclear being mankind's savior from climate change. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Nuclear Power is the best alternative power solution to replace current conventional power infrastructure of both the short and long term. Over the last few months I find myself constantly debating with people that nuclear power should be the future. Most people seem to think that solar and wind for example are better solutions, but I firmly believe in nuclear. The efficiency is there. The new tech for reactors, like Flouride and Thorium Salt reactors have huge upsides, fusion may not be that far away with increased funding, [as seen here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/U.S._historical_fusion_budget_vs._1976_ERDA_plan.png). The arguments against nuclear mostly cite disasters like Fukushima, and Chernobyl. Though Nuclear seems to have a great safety record all things considered(6 "disasters" is 100 years or so). Of course there are all the people who associate nuclear with weaponry, but that is just ignorant of the true benefits nuclear provides. I would always retort back that currently the efficiency and value of photo-voltaic cells and wind turbines isn't there, and tidal and geo-thermal power are both costly and may not provide a large enough upside if developed. Not only that but the technology for tidal is quite far off. Hydro seems to follow but the environmental impact is huge over time, where as coal produces more net ionizing radiation than nuclear does. Next you have LNG, but the extraction and transport seem to cause issues(Living in BC this is a pretty big debate as we are trying to really jump start heavy extraction and export of LNG to the Asia-Pacific region.) So, CMV about nuclear being mankind's savior from climate change.

t3_2mnthx

CMV: I believe the future of global society is dark and sinister

I just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society. Governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before. Europe's economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society (such as its highly developed social security ). Wealth distribution is at its worst since 1929 ([source](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-chart-2?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/somearemoreequalthanothers)) . Meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics - and possibly influence. While I do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 200 years of social progress is slowly being erased.

CMV: I believe the future of global society is dark and sinister. I just feel like the future looks very sinister for the global society. Governments are spying on us more than ever, they have the ability to manipulate and oppress us on a scale never seen before. Europe's economy is slowly crumbling and with it many its advancements to society (such as its highly developed social security ). Wealth distribution is at its worst since 1929 ([source](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-chart-2?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/somearemoreequalthanothers)) . Meanwhile china, a country which is known for oppression, censorship, lack of freedom, democracy, etc, is on the rise to become the next global superpower in terms of economics - and possibly influence. While I do realize this is a going to be a slow process that will take decades, it just seems inevitable that 200 years of social progress is slowly being erased.

t3_2qpaw9

CMV: People subscribed to subs like /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/greatapes, /r/justneckbeardthings, or any other sub dedicated to deriding strangers only do it because they have something in their lives that makes them angry that may be related to the people they hate.

For instance, in 'real life', interracial relationships are often an annoyance for racists. However, if you were to canvas groups who don't like interracial couples such as skinheads, you'd be surprised at how many of these people are single. (Well not surprised but you get my point) It isn't so much that they think it's 'race-betraying' as much as it it 'Why are they happy? Why don't I have a partner?' when they see any couple. So when they see this, being fuelled by their racism they begin to get even more angry. In another instance, someone was arguing with me (in the Doctor Who subreddit no less, a show based around being open minded and kind where possible essentially)and robots) about him hating fat people (constant poster to /r/fatpeoplehate) I kept stating that there is no way someone completely happy and confident would post to a sub like that, so I asked what he isn't happy about. I mean, how many people can Bill Gates hate? Eventually I was proved right when he admitted that he was short but "IT SO TOTALLY DOESN'T BOTHER ME I JUST HATE FAT PEOPLE THEY'RE DISGUSTING" so in his mind he hates that he is short, which whilst there is nothing wrong with being wrong with short it is definitely something unfairly targeted in our society. So what does someone like him do with their anger? Take it out on other people who they *feel* deserves the hate such as fat people who in his mind totally deserve it as they are letting themselves go. Once again, it isn't so much that he just hates fat people more that he hates something about himself. EDIT: This thing submitted itself by accident. I was also going to add that for subs like /r/justneckbeardthings, it wouldn't be so much that they're disgusted by 'neckbeards' more that they have something wrong in their lives. Maybe they lost a job? Dropped out of college? Got dumped? Whatever it is, it's something they would find unfair. So when they someone like a neckbeard, someone who according to popular culture is a loser and shouldn't exist, it angers them that even 'those losers' can be happy. "These guys were bullied in school! How can they be happy! Why aren't I happy! I fucking hate them!!!" etc My point is largely that nothing happens in a bubble, and that most hate is just misdirected anger and frustration. Not that this should justify it nor should we forgive it. We should just try to understand it.

CMV: People subscribed to subs like /r/fatpeoplehate, /r/greatapes, /r/justneckbeardthings, or any other sub dedicated to deriding strangers only do it because they have something in their lives that makes them angry that may be related to the people they hate. For instance, in 'real life', interracial relationships are often an annoyance for racists. However, if you were to canvas groups who don't like interracial couples such as skinheads, you'd be surprised at how many of these people are single. (Well not surprised but you get my point) It isn't so much that they think it's 'race-betraying' as much as it it 'Why are they happy? Why don't I have a partner?' when they see any couple. So when they see this, being fuelled by their racism they begin to get even more angry. In another instance, someone was arguing with me (in the Doctor Who subreddit no less, a show based around being open minded and kind where possible essentially)and robots) about him hating fat people (constant poster to /r/fatpeoplehate) I kept stating that there is no way someone completely happy and confident would post to a sub like that, so I asked what he isn't happy about. I mean, how many people can Bill Gates hate? Eventually I was proved right when he admitted that he was short but "IT SO TOTALLY DOESN'T BOTHER ME I JUST HATE FAT PEOPLE THEY'RE DISGUSTING" so in his mind he hates that he is short, which whilst there is nothing wrong with being wrong with short it is definitely something unfairly targeted in our society. So what does someone like him do with their anger? Take it out on other people who they *feel* deserves the hate such as fat people who in his mind totally deserve it as they are letting themselves go. Once again, it isn't so much that he just hates fat people more that he hates something about himself. EDIT: This thing submitted itself by accident. I was also going to add that for subs like /r/justneckbeardthings, it wouldn't be so much that they're disgusted by 'neckbeards' more that they have something wrong in their lives. Maybe they lost a job? Dropped out of college? Got dumped? Whatever it is, it's something they would find unfair. So when they someone like a neckbeard, someone who according to popular culture is a loser and shouldn't exist, it angers them that even 'those losers' can be happy. "These guys were bullied in school! How can they be happy! Why aren't I happy! I fucking hate them!!!" etc My point is largely that nothing happens in a bubble, and that most hate is just misdirected anger and frustration. Not that this should justify it nor should we forgive it. We should just try to understand it.

t3_1fakkk

I think GMO's are not only safe, but that the controversy surrounding them is largely conspiracy nonsense fueled by anger at Monsanto's business practices. CMV?

Humans have been adapting the food we grow for as long as we've had the slightest knowledge of genetics. Everything from gene manipulation to selective breeding is a type of genetic modification, meaning it's difficult if not impossible to buy any food humans haven't modified genetically to fit our needs. I can't help but feel that the bad press surrounding genetically modified food (or more accurately, food that has had its genes artificially manipulated in the lab, since that's the only type of GMO anyone seems to care about) is borne of foodies and conspiracy nuts, and fanned by everyone's hatred of Monsanto for their (admittedly terrible) business practices. What don't I know that I should about this?

I think GMO's are not only safe, but that the controversy surrounding them is largely conspiracy nonsense fueled by anger at Monsanto's business practices. CMV?. Humans have been adapting the food we grow for as long as we've had the slightest knowledge of genetics. Everything from gene manipulation to selective breeding is a type of genetic modification, meaning it's difficult if not impossible to buy any food humans haven't modified genetically to fit our needs. I can't help but feel that the bad press surrounding genetically modified food (or more accurately, food that has had its genes artificially manipulated in the lab, since that's the only type of GMO anyone seems to care about) is borne of foodies and conspiracy nuts, and fanned by everyone's hatred of Monsanto for their (admittedly terrible) business practices. What don't I know that I should about this?

t3_5tpevn

CMV: The current wave of nationalism and anti imigration has little chance of taking hold in Canada in the near future.

Canada has long be an extremely progressive country. I mean our conservatives are called the progressive Conservative party. It seems Canada is one of the only western countries that is having very little anti immigration sentiment rising. I think with the recent announcement that the promised election reform won't take place (proportional representation won't happen) is actually somewhat of a safegourd against a white nationalist party forming. I don't see the progressive conservatives electing a trumpesue figure in the near future. Most of the prominent Conservative voices are focused on carbon taxes and jobs. I do see some anti sjw sentiment in regards to black lives matter Toronto. I think that organization has proved itself to be a non liberal group when it forced off duty police to leave pride. And Jordan Peterson has sprouted a lot of controversy over trans issues. But I don't see this as evidence of a darker movement but just the natural effect of when progressives are so unchecked that they enforce hundreds of pronouns through the law. So am i missing something? Is Canada yet another country about to be bowled over by white nationalism? Or are we more resilient to it. I think we may weather this storm.

CMV: The current wave of nationalism and anti imigration has little chance of taking hold in Canada in the near future. Canada has long be an extremely progressive country. I mean our conservatives are called the progressive Conservative party. It seems Canada is one of the only western countries that is having very little anti immigration sentiment rising. I think with the recent announcement that the promised election reform won't take place (proportional representation won't happen) is actually somewhat of a safegourd against a white nationalist party forming. I don't see the progressive conservatives electing a trumpesue figure in the near future. Most of the prominent Conservative voices are focused on carbon taxes and jobs. I do see some anti sjw sentiment in regards to black lives matter Toronto. I think that organization has proved itself to be a non liberal group when it forced off duty police to leave pride. And Jordan Peterson has sprouted a lot of controversy over trans issues. But I don't see this as evidence of a darker movement but just the natural effect of when progressives are so unchecked that they enforce hundreds of pronouns through the law. So am i missing something? Is Canada yet another country about to be bowled over by white nationalism? Or are we more resilient to it. I think we may weather this storm.

t3_2l3eic

CMV: It's not a good idea to own personal firearms.

EDIT 1: I've received a lot of really educating comments and although my view hasn't fully been changed I really do have a better understanding to why people have their opinions about gun ownership. Thank you for mostly well-written, kind and informative comments, if you still feel the need to comment please do however I do already believe I have all the information I need to further think over my opinion. Have a nice day/night wherever you are! EDIT 2: Thank you guys once again for your replies, as I mentioned above, you don't have to continue to post comments to this page - even though I will still read and maybe reply to still. I still hold the same kinds of view I did previously however I am a lot more knowledgeable in the field and talking to real Americans who's lives involve the use and ownership of guns has helped that a tonne. As someone in the UK, I don't own a gun and I never really wish to. The only plausible reason I can think of for owning a gun would be for safety, and then again, it would only keep you safe from other people who also own guns. However, I think it's a horrible thought for children to be taught how to use guns (however not a bad idea if they would be around guns). And an even worse one for the thought of people going out and hunting and killing animals 'just for the sport of it'. I'd like to take your attention to the programme that was recently aired in the UK called 'Kids with Guns' on Channel 4 which followed the story of one amputee (who lost their legs and one arm due to injury with a gun) who was in the process of teaching his very young son and daughter how to shoot and kill, and even a story of a small boy who died due to accidental shooting of himself while hunting animals. Not to mention the amount of people who die each year due to violence with the use of guns and firearms such as mass killings of innocent lives. I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me a reason or reasons as to why they believe it is a good idea to have personal firearms other than giving me the statement 'we have the right to bear arms as Americans'. And please note: I am not saying it's not a good idea to shoot at gun clubs when no one is getting injured and no animals are being killed for fun, I believe that's the only 'good' way to shoot. I am also not saying hunting is a bad thing, it should be only acceptable when feeding people/other animals or when culling a species (however I don't like that either but I know it must be done in some situations). _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It's not a good idea to own personal firearms. EDIT 1: I've received a lot of really educating comments and although my view hasn't fully been changed I really do have a better understanding to why people have their opinions about gun ownership. Thank you for mostly well-written, kind and informative comments, if you still feel the need to comment please do however I do already believe I have all the information I need to further think over my opinion. Have a nice day/night wherever you are! EDIT 2: Thank you guys once again for your replies, as I mentioned above, you don't have to continue to post comments to this page - even though I will still read and maybe reply to still. I still hold the same kinds of view I did previously however I am a lot more knowledgeable in the field and talking to real Americans who's lives involve the use and ownership of guns has helped that a tonne. As someone in the UK, I don't own a gun and I never really wish to. The only plausible reason I can think of for owning a gun would be for safety, and then again, it would only keep you safe from other people who also own guns. However, I think it's a horrible thought for children to be taught how to use guns (however not a bad idea if they would be around guns). And an even worse one for the thought of people going out and hunting and killing animals 'just for the sport of it'. I'd like to take your attention to the programme that was recently aired in the UK called 'Kids with Guns' on Channel 4 which followed the story of one amputee (who lost their legs and one arm due to injury with a gun) who was in the process of teaching his very young son and daughter how to shoot and kill, and even a story of a small boy who died due to accidental shooting of himself while hunting animals. Not to mention the amount of people who die each year due to violence with the use of guns and firearms such as mass killings of innocent lives. I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me a reason or reasons as to why they believe it is a good idea to have personal firearms other than giving me the statement 'we have the right to bear arms as Americans'. And please note: I am not saying it's not a good idea to shoot at gun clubs when no one is getting injured and no animals are being killed for fun, I believe that's the only 'good' way to shoot. I am also not saying hunting is a bad thing, it should be only acceptable when feeding people/other animals or when culling a species (however I don't like that either but I know it must be done in some situations).

t3_2b94k5

CMV: The race car is a better vehicle than the dirt bike for 90% of maps on Hill Climb Racing.

Forgive any rambling, Im going to ensure I hit the 500 word limit. With the exception of the moon where the dirt bike is amazing to rack up coins with flips and crazy air time, the race car is the superior vehicle. On maps like the beach and the cave the down force keeps you down on the big hills and keeps you in the ground. On Highway and Rollercoaster, forget about it, it's tailor made for those levels. I have made all of my high scores with the race car, on every map except the moon. Another huge downside of the bike is it's so flippy, if you get onto a hill and you lose momentum you end up doing a back flip and you slip backwards and can't get back up without a run up. With the race car, once you get forward momentum the downforce keeps your front end down and you will get up any hill. CMV!

CMV: The race car is a better vehicle than the dirt bike for 90% of maps on Hill Climb Racing. Forgive any rambling, Im going to ensure I hit the 500 word limit. With the exception of the moon where the dirt bike is amazing to rack up coins with flips and crazy air time, the race car is the superior vehicle. On maps like the beach and the cave the down force keeps you down on the big hills and keeps you in the ground. On Highway and Rollercoaster, forget about it, it's tailor made for those levels. I have made all of my high scores with the race car, on every map except the moon. Another huge downside of the bike is it's so flippy, if you get onto a hill and you lose momentum you end up doing a back flip and you slip backwards and can't get back up without a run up. With the race car, once you get forward momentum the downforce keeps your front end down and you will get up any hill. CMV!

t3_286mo1

CMV: Joel (from The Last of Us) did the right thing at the end of the story. (Spoilers inside)

[Contains spoilers for The Last of Us] I believe that Joel, in lying about Ellie's surgery and saving her from the lobotomy -- in spite of possibly robbing the world of an antidote or cure for the plague -- Joel did the right thing. In classic thought-experiments, it is often acceptable to sacrifice one life for the lives of many, depending on the specific experiment. But when it comes to actively killing one life in exchange for many, it's usually considered unacceptable. Murder is always wrong. Further, based on the voice recorders that Joel found throughout the hospital, it didn't seem like Ellie's surgery would result in a sure-fire cure anyway. So gambling with a person'a life without even guaranteeing the safety of others, is even less desirable. Lastly, Joel's love for Ellie by the end of the story equaled his love for Sarah, effectively making Ellie his daughter. I believe a father's first priority in that situation, is the well-being of his daughter. Quite possibly, in that apocalyptic world, even above the lives of all mankind. Change my view

CMV: Joel (from The Last of Us) did the right thing at the end of the story. (Spoilers inside). [Contains spoilers for The Last of Us] I believe that Joel, in lying about Ellie's surgery and saving her from the lobotomy -- in spite of possibly robbing the world of an antidote or cure for the plague -- Joel did the right thing. In classic thought-experiments, it is often acceptable to sacrifice one life for the lives of many, depending on the specific experiment. But when it comes to actively killing one life in exchange for many, it's usually considered unacceptable. Murder is always wrong. Further, based on the voice recorders that Joel found throughout the hospital, it didn't seem like Ellie's surgery would result in a sure-fire cure anyway. So gambling with a person'a life without even guaranteeing the safety of others, is even less desirable. Lastly, Joel's love for Ellie by the end of the story equaled his love for Sarah, effectively making Ellie his daughter. I believe a father's first priority in that situation, is the well-being of his daughter. Quite possibly, in that apocalyptic world, even above the lives of all mankind. Change my view

t3_248swd

CMV: Pressuring people to vote on everything is actually a bad practice

I've personally never understood why America's society and many other societies pressure people into voting. I think it may actually be a bad practice. For a real world example, in November of 2012 during election-time, I voted on *some* issues but not on others. I voted for a president because I knew all the candidates and their beliefs to a good degree. I voted for some of my state's senators and representatives because, again, I knew to some degree what each candidate supported. I voted for a couple of legalization laws as well because I have thought about the pros and cons of the issues plenty of times. But I left *plenty* of white space on my ballot. There was some vote which wanted to reform the budget of a local school district... I left that blank. There were a couple of politicians who I didn't know and I didn't vote for any of them because I wasn't familiar with any of their views. There was another vote which had something to do with water regulation (that's all I remember)... again, I left it blank. In my view, we should be encouraging people to vote more responsibly, not more often. I personally can't bring myself to vote for an issue if I'm undecided or neutral to the issue. I don't know what my vote would do. What if I vote some David Davidson guy into office even though I wasn't aware of his policies or his track record and David Davidson turns out to be a really shitty guy? What if David Davidson comes up with really shitty legislature and embezzles money? Going back to my older example, what if I voted in favor of that school budget legislation, even though I wasn't sure what it would do, and it became law and actually made things worse for everybody? I worry that a lot of people vote for new laws and lawmakers which they don't truly understand. The worst case situation to this issue would be when a person votes for a politician solely because the voter identifies as Democrat or Republican and the politician in question has a little (D) or (R) after his/her name. That voter would be voting on a politician based off of an ideology which that politician may or may not support very well. As far as I know, I think the best practice would be to encourage people to vote on matters they actually understand, and to leave all the other matters up to other people who understand them. If a person is truly ignorant to all of the matters on the ballot, then they shouldn't be encouraged to vote. I think leaving your vote up to guesswork is actually more harmful than not voting at all. Is this wrong? *Also, before I get yelled at for not looking at the Wiki, the Wiki didn't contain my specific question or my viewpoint.* _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Pressuring people to vote on everything is actually a bad practice. I've personally never understood why America's society and many other societies pressure people into voting. I think it may actually be a bad practice. For a real world example, in November of 2012 during election-time, I voted on *some* issues but not on others. I voted for a president because I knew all the candidates and their beliefs to a good degree. I voted for some of my state's senators and representatives because, again, I knew to some degree what each candidate supported. I voted for a couple of legalization laws as well because I have thought about the pros and cons of the issues plenty of times. But I left *plenty* of white space on my ballot. There was some vote which wanted to reform the budget of a local school district... I left that blank. There were a couple of politicians who I didn't know and I didn't vote for any of them because I wasn't familiar with any of their views. There was another vote which had something to do with water regulation (that's all I remember)... again, I left it blank. In my view, we should be encouraging people to vote more responsibly, not more often. I personally can't bring myself to vote for an issue if I'm undecided or neutral to the issue. I don't know what my vote would do. What if I vote some David Davidson guy into office even though I wasn't aware of his policies or his track record and David Davidson turns out to be a really shitty guy? What if David Davidson comes up with really shitty legislature and embezzles money? Going back to my older example, what if I voted in favor of that school budget legislation, even though I wasn't sure what it would do, and it became law and actually made things worse for everybody? I worry that a lot of people vote for new laws and lawmakers which they don't truly understand. The worst case situation to this issue would be when a person votes for a politician solely because the voter identifies as Democrat or Republican and the politician in question has a little (D) or (R) after his/her name. That voter would be voting on a politician based off of an ideology which that politician may or may not support very well. As far as I know, I think the best practice would be to encourage people to vote on matters they actually understand, and to leave all the other matters up to other people who understand them. If a person is truly ignorant to all of the matters on the ballot, then they shouldn't be encouraged to vote. I think leaving your vote up to guesswork is actually more harmful than not voting at all. Is this wrong? *Also, before I get yelled at for not looking at the Wiki, the Wiki didn't contain my specific question or my viewpoint.*

t3_4g84b9

CMV:Love is dead

I know how this sounds, but hear me out. I believe that in our modern society, love is dead. Let me define define what I mean by love. I refer to love, strictly from a romantic point of view. I mean love, as the feeling you get from seeing/being with your SO. Now, that I have define love, I think that form of love is dead. In our modern which we have created (not saying that the society in which we live in is bad) two people cannot have true love. In the older times ( from caveman times, up to the great depression) people married because they wanted to. I know that, even before married for other reasons, such as growing the family wealth, but here I'm talking about the middle class people. Now people get married ( or get into relationships) mainly to gain something (sex,money, power, etc). People aren't willing to just love, for the sake of loving So,change change my view. Love isn't all out gaining only. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Love is dead. I know how this sounds, but hear me out. I believe that in our modern society, love is dead. Let me define define what I mean by love. I refer to love, strictly from a romantic point of view. I mean love, as the feeling you get from seeing/being with your SO. Now, that I have define love, I think that form of love is dead. In our modern which we have created (not saying that the society in which we live in is bad) two people cannot have true love. In the older times ( from caveman times, up to the great depression) people married because they wanted to. I know that, even before married for other reasons, such as growing the family wealth, but here I'm talking about the middle class people. Now people get married ( or get into relationships) mainly to gain something (sex,money, power, etc). People aren't willing to just love, for the sake of loving So,change change my view. Love isn't all out gaining only.

t3_3llwef

CMV: Incorporating gender neutral pronouns into higher learning/society is a good thing that allows everyone to feel comfortable and safe during discussions and social interactions.

So this article popped up on facebook and I've had several friends act like it's the end of the world, but i really don't see why it's such a big deal. He, she, ze, does it really matter all that much? If something like this helps LGBTQ students and people feel more welcome and less anxious why should anyone be against it? I mean they have a third gender in India and from what I understand it's totally fine. Why shouldn't we be able to have that sort of accommodation in America too? [Relevant article](http://bigstory.ap.org/48c986c722ba4e5bb8a5a4c1f1d31df1&utm_source=android_app&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Incorporating gender neutral pronouns into higher learning/society is a good thing that allows everyone to feel comfortable and safe during discussions and social interactions. So this article popped up on facebook and I've had several friends act like it's the end of the world, but i really don't see why it's such a big deal. He, she, ze, does it really matter all that much? If something like this helps LGBTQ students and people feel more welcome and less anxious why should anyone be against it? I mean they have a third gender in India and from what I understand it's totally fine. Why shouldn't we be able to have that sort of accommodation in America too? [Relevant article](http://bigstory.ap.org/48c986c722ba4e5bb8a5a4c1f1d31df1&utm_source=android_app&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share)

t3_2h4dzg

CMV: I don't want to vote in the upcoming election.

(Voting-age citizen of the United States) I only want to vote for someone who I could reasonably expect to be honest and trustworthy. Politicians can say whatever they want, and either be lying the whole time or get bought out later. Either way, same end result: I don't get what I voted for. I'm tired of it. I feel as though I am presented with several choices of turd. Perhaps one is less smelly, or feels more interesting when you step in it, but I'd rather not elect a turd at all. That just seems like a bad idea. I want to vote for someone who I would actually want to hold that office. I feel like the closest I can get is just not voting at all. Reddit, CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't want to vote in the upcoming election. (Voting-age citizen of the United States) I only want to vote for someone who I could reasonably expect to be honest and trustworthy. Politicians can say whatever they want, and either be lying the whole time or get bought out later. Either way, same end result: I don't get what I voted for. I'm tired of it. I feel as though I am presented with several choices of turd. Perhaps one is less smelly, or feels more interesting when you step in it, but I'd rather not elect a turd at all. That just seems like a bad idea. I want to vote for someone who I would actually want to hold that office. I feel like the closest I can get is just not voting at all. Reddit, CMV.

t3_29hqdo

CMV: I believe mandatory maternity leave in the U.S. hurts financially responsible people and those without children.

I believe an increase in payroll taxes to cover mandatory maternity leave for all Americans hurts financially responsible people, and is also unfair to people that will never have children. The only people that will benefit from such a tax increase will be irresponsible people that want to have kids without any planning. For responsible people that save for such an event, the government acts as a middleman with no purpose. Personally, I would rather set aside a portion of my own salary, and then draw on that, if needed, when my kids are born, instead of give up a percentage of my wages for THE REST OF MY LIFE to the government. If I wasn't planning on having kids, I would be even more angry, as that tax would give me absolutely no personal benefit of any kind. Why should I subsidize some stranger's child? The argument against that is that taxpayers without children pay for education and roads. But in my opinion, those things do have a tangible benefit to society, and even benefit me personally. Giving individual mothers paid vacations is simply not on par with providing everyone with free education. People in America used to value self-reliance and independence. I shed a little tear when I see a powerful liberal like Obama call for government handholding, and everyone agrees with him! He's very generous with other people's money, isn't he? Please convince me why I should come around to his point of view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe mandatory maternity leave in the U.S. hurts financially responsible people and those without children. I believe an increase in payroll taxes to cover mandatory maternity leave for all Americans hurts financially responsible people, and is also unfair to people that will never have children. The only people that will benefit from such a tax increase will be irresponsible people that want to have kids without any planning. For responsible people that save for such an event, the government acts as a middleman with no purpose. Personally, I would rather set aside a portion of my own salary, and then draw on that, if needed, when my kids are born, instead of give up a percentage of my wages for THE REST OF MY LIFE to the government. If I wasn't planning on having kids, I would be even more angry, as that tax would give me absolutely no personal benefit of any kind. Why should I subsidize some stranger's child? The argument against that is that taxpayers without children pay for education and roads. But in my opinion, those things do have a tangible benefit to society, and even benefit me personally. Giving individual mothers paid vacations is simply not on par with providing everyone with free education. People in America used to value self-reliance and independence. I shed a little tear when I see a powerful liberal like Obama call for government handholding, and everyone agrees with him! He's very generous with other people's money, isn't he? Please convince me why I should come around to his point of view.

t3_5tw4ts

CMV: The term "echo chamber" is very often used to unjustly criticize forums

More and more I am coming to dislike how the term "echo chamber" is being used. I hate Trump, but I also hate how people call r/The_Donald an echo chamber, for example. If a place doesn't allow your views, often it is decried as an echo chamber. And while that might be correct, the term echo chamber is so ill defined is can be applied to most places. If an echo chamber is simply a forum that disallows dissenting views, then I see nothing wrong with an echo chamber. I'm sure that we all like to go to places where can discuss an idea with like minded people. Sure, it's fun to debate and challenge idea, but sometimes you just want to talk to people that you know will have a similar worldview as you. If you are a vegan, r/vegan might be a good place to rant about frustrations without worry of an omni popping by to argue with you. r/feminism might be a good place to discuss finer details of feminist ideas without worry of someone challenging basic feminist ideas. And r/the_donald is a good place to share your support and admiration of Trump without worry of someone criticizing him/you. There is nothing wrong with seeking a like-minded group of people to talk with from time to time. A place being an echo chamber is common, healthy, and fun. The issue isn't with echo chambers, the issue is with people who always stay in an echo chamber and refuse to ever have their beliefs challenged. So criticizing something for being an echo chamber is an unfair criticism, unless that place is intended to be a place for debate. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The term "echo chamber" is very often used to unjustly criticize forums. More and more I am coming to dislike how the term "echo chamber" is being used. I hate Trump, but I also hate how people call r/The_Donald an echo chamber, for example. If a place doesn't allow your views, often it is decried as an echo chamber. And while that might be correct, the term echo chamber is so ill defined is can be applied to most places. If an echo chamber is simply a forum that disallows dissenting views, then I see nothing wrong with an echo chamber. I'm sure that we all like to go to places where can discuss an idea with like minded people. Sure, it's fun to debate and challenge idea, but sometimes you just want to talk to people that you know will have a similar worldview as you. If you are a vegan, r/vegan might be a good place to rant about frustrations without worry of an omni popping by to argue with you. r/feminism might be a good place to discuss finer details of feminist ideas without worry of someone challenging basic feminist ideas. And r/the_donald is a good place to share your support and admiration of Trump without worry of someone criticizing him/you. There is nothing wrong with seeking a like-minded group of people to talk with from time to time. A place being an echo chamber is common, healthy, and fun. The issue isn't with echo chambers, the issue is with people who always stay in an echo chamber and refuse to ever have their beliefs challenged. So criticizing something for being an echo chamber is an unfair criticism, unless that place is intended to be a place for debate.

t3_336iff

CMV: Humans are wholly destructive and our advancements in technology and humanity amount to little more than arrogance and narcissism

Some background here. I've been looking into a lot of pessimist philosophy and it makes a lot of sense. I was turned on from a book known as the Dust of This Planet. It is a dissertation on nihilism. In addition I have extrapolated my beliefs from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. Contrary to popular belief, Nietzsche is not a nihilist. But I can only come to the conclusion that all of humanity's physical and metaphysical constructs amount to nothing in the end. And if there is some optimistic potential from our existence, we squander it by forcing ourselves and other species into an inevitable extinction. We do not deserve to exist at all. We do nothing to benefit the very place where we live. We are cancerous and vainglorious. We refuse to even significantly lessen our impact on our environment and yet we claim to do so. I would compare our arrogance to decorating a burning house. It is an exercise in futility, and a low efficiency one at that. Every one of our accomplishments is decidedly so through a lens of humancentric pride. Humankind is a hooked missile, latching onto all other life as it spirals into oblivion. **Edit:** while you all haven't swayed my view, per se, I have come to terms that this is just the way it is. If I may use such a trite statement, and this has inspired me to write my own book on the subject

CMV: Humans are wholly destructive and our advancements in technology and humanity amount to little more than arrogance and narcissism. Some background here. I've been looking into a lot of pessimist philosophy and it makes a lot of sense. I was turned on from a book known as the Dust of This Planet. It is a dissertation on nihilism. In addition I have extrapolated my beliefs from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. Contrary to popular belief, Nietzsche is not a nihilist. But I can only come to the conclusion that all of humanity's physical and metaphysical constructs amount to nothing in the end. And if there is some optimistic potential from our existence, we squander it by forcing ourselves and other species into an inevitable extinction. We do not deserve to exist at all. We do nothing to benefit the very place where we live. We are cancerous and vainglorious. We refuse to even significantly lessen our impact on our environment and yet we claim to do so. I would compare our arrogance to decorating a burning house. It is an exercise in futility, and a low efficiency one at that. Every one of our accomplishments is decidedly so through a lens of humancentric pride. Humankind is a hooked missile, latching onto all other life as it spirals into oblivion. **Edit:** while you all haven't swayed my view, per se, I have come to terms that this is just the way it is. If I may use such a trite statement, and this has inspired me to write my own book on the subject

t3_5zryu5

CMV: I believe immigration should be at the rate of integration. For any country.

I am of the firm belief if you are going to move to another country you should do so if you will fully integrate into the culture and customs of the host nation - but also keeping your religion privately. Whether you are from England moving to Belgium, or America moving to Qatar, or Australia to New Zealand. There should be no special rules for your people entering another nation. Whether it is food preparation, religion being taught in schools, the legal system of the country or otherwise. No special adaptation should happen. You should adjust. Not the host nation. Also the rate that the host nations accept people should be at the rate of those that integrate. It's not a huge cultural shock for a European moving to another European country (though language can be an issue to begin with). Nor would it be for a North African to move to another North African nation. But when you have say a German moving to Ethiopia, the culture shock is huge and they must adapt to be successful. Change my view that mass immigration is a good thing.

CMV: I believe immigration should be at the rate of integration. For any country. I am of the firm belief if you are going to move to another country you should do so if you will fully integrate into the culture and customs of the host nation - but also keeping your religion privately. Whether you are from England moving to Belgium, or America moving to Qatar, or Australia to New Zealand. There should be no special rules for your people entering another nation. Whether it is food preparation, religion being taught in schools, the legal system of the country or otherwise. No special adaptation should happen. You should adjust. Not the host nation. Also the rate that the host nations accept people should be at the rate of those that integrate. It's not a huge cultural shock for a European moving to another European country (though language can be an issue to begin with). Nor would it be for a North African to move to another North African nation. But when you have say a German moving to Ethiopia, the culture shock is huge and they must adapt to be successful. Change my view that mass immigration is a good thing.

t3_2e86fy

CMV: Police officers should be required to wear cameras similar to dashcams

I know this is a frequently discussed topic on /r/CMV, but I'd like to put a different spin on it. The two main reasons people are opposed to police officers wearing cameras are privacy, and storage capacity. I believe that a camera that works similar to a dashcam would solve both problems. The first point, privacy, is an odd point to bring up. What does an on-duty cop need privacy for? Unless we're talking about the officer using the restroom, which I don't see why the camera would have to point down in the first place, privacy should not be expected when on duty. Banks, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. have the employees on camera, the camera is simply not placed on the employee. I guess if it is really an issue, the officer could turn it off only when using the restroom and turn it back on as they walk out, but otherwise this is definitely a non-issue in my eyes. As for storage, there does not need to be a database/storage for the recordings. The cameras should be set up similar to dashcams. In dashcams, once the memory in the device fills up, old data is overwritten. The way the cameras on the officers would work would be similar. The camera would record whenever the officer is on duty and store, let's say 5 days worth of data at a time. That way, if an officer is accused of police brutality, or a crime similar to the Ferguson shooting, there would be clear evidence that could be brought up within the 5 days after the incident. I believe this will not only help to curb police brutality, regardless of how often it occurs, but it will also give officers an advantage when it comes to defending themselves against false accusations. So there you have it, CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Police officers should be required to wear cameras similar to dashcams. I know this is a frequently discussed topic on /r/CMV, but I'd like to put a different spin on it. The two main reasons people are opposed to police officers wearing cameras are privacy, and storage capacity. I believe that a camera that works similar to a dashcam would solve both problems. The first point, privacy, is an odd point to bring up. What does an on-duty cop need privacy for? Unless we're talking about the officer using the restroom, which I don't see why the camera would have to point down in the first place, privacy should not be expected when on duty. Banks, restaurants, convenience stores, etc. have the employees on camera, the camera is simply not placed on the employee. I guess if it is really an issue, the officer could turn it off only when using the restroom and turn it back on as they walk out, but otherwise this is definitely a non-issue in my eyes. As for storage, there does not need to be a database/storage for the recordings. The cameras should be set up similar to dashcams. In dashcams, once the memory in the device fills up, old data is overwritten. The way the cameras on the officers would work would be similar. The camera would record whenever the officer is on duty and store, let's say 5 days worth of data at a time. That way, if an officer is accused of police brutality, or a crime similar to the Ferguson shooting, there would be clear evidence that could be brought up within the 5 days after the incident. I believe this will not only help to curb police brutality, regardless of how often it occurs, but it will also give officers an advantage when it comes to defending themselves against false accusations. So there you have it, CMV.

t3_24o7o8

CMV: I think it's irresponsible to own an English bulldog or other short nose dog due to inherent health problems

Let me begin by saying I love bulldogs, pugs and dogs in general. However due to designer breeding, these short nose type of dogs have terrible problems breathing and a host of other health problems are generally expected. Every bubble of air is a struggle, which is probably a factor of why they sleep so much and probably is a cause for several of those health problems. I suppose there is optional surgery to increase airflow, but the vast majority of owners don't opt to do it. It breaks my heart to see these amazing dogs gasping for air, I can imagine all the health problems I'd have if I had to struggle with every breath. If I am misinformed please help, I'd love to own a beautiful bully but I'd feel terrible for all these reasons.

CMV: I think it's irresponsible to own an English bulldog or other short nose dog due to inherent health problems. Let me begin by saying I love bulldogs, pugs and dogs in general. However due to designer breeding, these short nose type of dogs have terrible problems breathing and a host of other health problems are generally expected. Every bubble of air is a struggle, which is probably a factor of why they sleep so much and probably is a cause for several of those health problems. I suppose there is optional surgery to increase airflow, but the vast majority of owners don't opt to do it. It breaks my heart to see these amazing dogs gasping for air, I can imagine all the health problems I'd have if I had to struggle with every breath. If I am misinformed please help, I'd love to own a beautiful bully but I'd feel terrible for all these reasons.

t3_1gn6h2

I believe we will be able to answer the race-and-intelligence question in the near future. CMV

First, let me define what I mean by "race". In this post, races are just groups with different geographic origins. I'm just interested in comparing pairs of "races," so not everybody has to belong to a race. There's an infinite number of valid ways to form two-race pairs, as long as the different "ancestral areas" are localized and distant (i.e. the distance between them is much larger than their sizes). There's no implication that races are discrete. (For an idealized example, see the asterisk at the bottom.) Right now, different racial groups often have different average IQ scores. Some people think that a significant portion of these discrepancies can be explained by genetic differences. It's easy to find specific environmental factors that affect IQ and differ between races, so genetics obviously can't explain the difference entirely. With current techniques, though, it's very difficult to determine how much of the difference is genetic (beyond simply knowing that much of it isn't). We can't even rule out the possibility that the lower-IQ race has a genetic advantage but an even larger environmental disadvantage. In particular, racial discrimination is extremely difficult to control for. If you naively try to measure the effect of ancestry on IQ, part of it will be due to racial discrimination. On the other hand, if you try to measure the effect of racial discrimination on IQ, part of it might be due to genes! Fortunately, advances in DNA sequencing may soon make this determination practical. We can (or will soon be able to) measure ancestry directly, across the entire genome. That is, for all the genes that vary between two groups, we can measure an individual's "percent ancestry" from each group - the fraction of those genes that came from one group versus the other. (In reality, human groups don't have sharp genetic differences on any single gene, but it's the same basic idea.) Now, you can compare mixed-race siblings who are very similar in physical appearance. Since they come from the same family and look almost the same, they should face the same amount of racial discrimination on average. However, due to the randomness of inheritance, they will differ somewhat in actual ancestry. Take many such sibling-sets and see if their IQ is correlated with their ancestry. Since everything is well-controlled, this should accurately reflect the effect of ancestry of IQ. I think this sort of study could give very strong evidence either against or in favor of racial genetic differences in IQ, depending on what the "answer" actually is. Of course, the "answer" could be different for different pairs of racial groups. Note: I'm not aware of any strong evidence that there's no genetic differences in intelligence between races ("evidence of absence" rather than "absence of evidence"). If you know, tell me! In that case, my whole point would be moot. Credit goes to [Razib Khan](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/how-the-race-intelligence-and-genetics-question-will-semi-resolve-within-the-next-10-years/) for posting the idea online. *Suppose there are a bunch of people living on a long line. Then the populations living on any two distant line segments would form a pair of "races" by my definition. Genetic variation is perfectly continuous along the line, and the particular groups are completely arbitrary, but you can still reasonably call them distinct races.

I believe we will be able to answer the race-and-intelligence question in the near future. CMV. First, let me define what I mean by "race". In this post, races are just groups with different geographic origins. I'm just interested in comparing pairs of "races," so not everybody has to belong to a race. There's an infinite number of valid ways to form two-race pairs, as long as the different "ancestral areas" are localized and distant (i.e. the distance between them is much larger than their sizes). There's no implication that races are discrete. (For an idealized example, see the asterisk at the bottom.) Right now, different racial groups often have different average IQ scores. Some people think that a significant portion of these discrepancies can be explained by genetic differences. It's easy to find specific environmental factors that affect IQ and differ between races, so genetics obviously can't explain the difference entirely. With current techniques, though, it's very difficult to determine how much of the difference is genetic (beyond simply knowing that much of it isn't). We can't even rule out the possibility that the lower-IQ race has a genetic advantage but an even larger environmental disadvantage. In particular, racial discrimination is extremely difficult to control for. If you naively try to measure the effect of ancestry on IQ, part of it will be due to racial discrimination. On the other hand, if you try to measure the effect of racial discrimination on IQ, part of it might be due to genes! Fortunately, advances in DNA sequencing may soon make this determination practical. We can (or will soon be able to) measure ancestry directly, across the entire genome. That is, for all the genes that vary between two groups, we can measure an individual's "percent ancestry" from each group - the fraction of those genes that came from one group versus the other. (In reality, human groups don't have sharp genetic differences on any single gene, but it's the same basic idea.) Now, you can compare mixed-race siblings who are very similar in physical appearance. Since they come from the same family and look almost the same, they should face the same amount of racial discrimination on average. However, due to the randomness of inheritance, they will differ somewhat in actual ancestry. Take many such sibling-sets and see if their IQ is correlated with their ancestry. Since everything is well-controlled, this should accurately reflect the effect of ancestry of IQ. I think this sort of study could give very strong evidence either against or in favor of racial genetic differences in IQ, depending on what the "answer" actually is. Of course, the "answer" could be different for different pairs of racial groups. Note: I'm not aware of any strong evidence that there's no genetic differences in intelligence between races ("evidence of absence" rather than "absence of evidence"). If you know, tell me! In that case, my whole point would be moot. Credit goes to [Razib Khan](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/05/how-the-race-intelligence-and-genetics-question-will-semi-resolve-within-the-next-10-years/) for posting the idea online. *Suppose there are a bunch of people living on a long line. Then the populations living on any two distant line segments would form a pair of "races" by my definition. Genetic variation is perfectly continuous along the line, and the particular groups are completely arbitrary, but you can still reasonably call them distinct races.

t3_20do1s

I believe that the United States government should continue to outsource jobs. CMV

Outsourcing jobs helps keep the cost of products low while allowing the average consumer to buy a multitude of products and put money back into the economy. Without this, inflation would set in while the average person does not earn a greater amount of money, causing the economy to stagnate. Outsourcing also allows businesses in the United States to stay competitive with low prices, and this degree of competitiveness is the heart of capitalism. I recognize the benefits of not outsourcing jobs, such as a lower rate of unemployment in the U.S, but in my opinion the benefits of outsourcing outweigh the benefits of not outsourcing. Please change my view.

I believe that the United States government should continue to outsource jobs. CMV. Outsourcing jobs helps keep the cost of products low while allowing the average consumer to buy a multitude of products and put money back into the economy. Without this, inflation would set in while the average person does not earn a greater amount of money, causing the economy to stagnate. Outsourcing also allows businesses in the United States to stay competitive with low prices, and this degree of competitiveness is the heart of capitalism. I recognize the benefits of not outsourcing jobs, such as a lower rate of unemployment in the U.S, but in my opinion the benefits of outsourcing outweigh the benefits of not outsourcing. Please change my view.

t3_6mdo30

CMV: Feminism hasn't done anything big to help men in general in English countries, bar LGBT types and racial minorities.

So, feminism topic. My assertion is that feminism as a mainstream movement or as organizations hasn't done anything significant to help men in their lives. I've often seen assertions or articles that say feminism helps men too, that there's no specific need for other organizations because feminism is actively working to tear down gender stereotypes. Anyway, my general assertion is that feminism hasn't actually done anything significant to help men in general, and as such there is often a need for other organizations to help. In general, the only sorts of support offered have been very limited and contradictory support for LGBT types (generally small scale, limited) for limited aid to black people in civil rights struggles, things to aid women which feminists theorize may incidentally aid men, things which were universally or widely supported and needed no support, or things designed to harm some sort of group of men who they disapprove of. In general I'm very suspicious of claims that vague aid will help men somehow. When feminists campaign to stop rape they don't just try to tear down stereotypes, they do things like supporting buses to carry drunk women from bars back to their home so they don't get raped by their sketchy cousin who offered a lift. Specific aid is much more likely to be actually effective. Of course, some say feminism isn't meant to help men which is fine, though others do say it does help. It would be ideal if it did help. Feminism is huge, politically powerful, and massively influential. Things that can change my view in smaller ways- evidence of organizations (even if small) of feminists working towards some goal that directly benefits men. Evidence for large changes of view- evidence of major organizations campaigning for things that helped men. Evidence of large charity drives which helped men in some way. Evidence that an English feminist inspired law substantially benefited men. Billionaire or high multi million dollar feminists campaigning in large ways to help men as a result of feminists. They practically count as an organization on their own. Evidence that probably won't change my view- people campaigning to hurt groups of men that do bad things. People campaigning to help women in ways that could theoretically help men. I may make an exception if the help or hurting is particularly nuanced in a nice way. Individual feminists doing nice things. Feminists on their own can certainly be nice. Feminists doing nice things as part of an organization, and then being blacklisted or attacked by other feminists. They need to do whatever and then remain a part of the feminist movement. Links on their own- highlight particular claims from them which you feel show how wrong I am and how I should change my view. Anyway, good luck view changing. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Feminism hasn't done anything big to help men in general in English countries, bar LGBT types and racial minorities. So, feminism topic. My assertion is that feminism as a mainstream movement or as organizations hasn't done anything significant to help men in their lives. I've often seen assertions or articles that say feminism helps men too, that there's no specific need for other organizations because feminism is actively working to tear down gender stereotypes. Anyway, my general assertion is that feminism hasn't actually done anything significant to help men in general, and as such there is often a need for other organizations to help. In general, the only sorts of support offered have been very limited and contradictory support for LGBT types (generally small scale, limited) for limited aid to black people in civil rights struggles, things to aid women which feminists theorize may incidentally aid men, things which were universally or widely supported and needed no support, or things designed to harm some sort of group of men who they disapprove of. In general I'm very suspicious of claims that vague aid will help men somehow. When feminists campaign to stop rape they don't just try to tear down stereotypes, they do things like supporting buses to carry drunk women from bars back to their home so they don't get raped by their sketchy cousin who offered a lift. Specific aid is much more likely to be actually effective. Of course, some say feminism isn't meant to help men which is fine, though others do say it does help. It would be ideal if it did help. Feminism is huge, politically powerful, and massively influential. Things that can change my view in smaller ways- evidence of organizations (even if small) of feminists working towards some goal that directly benefits men. Evidence for large changes of view- evidence of major organizations campaigning for things that helped men. Evidence of large charity drives which helped men in some way. Evidence that an English feminist inspired law substantially benefited men. Billionaire or high multi million dollar feminists campaigning in large ways to help men as a result of feminists. They practically count as an organization on their own. Evidence that probably won't change my view- people campaigning to hurt groups of men that do bad things. People campaigning to help women in ways that could theoretically help men. I may make an exception if the help or hurting is particularly nuanced in a nice way. Individual feminists doing nice things. Feminists on their own can certainly be nice. Feminists doing nice things as part of an organization, and then being blacklisted or attacked by other feminists. They need to do whatever and then remain a part of the feminist movement. Links on their own- highlight particular claims from them which you feel show how wrong I am and how I should change my view. Anyway, good luck view changing.

t3_1ueg7f

I believe that equality is an illogical goal for society. CMV

To begin, I believe that all humans are born with equal worth. As for all other factors - wealth, gender, intelligence, beauty, etc. - individuals undeniably differ. For the purposes of this post, I'm not writing about income inequality, but rather, racial, gender, sexuality, and the like. It seems to me that many advocates for social change place equality as their primary goal, whether that means racial equality, gender equality, or any of the other possible "equalities". I don't see equality as a logical goal for any society. I believe total equality in any of the areas that I listed above is impossible (people will still be unequal in intelligence, beauty, desirability of occupation, desirability of property, etc.) and therefore seeking equality is pointless because half of any given society will always fall below the median. Under that assumption, and the widely accepted belief that all humans are inherently of equal worth, then why does it matter which subgroup is "on top"? Will it not be the same percentage of humans, no matter their race, gender, sexuality, etc.? By seeking racial equality, for example, are we not simply altering the racial composition of society? Will this society somehow be more equal, even though all humans are inherently equal to begin with? Why does it matter the race, gender, etc. of the upper half of society, if all humans are inherently of equal worth?

I believe that equality is an illogical goal for society. CMV. To begin, I believe that all humans are born with equal worth. As for all other factors - wealth, gender, intelligence, beauty, etc. - individuals undeniably differ. For the purposes of this post, I'm not writing about income inequality, but rather, racial, gender, sexuality, and the like. It seems to me that many advocates for social change place equality as their primary goal, whether that means racial equality, gender equality, or any of the other possible "equalities". I don't see equality as a logical goal for any society. I believe total equality in any of the areas that I listed above is impossible (people will still be unequal in intelligence, beauty, desirability of occupation, desirability of property, etc.) and therefore seeking equality is pointless because half of any given society will always fall below the median. Under that assumption, and the widely accepted belief that all humans are inherently of equal worth, then why does it matter which subgroup is "on top"? Will it not be the same percentage of humans, no matter their race, gender, sexuality, etc.? By seeking racial equality, for example, are we not simply altering the racial composition of society? Will this society somehow be more equal, even though all humans are inherently equal to begin with? Why does it matter the race, gender, etc. of the upper half of society, if all humans are inherently of equal worth?

t3_2904rg

CMV: It is hypocritical for someone online to refuse to talk to smokers unless said smoker only smokes 420

Its so hypocritical. Smoking weed is still smoking. I see it as equivalent to someone saying they won't talk to someone who drinks, unless they only drink Rum because that is OP's favorite drink. I see it all the time on Grindr and immediately it makes me assume that the other guy is a douche. It makes them seem elitist, like they are superior to people who smoke cigarettes because 420 is illegal or something. I use Grindr to find friends btw, I have a bf so I don't hook up on there. But it still annoys me how many guys refuse to talk to anyone who smokes if it isn't weed. It's so hypocritical. Please cmv _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is hypocritical for someone online to refuse to talk to smokers unless said smoker only smokes 420. Its so hypocritical. Smoking weed is still smoking. I see it as equivalent to someone saying they won't talk to someone who drinks, unless they only drink Rum because that is OP's favorite drink. I see it all the time on Grindr and immediately it makes me assume that the other guy is a douche. It makes them seem elitist, like they are superior to people who smoke cigarettes because 420 is illegal or something. I use Grindr to find friends btw, I have a bf so I don't hook up on there. But it still annoys me how many guys refuse to talk to anyone who smokes if it isn't weed. It's so hypocritical. Please cmv

t3_1fv6hs

CMV: sixteen year olds should be allowed to vote.

I think that on the whole teenagers are Responsible, even if slightly immature at times. Sure, there are a few (well, more than a few) bad eggs in the bunch, but the majority can make a decision if given guidance and lessons from their mums and dads. However, my friends say the complete opposite. So reddit, CMV.

CMV: sixteen year olds should be allowed to vote. I think that on the whole teenagers are Responsible, even if slightly immature at times. Sure, there are a few (well, more than a few) bad eggs in the bunch, but the majority can make a decision if given guidance and lessons from their mums and dads. However, my friends say the complete opposite. So reddit, CMV.

t3_324lyh

CMV: I think soft skills should be a required class in US schools.

I'm going to limit this CMV to US schools, because I'm not familiar with the education systems of other countries. The older I've gotten, the more I've realized the vital importance of soft skills to success. The ability to network, work with others, communicate my ideas, find champions and mentors, build my network, find a way to accomplish tasks, etc, have all been vital to my success in my career, and will continue to be so. In fact, I got my current job because my employer believed I would "play well in the sandbox". Maybe I was just a slow learner, but it took me quite a bit of time to realize this. Throughout high school and college, I assumed I would do well in life because of my academic talents. But I learned more my first 6 months at my first job than I had during my years at college, because I found there was a whole host of skills I didn't have that I really needed in the working world. I hate to say it, I think a great deal of that was because so much of my education was focused on taking tests, and I was good at taking tests. But to achieve success in a career, knowledge is not enough. I had to learn to work with others, solve problems, and work with those in authority over me. In fact, out of all my childhood experiences, the Boy Scouts did a great job of preparing me for this (although I didn't realize it until much later). So, I think there should be at least one soft skills class offered as part of school curriculum, required for graduation. While I'm not knowledgeable enough to suggest how the class should be structured, the goal would be to accomplish a number of tasks using leadership, networking, and coordination. The goal of making this required would be to elevate the importance of soft skills to something that requires a grade. I could, if required for the discussion, offer a few ideas for the structure of the class, but those are mutable. Go for it, Reddit. CMV that a soft skills class should be required to graduate the US school system. EDIT: Spelling _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think soft skills should be a required class in US schools. I'm going to limit this CMV to US schools, because I'm not familiar with the education systems of other countries. The older I've gotten, the more I've realized the vital importance of soft skills to success. The ability to network, work with others, communicate my ideas, find champions and mentors, build my network, find a way to accomplish tasks, etc, have all been vital to my success in my career, and will continue to be so. In fact, I got my current job because my employer believed I would "play well in the sandbox". Maybe I was just a slow learner, but it took me quite a bit of time to realize this. Throughout high school and college, I assumed I would do well in life because of my academic talents. But I learned more my first 6 months at my first job than I had during my years at college, because I found there was a whole host of skills I didn't have that I really needed in the working world. I hate to say it, I think a great deal of that was because so much of my education was focused on taking tests, and I was good at taking tests. But to achieve success in a career, knowledge is not enough. I had to learn to work with others, solve problems, and work with those in authority over me. In fact, out of all my childhood experiences, the Boy Scouts did a great job of preparing me for this (although I didn't realize it until much later). So, I think there should be at least one soft skills class offered as part of school curriculum, required for graduation. While I'm not knowledgeable enough to suggest how the class should be structured, the goal would be to accomplish a number of tasks using leadership, networking, and coordination. The goal of making this required would be to elevate the importance of soft skills to something that requires a grade. I could, if required for the discussion, offer a few ideas for the structure of the class, but those are mutable. Go for it, Reddit. CMV that a soft skills class should be required to graduate the US school system. EDIT: Spelling

t3_4y51s5

CMV: I believe that parents should not refer to their child as "it" until the child grows up and determines its gender

I believe we all can agree that while gender issue *is* important, the dispute about gender equality and oppression based on person's gender identification may have gone a little too far on the other extreme: recently I've noticed that the lines are becoming somewhat blurred. For example, several times I've noticed calls to raise kids as genderless from the very early age. Indeed, being raised in such environment eliminates all possible gender stereotypes and teaches people around that no one is assigned to a certain gender role. However, I believe in a traditional way of raising children. I believe that in our times, there is not really much oppression regarding cis-people, and more and more is done to eradicate lgbt+ discrimination, so I sincerely feel there is no critical need to enforce genderless rhetoric only to let a baby choose which gender "they" would like to become. Raising a kid genderless as a response to the society in an effort to highlight its flaws seems dumb and selfish to me. NB: Having no proper extent, I managed to offend some people by the headline and by post itself by using an incorrect pronoun. I tried to correct the mistakes, but reddit only allows to modify the post itself. Please accept my apologies. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that parents should not refer to their child as "it" until the child grows up and determines its gender. I believe we all can agree that while gender issue *is* important, the dispute about gender equality and oppression based on person's gender identification may have gone a little too far on the other extreme: recently I've noticed that the lines are becoming somewhat blurred. For example, several times I've noticed calls to raise kids as genderless from the very early age. Indeed, being raised in such environment eliminates all possible gender stereotypes and teaches people around that no one is assigned to a certain gender role. However, I believe in a traditional way of raising children. I believe that in our times, there is not really much oppression regarding cis-people, and more and more is done to eradicate lgbt+ discrimination, so I sincerely feel there is no critical need to enforce genderless rhetoric only to let a baby choose which gender "they" would like to become. Raising a kid genderless as a response to the society in an effort to highlight its flaws seems dumb and selfish to me. NB: Having no proper extent, I managed to offend some people by the headline and by post itself by using an incorrect pronoun. I tried to correct the mistakes, but reddit only allows to modify the post itself. Please accept my apologies.

t3_1h0ggl

I believe every student in a class should get the same final grade as the student with the LOWEST final grade in the class. CMV

For society to really advance I believe that we need to force each other to be accountable for our peers. I believe that the current vertical model for school really limits the growth of our species and we would benefit from a system where every student in a class got the same grade as the lowest graded student in the class. This would encourage the smart children to interact with the slower children and also create an atmosphere where we value a group as opposed to an individual. Smart kids would still have value but it would be in a way that benefits society as a whole more. Edit:A lot of you are rejecting this idea on two premises 1-How would smart kids get credit? How would smart kids separate themselves? The whole point is that society would be better if there was no need for smart kids to get credit, and they focused on educating their peers instead. 2-Some kids are lazy and would bring the whole class down. Yes, I admit that some kids will be lazy, but some kids are lazy in our current system. In the new system those lazy kids and their parents would have more incentive to put in effort at school.

I believe every student in a class should get the same final grade as the student with the LOWEST final grade in the class. CMV. For society to really advance I believe that we need to force each other to be accountable for our peers. I believe that the current vertical model for school really limits the growth of our species and we would benefit from a system where every student in a class got the same grade as the lowest graded student in the class. This would encourage the smart children to interact with the slower children and also create an atmosphere where we value a group as opposed to an individual. Smart kids would still have value but it would be in a way that benefits society as a whole more. Edit:A lot of you are rejecting this idea on two premises 1-How would smart kids get credit? How would smart kids separate themselves? The whole point is that society would be better if there was no need for smart kids to get credit, and they focused on educating their peers instead. 2-Some kids are lazy and would bring the whole class down. Yes, I admit that some kids will be lazy, but some kids are lazy in our current system. In the new system those lazy kids and their parents would have more incentive to put in effort at school.

t3_1llzpc

"Check Your Privilege" puts the focus on the wrong group. CMV.

Why do liberals want to make people feel bad about their privilege rather than trying to uplift people so that everyone is privileged? Why not focus on the underprivileged people? The whole concept is all about making people feel guilty for something they weren't responsible for. The fact that the whole concept is based on "you can't see this because you have privilege" is also a problem--this makes it impossible to disprove the concept, rendering it meaningless. It used to be a good thing to have privileges--"Driving is a privilege, not a right." Now, instead of focusing on giving privileges to everyone, liberals want everyone to lose their privileges. The liberal privilege discourse is explicitly about bringing people down rather than lifting people up.

"Check Your Privilege" puts the focus on the wrong group. CMV. Why do liberals want to make people feel bad about their privilege rather than trying to uplift people so that everyone is privileged? Why not focus on the underprivileged people? The whole concept is all about making people feel guilty for something they weren't responsible for. The fact that the whole concept is based on "you can't see this because you have privilege" is also a problem--this makes it impossible to disprove the concept, rendering it meaningless. It used to be a good thing to have privileges--"Driving is a privilege, not a right." Now, instead of focusing on giving privileges to everyone, liberals want everyone to lose their privileges. The liberal privilege discourse is explicitly about bringing people down rather than lifting people up.

t3_1e48yk

I believe that space travel should not be one of the priorities of mankind. CMV

I think that space travel is an interesting concept, and I don't argue against learning more about outer space, however when I hear people complain about NASA's budget I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I mean, why should governments, whose main priority is to benefit the people and their respective nation, be forking over money to travel to places that will do little to benefit Earth (Although I do agree that many governments should top spending as much on their militaries) This probably comes down to personal preference, but I also think that the places we have the potential to go to in space aren't very interesting. If we really want to explore the unknown why not explore the deep ocean, that would be less expensive and we would actually see new species, while we probably won't find anything as interesting in our solar system. Ultimately, I think that we should focus on our own planet before others, but I am open to arguments as to why we need to travel into space.

I believe that space travel should not be one of the priorities of mankind. CMV. I think that space travel is an interesting concept, and I don't argue against learning more about outer space, however when I hear people complain about NASA's budget I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I mean, why should governments, whose main priority is to benefit the people and their respective nation, be forking over money to travel to places that will do little to benefit Earth (Although I do agree that many governments should top spending as much on their militaries) This probably comes down to personal preference, but I also think that the places we have the potential to go to in space aren't very interesting. If we really want to explore the unknown why not explore the deep ocean, that would be less expensive and we would actually see new species, while we probably won't find anything as interesting in our solar system. Ultimately, I think that we should focus on our own planet before others, but I am open to arguments as to why we need to travel into space.

t3_1v41si

I believe that religion has done more harm than good.

It is my belief that since its inception, religion has done more harm than good for the human race. I'm not arguing against spirituality, but against institutionalized spirituality. By institutionalizing our notions of the divine, we humans have placed inseparable barriers between ourselves, and through subsequent indoctrination have allowed ourselves to commit the most heinous of crimes. Because religion provides us with an institutionalized way to make "us" versus "them" dichotomies, it has led to more harm than good. I also believe that religion gives us false hope by, in most cases, preaching of an afterlife, and that it is susceptible to corruption that leads to manipulation. CMV.

I believe that religion has done more harm than good. It is my belief that since its inception, religion has done more harm than good for the human race. I'm not arguing against spirituality, but against institutionalized spirituality. By institutionalizing our notions of the divine, we humans have placed inseparable barriers between ourselves, and through subsequent indoctrination have allowed ourselves to commit the most heinous of crimes. Because religion provides us with an institutionalized way to make "us" versus "them" dichotomies, it has led to more harm than good. I also believe that religion gives us false hope by, in most cases, preaching of an afterlife, and that it is susceptible to corruption that leads to manipulation. CMV.

t3_4y4mc4

CMV: For an individual, It's almost always more rational to leave a toxic environment than to change it.

Hello, I've been thinking this for a while, lemme elaborate a bit. Sorry it's long but I feel it's necessary to explain the topic well. I am a young new immigrant living in US who originally came from a developing country. My home country isn't the shittist but it was pretty shitty in every perspective compared with US. As a teenager, I was a bit idealistic and I imagine how government "should" treat people, how society "should" be operated according to laws, how laws "should" respect universally accepted definition of human rights, etc. I wasn't happy about things happening in my home country during teenage years. But seeing too many cases of those who want make things better being put into prison, get beaten and threatened by government, or being misunderstood by the people they want to help, gradually I realized as an individual it's incredibly hard to change something this gigantic, with so many people who simply can not comprehend the level of democracy they deserve. So I decided life is too short. Saving your country is too much work, I'm young and want have fun, I don't like my country, better just leave. US isn't perfect, injustice still happens here from time to time, but it's much closer to my ideology and citizens can at least openly express their anger. It also treated me extremely well. I pretty much got anything I want through hard work (not saying there's no inequality and everybody here can achieve what they want through hard work, just saying it worked well for me). Life couldn't be happier. So I applied this mindset to everything, life is too short, don't like something? Leave. Knowing that institutions and people are very slow/hard to change. I jumped from relationship to relationship quickly whenever I see any potential problem in long run. Change locations, jobs, gradually leave old friends and meet new people when friendship get a little sour/boring. And things are just getting better quickly, and I'm constantly excited by new opportunities and new people, I ended up with an amazing SO which fits me very well. And if some day I don't like US anymore I'll be more than happy to immigrate somewhere else. For myself, it seems to be no cost/downsides at all applying this attitude towards life. So I guess I can safely draw a conclusion that it's rational to enjoy your life and leave problematic/toxic environment behind. But here's the philosophical problem that bothers me. If everybody holds this mindset, shitty places will remain shitty or get shittier. And people who don't have other options will keep suffering. For example, when all liberal young people leave conservative areas for big cities, there's no check and balance and church sometimes have great power over a region and incredibly shitty things could happen. Now imagine this happens in country level. All the people who get frustrated by the society seek better life in another country and leave. Then there would be much less internal force to push things towards better direction. Bad neighborhoods remain bad because educated youth escape from them. Toxic family remain toxic when children cut the connection with their narcissistic parents. Inequality gets bigger and bigger everywhere when traveling gets easier in modern society. People with ability to move tend to move to better places for better life and leave the less lucky or "enlightened" (don't know what they deserve and don't understand the root cause of their suffering) ones behind. These movers can still apply external force to contribute back to where they come from, but it's nothing compares to people in the environment realize the systematic problems and apply internal change. Im too lazy to find data to back this assumption but I guess A large percentage of world population don't enjoy western defined basic human rights and freedoms. I think on individual level it's rational to pursue better life in better environments because it's faster and easier than changing the bad environments, but how about these people who get left behind?

CMV: For an individual, It's almost always more rational to leave a toxic environment than to change it. Hello, I've been thinking this for a while, lemme elaborate a bit. Sorry it's long but I feel it's necessary to explain the topic well. I am a young new immigrant living in US who originally came from a developing country. My home country isn't the shittist but it was pretty shitty in every perspective compared with US. As a teenager, I was a bit idealistic and I imagine how government "should" treat people, how society "should" be operated according to laws, how laws "should" respect universally accepted definition of human rights, etc. I wasn't happy about things happening in my home country during teenage years. But seeing too many cases of those who want make things better being put into prison, get beaten and threatened by government, or being misunderstood by the people they want to help, gradually I realized as an individual it's incredibly hard to change something this gigantic, with so many people who simply can not comprehend the level of democracy they deserve. So I decided life is too short. Saving your country is too much work, I'm young and want have fun, I don't like my country, better just leave. US isn't perfect, injustice still happens here from time to time, but it's much closer to my ideology and citizens can at least openly express their anger. It also treated me extremely well. I pretty much got anything I want through hard work (not saying there's no inequality and everybody here can achieve what they want through hard work, just saying it worked well for me). Life couldn't be happier. So I applied this mindset to everything, life is too short, don't like something? Leave. Knowing that institutions and people are very slow/hard to change. I jumped from relationship to relationship quickly whenever I see any potential problem in long run. Change locations, jobs, gradually leave old friends and meet new people when friendship get a little sour/boring. And things are just getting better quickly, and I'm constantly excited by new opportunities and new people, I ended up with an amazing SO which fits me very well. And if some day I don't like US anymore I'll be more than happy to immigrate somewhere else. For myself, it seems to be no cost/downsides at all applying this attitude towards life. So I guess I can safely draw a conclusion that it's rational to enjoy your life and leave problematic/toxic environment behind. But here's the philosophical problem that bothers me. If everybody holds this mindset, shitty places will remain shitty or get shittier. And people who don't have other options will keep suffering. For example, when all liberal young people leave conservative areas for big cities, there's no check and balance and church sometimes have great power over a region and incredibly shitty things could happen. Now imagine this happens in country level. All the people who get frustrated by the society seek better life in another country and leave. Then there would be much less internal force to push things towards better direction. Bad neighborhoods remain bad because educated youth escape from them. Toxic family remain toxic when children cut the connection with their narcissistic parents. Inequality gets bigger and bigger everywhere when traveling gets easier in modern society. People with ability to move tend to move to better places for better life and leave the less lucky or "enlightened" (don't know what they deserve and don't understand the root cause of their suffering) ones behind. These movers can still apply external force to contribute back to where they come from, but it's nothing compares to people in the environment realize the systematic problems and apply internal change. Im too lazy to find data to back this assumption but I guess A large percentage of world population don't enjoy western defined basic human rights and freedoms. I think on individual level it's rational to pursue better life in better environments because it's faster and easier than changing the bad environments, but how about these people who get left behind?

t3_4q3lpu

CMV: If someone on the terrorism watch list loses their Constitutional right to own a firearm, they should also lose all of their other Constitutional rights.

Specifically I am thinking of the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to due process, and the right to vote. Right now in Washington there is serious consideration to restrict an individual's Constitutional rights based on being placed on a terrorism watch list. The proposal so far is to restrict them from exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. I believe that if that proposal was to be passed, then it should also restrict all of the other Constitutional rights. If the logic of the proposal is that anyone included on that list is dangerous enough to not be allowed to own a weapon, then they should also be considered to dangerous to be able to speak freely. A single man with a weapon can kill 50 people, but if this person was allowed to spread his philosophy he could be exponentially more dangerous by recruiting others to join his cause. These people should also be denied to freedom to associate/assemble due to the danger of them planning a terrorist attack. It almost goes without saying that these people should also be denied their right to vote. Anyone who is dangerous enough to be placed on a terrorism watch list is clearly not someone who should have a voice in the workings of government. And last, since we are restricting Constitutional rights, why beat around the bush about it? If someone is dangerous enough to be on a watch list, then they should lose their 5th amendment right to due process. This is already implicit in the proposal being suggested since there is no due process protection related to the administration of the list. It just makes sense that inclusion on the list should be enough to entirely strip you of that right.

CMV: If someone on the terrorism watch list loses their Constitutional right to own a firearm, they should also lose all of their other Constitutional rights. Specifically I am thinking of the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to due process, and the right to vote. Right now in Washington there is serious consideration to restrict an individual's Constitutional rights based on being placed on a terrorism watch list. The proposal so far is to restrict them from exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. I believe that if that proposal was to be passed, then it should also restrict all of the other Constitutional rights. If the logic of the proposal is that anyone included on that list is dangerous enough to not be allowed to own a weapon, then they should also be considered to dangerous to be able to speak freely. A single man with a weapon can kill 50 people, but if this person was allowed to spread his philosophy he could be exponentially more dangerous by recruiting others to join his cause. These people should also be denied to freedom to associate/assemble due to the danger of them planning a terrorist attack. It almost goes without saying that these people should also be denied their right to vote. Anyone who is dangerous enough to be placed on a terrorism watch list is clearly not someone who should have a voice in the workings of government. And last, since we are restricting Constitutional rights, why beat around the bush about it? If someone is dangerous enough to be on a watch list, then they should lose their 5th amendment right to due process. This is already implicit in the proposal being suggested since there is no due process protection related to the administration of the list. It just makes sense that inclusion on the list should be enough to entirely strip you of that right.

t3_5bo3tn

CMV: Exchanging test materials after they have been graded by the teacher and handed back to the student should not be considering cheating/is not immoral.

I hope the following example will clear up any confusion about this CMV. Let's say that I am in a calculus class. I, along with the rest of my classmates, take a calculus test. I answer the questions to the best of my ability and hand in the test. The teacher grades the test and hands it back to me to keep, allowing me to review any mistakes made and giving me the opportunity to use it to study for a final. The next year, a friend who is going through the same calculus class asks to see my copy of the test to help study for this year's test. The tested material will be similar and there is a possibility, but not a certainty, that the questions will be the same. I could be punished for giving my friend my test and I do not believe I should be. Academic dishonesty is an issue that is taken very seriously in schools. I do not believe that the situation I described above should be viewed similarly to stealing a copy of the test before it is administered or trying to cheat off a friend during a test. First, my friend would still be preparing normally for the test. Although I have provided him with additional material related to the test, I have not provided him with any significant advantage over the rest of his classmates if he does not study that additional material. To me, it is no different that looking up how to solve an equation on Wolfram Alpha or any other homework help site. I think it is comparable to a tutoring service; the student receives extra help but is still responsible for his own performance during the test. Second, if teachers personally believe it is an issue in their class, it should be there responsibility to prevent it, by a) not handing tests back b) asking that they be returned or c) ensuring that test questions change between years so that there is no unfair advantage. I believe that the above situation punishes the student unfairly for making use of his own property. Please CMV! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Exchanging test materials after they have been graded by the teacher and handed back to the student should not be considering cheating/is not immoral. I hope the following example will clear up any confusion about this CMV. Let's say that I am in a calculus class. I, along with the rest of my classmates, take a calculus test. I answer the questions to the best of my ability and hand in the test. The teacher grades the test and hands it back to me to keep, allowing me to review any mistakes made and giving me the opportunity to use it to study for a final. The next year, a friend who is going through the same calculus class asks to see my copy of the test to help study for this year's test. The tested material will be similar and there is a possibility, but not a certainty, that the questions will be the same. I could be punished for giving my friend my test and I do not believe I should be. Academic dishonesty is an issue that is taken very seriously in schools. I do not believe that the situation I described above should be viewed similarly to stealing a copy of the test before it is administered or trying to cheat off a friend during a test. First, my friend would still be preparing normally for the test. Although I have provided him with additional material related to the test, I have not provided him with any significant advantage over the rest of his classmates if he does not study that additional material. To me, it is no different that looking up how to solve an equation on Wolfram Alpha or any other homework help site. I think it is comparable to a tutoring service; the student receives extra help but is still responsible for his own performance during the test. Second, if teachers personally believe it is an issue in their class, it should be there responsibility to prevent it, by a) not handing tests back b) asking that they be returned or c) ensuring that test questions change between years so that there is no unfair advantage. I believe that the above situation punishes the student unfairly for making use of his own property. Please CMV!

t3_4fl804

CMV: We need to see more third party voters in America.

I can accept that my candidate lost, but I resent the assertion that I should automatically give the other candidate my vote. I don't know if I can. There's several other political parties, some of whom run candidates and some who endorse candidates. I can also write in. Somebody will win the presidency, and it seems likely that whoever it is, they won't have my back. Why should I throw my political choice to them? To help the final count seem to overwhelmingly endorse those two? I think I can do better, even knowing I won't get my way this time around.

CMV: We need to see more third party voters in America. I can accept that my candidate lost, but I resent the assertion that I should automatically give the other candidate my vote. I don't know if I can. There's several other political parties, some of whom run candidates and some who endorse candidates. I can also write in. Somebody will win the presidency, and it seems likely that whoever it is, they won't have my back. Why should I throw my political choice to them? To help the final count seem to overwhelmingly endorse those two? I think I can do better, even knowing I won't get my way this time around.

t3_38tc60

CMV: People receiving SNAP benefits (a.k.a., food stamps) in the United States, should not be able to buy soda pop with it.

_____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People receiving SNAP benefits (a.k.a., food stamps) in the United States, should not be able to buy soda pop with it.

t3_4m4pd4

CMV: If Trump U is a scam, every university is a scam

By what measure can a university degree be seen as a scam? It's an interesting question that has been hotly debated with no clear answer. The value of an education is notoriously difficult to measure, but the only real objective standard by which an education can be judged is financial ROI. Ok, now let's say, for the sake of argument, that some Trump U students didn't get a good ROI. Now that sucks. But it's hardly unique or legally actionable. It's standard practice at literally every university in the country to charge huge tuition fees for degrees of extremely dubious value like gender studies or medieval literature, or hundreds of other bullshit degrees that will never translate into a viable career path or provide any ROI whatsoever. The universities know full well that these degrees are worthless but continue to manipulate naive bright-eyed teenagers into taking on debt they can't afford and 4 years of time in these courses when they could be learning or doing something useful instead. Now, the standard counterargument is that education has "intrinsic value" besides ROI. OK, fine. So then the Trump U students have nothing to complain about because they got intrinsic value, even if they didn't make money off the degrees. If, however, the intrinsic value argument doesn't wash, then where's the indictment for every other university in the country? Why is Trump U such a horrible scam, but they somehow aren't? *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If Trump U is a scam, every university is a scam. By what measure can a university degree be seen as a scam? It's an interesting question that has been hotly debated with no clear answer. The value of an education is notoriously difficult to measure, but the only real objective standard by which an education can be judged is financial ROI. Ok, now let's say, for the sake of argument, that some Trump U students didn't get a good ROI. Now that sucks. But it's hardly unique or legally actionable. It's standard practice at literally every university in the country to charge huge tuition fees for degrees of extremely dubious value like gender studies or medieval literature, or hundreds of other bullshit degrees that will never translate into a viable career path or provide any ROI whatsoever. The universities know full well that these degrees are worthless but continue to manipulate naive bright-eyed teenagers into taking on debt they can't afford and 4 years of time in these courses when they could be learning or doing something useful instead. Now, the standard counterargument is that education has "intrinsic value" besides ROI. OK, fine. So then the Trump U students have nothing to complain about because they got intrinsic value, even if they didn't make money off the degrees. If, however, the intrinsic value argument doesn't wash, then where's the indictment for every other university in the country? Why is Trump U such a horrible scam, but they somehow aren't? *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_4ls5db

CMV: Circular corn chips are superior to triangular

I want this changed so I can be happy with the corn chips I buy from the local supermarket, despite their inferior mechanical qualities. I use corn chips as a means of moving other parts of the meal, the load, from the container to be eaten. Circular corn chips allow a larger loading than a 1 corner trianglar loading, without the mechanical failure of the much too large 2 corner triangular loading. The circular shape also allows easier one mouthful eating, as biting through a corn chip often leads to random splintering, and it ending up useless for loading. The majority of loads are stored or served in bowls, and a circular corn chip allows easier loading of the last bits compared to a triangle. Corn chips are all made from processed and extruded corn, so the shape is arbitrary, and can be changed easily, unlike potato chips. For this reason, the circular versions are simply better for use, and I wish they were sold locally. EDIT: [Chips in use](http://i.imgur.com/Ly5E5Ql.jpg).

CMV: Circular corn chips are superior to triangular. I want this changed so I can be happy with the corn chips I buy from the local supermarket, despite their inferior mechanical qualities. I use corn chips as a means of moving other parts of the meal, the load, from the container to be eaten. Circular corn chips allow a larger loading than a 1 corner trianglar loading, without the mechanical failure of the much too large 2 corner triangular loading. The circular shape also allows easier one mouthful eating, as biting through a corn chip often leads to random splintering, and it ending up useless for loading. The majority of loads are stored or served in bowls, and a circular corn chip allows easier loading of the last bits compared to a triangle. Corn chips are all made from processed and extruded corn, so the shape is arbitrary, and can be changed easily, unlike potato chips. For this reason, the circular versions are simply better for use, and I wish they were sold locally. EDIT: [Chips in use](http://i.imgur.com/Ly5E5Ql.jpg).

t3_1fxh50

I believe that abortion is absolutely fine, and should be legal. CMV.

I just don't see anything wrong with it. I mean, the fetus is still part of the woman's body, and who's a lawmaker to tell someone what to do with their own body? EDIT: To clear things up, I mean that I think there is nothing at all wrong with abortion at all, and that there shouldn't be any restrictions anywhere against it.

I believe that abortion is absolutely fine, and should be legal. CMV. I just don't see anything wrong with it. I mean, the fetus is still part of the woman's body, and who's a lawmaker to tell someone what to do with their own body? EDIT: To clear things up, I mean that I think there is nothing at all wrong with abortion at all, and that there shouldn't be any restrictions anywhere against it.

t3_1mdoul

I believe Putin was right, it is dangerous to encourage a people to think of themselves as exceptional. CMV

The only thing that such nationalism accomplishes is xenophobia. The more you break the world down into "Us" and "Them", the more you're willing to ignore or outright harm "Them" for the sake of "Us". Since we're all people, and deserve the best life possible regardless of if we're born in Tulsa or Baghdad, exceptionalism can only stand in the way of that. I've always thought that to be a no-brainer, and I'm a bit surprised, or at least dismayed, that so many people have had negative reactions to what he said.

I believe Putin was right, it is dangerous to encourage a people to think of themselves as exceptional. CMV. The only thing that such nationalism accomplishes is xenophobia. The more you break the world down into "Us" and "Them", the more you're willing to ignore or outright harm "Them" for the sake of "Us". Since we're all people, and deserve the best life possible regardless of if we're born in Tulsa or Baghdad, exceptionalism can only stand in the way of that. I've always thought that to be a no-brainer, and I'm a bit surprised, or at least dismayed, that so many people have had negative reactions to what he said.

t3_6y56dy

CMV: The Moral Arguments for Veganism.

I think that most animals are just biological machines which lack cognitive capabilities, emotional complexity and creativity and so there is no moral obligation to prevent animal "suffering" at the cost of any human inconvenience. The main reason many vegans chose to eat plants is to avoid causing unnecessary pain as plants don't have nervous systems. Pain and suffering is just an evolutionary response to negative stimuli and ethical views surrounding it seem inconsistent. Since humans with congenital analgesia cannot experience pain, would they be okay to eat? What if we genetically engineered nociception out of our livestock? Oysters don't even have a CNS so why is the moral burden the same? Edit: Seems a lot of people are only arguing the fringe case for bigger, smarter mammals but this isn't where veganism draws the line. Many omnivores already draw arbitrary lines (most people wouldn't eat bonobos) for such animals. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The Moral Arguments for Veganism. I think that most animals are just biological machines which lack cognitive capabilities, emotional complexity and creativity and so there is no moral obligation to prevent animal "suffering" at the cost of any human inconvenience. The main reason many vegans chose to eat plants is to avoid causing unnecessary pain as plants don't have nervous systems. Pain and suffering is just an evolutionary response to negative stimuli and ethical views surrounding it seem inconsistent. Since humans with congenital analgesia cannot experience pain, would they be okay to eat? What if we genetically engineered nociception out of our livestock? Oysters don't even have a CNS so why is the moral burden the same? Edit: Seems a lot of people are only arguing the fringe case for bigger, smarter mammals but this isn't where veganism draws the line. Many omnivores already draw arbitrary lines (most people wouldn't eat bonobos) for such animals.

t3_2cwqvn

CMV: I believe the math SAT math should be much, much harder.

I believe math SAT should be much, much harder. Just look at this sample tests: [A](http://www.majortests.com/sat/problem-solving-test01), [B](http://www.majortests.com/sat/problem-solving-test12). The questions look like they were designed so that most sixth grader could get a perfect mark. I really don't know what to say. Just look at the question A1. Who can get that wrong? Most fourth graders can answer that. Now lets go to the last question; supposedly the hardest. How many people who've graduated middle school can't answer that?. If the SATs were harder, a 2400 would carry much more weight. They should include university level calculus so only smart and/or hard working people would get 2400s. I know people are going to downvote me to death or cross-post this to /r/iamverysmart but frankly I don't give a fuck. The SATs are clearly easy, most things in the SATs where taught to students before the eight grade. The SATs should be made so that only a dozen people get perfect marks every year. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe the math SAT math should be much, much harder. I believe math SAT should be much, much harder. Just look at this sample tests: [A](http://www.majortests.com/sat/problem-solving-test01), [B](http://www.majortests.com/sat/problem-solving-test12). The questions look like they were designed so that most sixth grader could get a perfect mark. I really don't know what to say. Just look at the question A1. Who can get that wrong? Most fourth graders can answer that. Now lets go to the last question; supposedly the hardest. How many people who've graduated middle school can't answer that?. If the SATs were harder, a 2400 would carry much more weight. They should include university level calculus so only smart and/or hard working people would get 2400s. I know people are going to downvote me to death or cross-post this to /r/iamverysmart but frankly I don't give a fuck. The SATs are clearly easy, most things in the SATs where taught to students before the eight grade. The SATs should be made so that only a dozen people get perfect marks every year.

t3_4vdxw5

CMV: Even if Election Fraud did occur, we should still vote for Hilary Clinton.

Recently, ElectionJusticeUsa.org found that there is sufficient evidence for Election Fraud in the Democratic primary, to the point where they could even estimate the number of delegates it was off by (184): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6J1ecILnk3UUy1KZ2FUT29iQ1E/view?pref=2&pli=1 Their evidence is pretty damning, and I haven't even read it all. I'm also someone who has resisted all notions of Election Fraud. So I'm not 100% sure yet, still. I need to do more research. But let's say, hypothetically, it did happen. You still have one of the most obvious choices there's ever been in an election. An overqualified candidate versus a grossly underqualified one. Someone who knows everything about what the job entails versus someone who has no idea what it entails. Someone who has no actual policy other than conspiracy theories and xenophobia versus a candidate with one of the most progressive platforms we've ever seen, who still has a moderate running mate, who is experienced when it comes to working with people who disagree with her, and who, yes, has made her share of mistakes, but is fully capable of the task at hand. So if we assume that Election Fraud did occur, and that Hilary won the nomination by cheating, how does it change the fact that she is still clearly the better candidate by far? Third party votes accomplish nothing and I believe that they are morally irresponsible, I really, really doubt you can change my view there. Instead, I want to be convinced that Hilary getting away with election fraud in her own party is as potentially dangerous as Donald Trump. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Even if Election Fraud did occur, we should still vote for Hilary Clinton. Recently, ElectionJusticeUsa.org found that there is sufficient evidence for Election Fraud in the Democratic primary, to the point where they could even estimate the number of delegates it was off by (184): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6J1ecILnk3UUy1KZ2FUT29iQ1E/view?pref=2&pli=1 Their evidence is pretty damning, and I haven't even read it all. I'm also someone who has resisted all notions of Election Fraud. So I'm not 100% sure yet, still. I need to do more research. But let's say, hypothetically, it did happen. You still have one of the most obvious choices there's ever been in an election. An overqualified candidate versus a grossly underqualified one. Someone who knows everything about what the job entails versus someone who has no idea what it entails. Someone who has no actual policy other than conspiracy theories and xenophobia versus a candidate with one of the most progressive platforms we've ever seen, who still has a moderate running mate, who is experienced when it comes to working with people who disagree with her, and who, yes, has made her share of mistakes, but is fully capable of the task at hand. So if we assume that Election Fraud did occur, and that Hilary won the nomination by cheating, how does it change the fact that she is still clearly the better candidate by far? Third party votes accomplish nothing and I believe that they are morally irresponsible, I really, really doubt you can change my view there. Instead, I want to be convinced that Hilary getting away with election fraud in her own party is as potentially dangerous as Donald Trump. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_6y2p1g

CMV: We still need nuclear energy

I have read the other CMV on nuclear energy and many common concerns were brought up: it requires a lot of water, time, planning, and investment. Renewables will continue to get better and cheaper, nuclear will likely remain comparatively expensive (Even if prices drop). There are safety concerns as well, although I think they apply less to Generation 3, 4, 5 reactors. Each generation getting safer and better, as these things tend to do. However, I still believe we should be heavily investing in nuclear technology for a few reasons. One, in some locations, nuclear is far more viable than renewables. Dense, crowded cities near an ocean do not have room for wind or solar farms. There is the possibility of technology incorporating into windows and roofs more, but where space is a main concern, renewables get harder. Nuclear reactors in Generation 4 are significantly smaller, and theorized Gen. 5 reactors are the size of a couch or so. Few of those spread around New York and you've got power for centuries. Two, we still need to find a way to clean up the waste. As John Oliver mentioned a few weeks ago, "We built a house with no toliet." Our nuclear waste is not being handled in a safe way. Basically, our best idea is to bury it, but we've been saying that will get done since the 1970s and here we are a generation later with minimal progress. We MUST fix this problem once and for all. It is non-negotiable and the major thrust of my argument on CMV. We have to invest in nuclear to guarentee that the waste from weapons and energy is safely dealt with. Preferably, by being dumped in to some Gen. 5 reactor and recycled. Last point, I believe we need nuclear for space travel. For the same reason that our subs and ships often run on nuclear, it can be relied on for many human lifetimes as an energy source. We will need such reliability as we begin to travel the stars. I do not think that nuclear is the only answer, but I think it is one we still need to invest heavily in for the listed reasons. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We still need nuclear energy. I have read the other CMV on nuclear energy and many common concerns were brought up: it requires a lot of water, time, planning, and investment. Renewables will continue to get better and cheaper, nuclear will likely remain comparatively expensive (Even if prices drop). There are safety concerns as well, although I think they apply less to Generation 3, 4, 5 reactors. Each generation getting safer and better, as these things tend to do. However, I still believe we should be heavily investing in nuclear technology for a few reasons. One, in some locations, nuclear is far more viable than renewables. Dense, crowded cities near an ocean do not have room for wind or solar farms. There is the possibility of technology incorporating into windows and roofs more, but where space is a main concern, renewables get harder. Nuclear reactors in Generation 4 are significantly smaller, and theorized Gen. 5 reactors are the size of a couch or so. Few of those spread around New York and you've got power for centuries. Two, we still need to find a way to clean up the waste. As John Oliver mentioned a few weeks ago, "We built a house with no toliet." Our nuclear waste is not being handled in a safe way. Basically, our best idea is to bury it, but we've been saying that will get done since the 1970s and here we are a generation later with minimal progress. We MUST fix this problem once and for all. It is non-negotiable and the major thrust of my argument on CMV. We have to invest in nuclear to guarentee that the waste from weapons and energy is safely dealt with. Preferably, by being dumped in to some Gen. 5 reactor and recycled. Last point, I believe we need nuclear for space travel. For the same reason that our subs and ships often run on nuclear, it can be relied on for many human lifetimes as an energy source. We will need such reliability as we begin to travel the stars. I do not think that nuclear is the only answer, but I think it is one we still need to invest heavily in for the listed reasons. CMV.

t3_3h9gcv

CMV: Building a PC isn't worth the effort/headache

I don't think building a PC is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so. The $100-200 you save isn't worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts. So I had a 100% functional pc I built years ago, and decided I'd "rebuild" it with a skylake CPU/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr4 RAM. I was short on cash, so I decided to reuse the same GPU for now, 100% functional before I built the new PC. Package arrives, I take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky. But I get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard VGA. Onboard DVI and GPU outputs don't work, but the GPU fans are spinning. Yes, the PCIe power connectors are connected, and yes I properly seated the GPU. So I look online, and people tell me I probably just need drivers. So I install windows just fine. Try to get drivers off of AMD's site, install fails. Not surprising, because the GPU won't show in the device manager. Great. So I turn it off, open it up, and put a spare GPU into the same slot. Still no image. I then take that spare GPU, and put it in the 2nd PCIe slot. Magically, it works. But this PCIe slot operates at x8, and isn't big enough to fit high end GPUs because the SATA ports are in the way. So no bueno. I decide that the PCIe slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to RMA. I decide I need a PC while I wait for the new parts, so I reassemble my old build, which took even more time. System boots, image displayed but now the video card fans don't spin. System restarts after a few minutes abruptly. Obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling. Put in spare card, works fine. So the new motherboard I bought fried the video card I own due to a falty PCIe slot, and chances are Newegg or ASUS won't cover that, judging by what I read online. So now I'm down $600 I spent on new parts, 2 days worth of time I spent troubleshooting(which I could have made a lot if I worked those days), and now I'm stuck using a low end GPU as the motherboard fried my $200 one. There's a reason that professional corporations just buy OEM PCs like Dell instead of hiring people to build them. The build process is all fine if you know what you're doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 1 DOA part that fries other parts, then it's pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep. The time spent troubleshooting poor parts isn't worth the miniscule amount of money you save. I've been working in a PC repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and I'm comptia A+ certified, so I know what I'm doing, for the most part. But imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting. They would have no clue what part to blame, what to RMA, what to buy. Unless you're extremely frugal, or enjoy building PCs, you're better off just buying an OEM PC. The $100-200 yous ave isn't worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you'll never get it to work at all(because of DOA parts or rookie mistakes)

CMV: Building a PC isn't worth the effort/headache. I don't think building a PC is worth it unless you enjoy the process of doing so. The $100-200 you save isn't worth the work it takes to assemble the thing and troubleshoot faulty parts. So I had a 100% functional pc I built years ago, and decided I'd "rebuild" it with a skylake CPU/new motherboard/new cooler/ddr4 RAM. I was short on cash, so I decided to reuse the same GPU for now, 100% functional before I built the new PC. Package arrives, I take a couple hours to assemble it as the cooler is a bit tricky. But I get it right, but the system only outputs to the onboard VGA. Onboard DVI and GPU outputs don't work, but the GPU fans are spinning. Yes, the PCIe power connectors are connected, and yes I properly seated the GPU. So I look online, and people tell me I probably just need drivers. So I install windows just fine. Try to get drivers off of AMD's site, install fails. Not surprising, because the GPU won't show in the device manager. Great. So I turn it off, open it up, and put a spare GPU into the same slot. Still no image. I then take that spare GPU, and put it in the 2nd PCIe slot. Magically, it works. But this PCIe slot operates at x8, and isn't big enough to fit high end GPUs because the SATA ports are in the way. So no bueno. I decide that the PCIe slot is broken, and take the pc apart to get the board ready to RMA. I decide I need a PC while I wait for the new parts, so I reassemble my old build, which took even more time. System boots, image displayed but now the video card fans don't spin. System restarts after a few minutes abruptly. Obviously, this means that the card is overheating due to no active cooling. Put in spare card, works fine. So the new motherboard I bought fried the video card I own due to a falty PCIe slot, and chances are Newegg or ASUS won't cover that, judging by what I read online. So now I'm down $600 I spent on new parts, 2 days worth of time I spent troubleshooting(which I could have made a lot if I worked those days), and now I'm stuck using a low end GPU as the motherboard fried my $200 one. There's a reason that professional corporations just buy OEM PCs like Dell instead of hiring people to build them. The build process is all fine if you know what you're doing and all parts work, but the moment you get 1 DOA part that fries other parts, then it's pure hell to figure out what to replace, and what to keep. The time spent troubleshooting poor parts isn't worth the miniscule amount of money you save. I've been working in a PC repair shop for a year, took a year long pc repair course, and I'm comptia A+ certified, so I know what I'm doing, for the most part. But imagine if this happened to a beginner, who is just going off of guides found online with no experience behind them in troubleshooting. They would have no clue what part to blame, what to RMA, what to buy. Unless you're extremely frugal, or enjoy building PCs, you're better off just buying an OEM PC. The $100-200 yous ave isn't worth the time spent figuring it out, or the risk that you'll never get it to work at all(because of DOA parts or rookie mistakes)

t3_34rkxg

CMV: Princeton is a better school than Yale, especially for undergrads

In all honesty, the schools are incredibly similar and graduating from either one is going to look impressive on anyone's resume. But Princeton is still the better school. I think the most important things when considering a school are academic experience, social experience, and reputation. To this end, I believe Princeton to be the better school than Yale. With regard to academic experience, I believe that Princeton and Yale are so remarkably similar that there is no point in trying to determine a winner. The only real difference between the two would have the senior thesis and junior papers that Princeton students must complete, which makes Princeton a little harder, but not enough to matter. In the social department, Princeton's eating clubs are superior to the secret societies of Yale. Princeton is also the smaller school, with less grad students. This makes it easier for someone to be known on campus and easier for a student to join clubs, because there is less social competition. The last major point here is reputation. Here are the rankings for the two schools: Yale: #3 U.S. News #11 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) #4 Forbes #54 Washington Monthly #9 Lumosity Princeton: #1 U.S. News #6 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) #3 Forbes #31 Washington Monthly #3 Lumosity [Source](http://colleges.startclass.com/compare/785-2619-2740-2748-3758-3850/Yale-University-vs-Princeton-University-vs-Columbia-University-in-the-City-of-New-York-vs-Cornell-University-vs-University-of-Pennsylvania-vs-Brown-University) I feel I am too biased personally to be making social inferences, but I feel as though both Princeton and Yale hold a similar place in societal perception.

CMV: Princeton is a better school than Yale, especially for undergrads. In all honesty, the schools are incredibly similar and graduating from either one is going to look impressive on anyone's resume. But Princeton is still the better school. I think the most important things when considering a school are academic experience, social experience, and reputation. To this end, I believe Princeton to be the better school than Yale. With regard to academic experience, I believe that Princeton and Yale are so remarkably similar that there is no point in trying to determine a winner. The only real difference between the two would have the senior thesis and junior papers that Princeton students must complete, which makes Princeton a little harder, but not enough to matter. In the social department, Princeton's eating clubs are superior to the secret societies of Yale. Princeton is also the smaller school, with less grad students. This makes it easier for someone to be known on campus and easier for a student to join clubs, because there is less social competition. The last major point here is reputation. Here are the rankings for the two schools: Yale: #3 U.S. News #11 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) #4 Forbes #54 Washington Monthly #9 Lumosity Princeton: #1 U.S. News #6 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) #3 Forbes #31 Washington Monthly #3 Lumosity [Source](http://colleges.startclass.com/compare/785-2619-2740-2748-3758-3850/Yale-University-vs-Princeton-University-vs-Columbia-University-in-the-City-of-New-York-vs-Cornell-University-vs-University-of-Pennsylvania-vs-Brown-University) I feel I am too biased personally to be making social inferences, but I feel as though both Princeton and Yale hold a similar place in societal perception.

t3_3naon7

CMV: As a man, their is absolutely no reason to use shaving cream to shave.

I am 33 years old, obviously I have been shaving since I was in my teens. We all have watched the cliche' movies where the young man is being taught to shave by his father, shaving cream lathered on. This is just how it's been done. I have shaved in the shower for the last 10 years, no shaving cream required. You do need to let the hairs/follicles get warm and pliable before shaving. The shave is the same, and frankly a time saver when your in a hurry. Am i missing something? Is their someone out there that can give me some insight as to why anyone would purchase and use shaving cream? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: As a man, their is absolutely no reason to use shaving cream to shave. I am 33 years old, obviously I have been shaving since I was in my teens. We all have watched the cliche' movies where the young man is being taught to shave by his father, shaving cream lathered on. This is just how it's been done. I have shaved in the shower for the last 10 years, no shaving cream required. You do need to let the hairs/follicles get warm and pliable before shaving. The shave is the same, and frankly a time saver when your in a hurry. Am i missing something? Is their someone out there that can give me some insight as to why anyone would purchase and use shaving cream?

t3_1ory8p

I believe that hard recreational drugs should be legal. CMV

By hard recreational drugs I mean things like Meth, Coke, and heroin. My friend and I got into this argument yesterday so I'm bringing it to the internet. While we both agree that marijuana should be legal we disagreed about more serious drugs. I believe hard drugs should be legal because 1. It is a free country and people should be able to do things that they want if those things are not harmful to others. (My right to swing my first ends where your face begins, or the quote is something like that from I can't remember who) There might be things where the above quote doesn't apply to very well but I think it would apply well to drugs. 2. Although these drugs would be really harmful it would be people's choice to do them and live with the consequences. There would be no difference between people who died from meth overdose and people who die from lung cancer from smoking too much, they both know the risks of those people still do it anyway so it would be their choice. Also since doing these hard drugs isn't exactly very smart, especially for your health, those that did them and probably died would serve as natural selection and get rid of some of the stupid people (though everyone who does drugs ins't stupid of course) 3. It would help out the crime rate. With drugs legalized that is a big business now out of the hands of street gangs and organized crime. The drug trade would take a lot of damage. Also there would be more police freed up to deal with other kinds of crimes. 4. Taxes 5. The drug war hasn't been that successful or at least as successful as they wanted it to be. Time to cut our losses and move on. With drugs legal though, like I mentioned before, more damage would probably be done to cartels and drug lords through loss of business than damage that was ever done to them through other means. There may have been more beneficial reasons I thought of to hard drugs being legal but I have forgot them at the moment. I think having these legal would do more good than bad. CMV!

I believe that hard recreational drugs should be legal. CMV. By hard recreational drugs I mean things like Meth, Coke, and heroin. My friend and I got into this argument yesterday so I'm bringing it to the internet. While we both agree that marijuana should be legal we disagreed about more serious drugs. I believe hard drugs should be legal because 1. It is a free country and people should be able to do things that they want if those things are not harmful to others. (My right to swing my first ends where your face begins, or the quote is something like that from I can't remember who) There might be things where the above quote doesn't apply to very well but I think it would apply well to drugs. 2. Although these drugs would be really harmful it would be people's choice to do them and live with the consequences. There would be no difference between people who died from meth overdose and people who die from lung cancer from smoking too much, they both know the risks of those people still do it anyway so it would be their choice. Also since doing these hard drugs isn't exactly very smart, especially for your health, those that did them and probably died would serve as natural selection and get rid of some of the stupid people (though everyone who does drugs ins't stupid of course) 3. It would help out the crime rate. With drugs legalized that is a big business now out of the hands of street gangs and organized crime. The drug trade would take a lot of damage. Also there would be more police freed up to deal with other kinds of crimes. 4. Taxes 5. The drug war hasn't been that successful or at least as successful as they wanted it to be. Time to cut our losses and move on. With drugs legal though, like I mentioned before, more damage would probably be done to cartels and drug lords through loss of business than damage that was ever done to them through other means. There may have been more beneficial reasons I thought of to hard drugs being legal but I have forgot them at the moment. I think having these legal would do more good than bad. CMV!

t3_51skjh

CMV: I believe India is right in advising female visitors to not wear skirts and not be out at night to reduce the chance they will be raped.

There was a recent uproar over India's safety guidelines to women to reduce the chance of rape as they visit the country. Don't wear skirts = victim blaming. I don't understand the thinking here. If I travel to a country with a high rate of petty theft, I may be advised to keep my wallet in my front pocket. Don't show large sums of cash. I even have a stainless steel wedding ring that I use when on business travel to certain areas because I wouldn't mind giving it up. It is common sense. Why is advising women to wear pants, don't go out at night alone, etc. any different? Of course countries should deal with the criminals. Of course women should be safe no matter what they wear. Of course I shouldn't *need* a lock on my front door. But we need to be safe in the world we live in, in the place we are at the moment, not in the world we wish to live in. Why does it cause such an uproar when a woman is told to do certain things to reduce the chance that they become victims of violent crime? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe India is right in advising female visitors to not wear skirts and not be out at night to reduce the chance they will be raped. There was a recent uproar over India's safety guidelines to women to reduce the chance of rape as they visit the country. Don't wear skirts = victim blaming. I don't understand the thinking here. If I travel to a country with a high rate of petty theft, I may be advised to keep my wallet in my front pocket. Don't show large sums of cash. I even have a stainless steel wedding ring that I use when on business travel to certain areas because I wouldn't mind giving it up. It is common sense. Why is advising women to wear pants, don't go out at night alone, etc. any different? Of course countries should deal with the criminals. Of course women should be safe no matter what they wear. Of course I shouldn't *need* a lock on my front door. But we need to be safe in the world we live in, in the place we are at the moment, not in the world we wish to live in. Why does it cause such an uproar when a woman is told to do certain things to reduce the chance that they become victims of violent crime?

t3_68l3lh

CMV: At some point, a law stating that people must use their real names in all online communication will be seen as a good thing

The amount of harassment, stalking, doxxing, fraud and otherwise illegal behaviour online is going to reach a tipping point at some point in the near future. We see the problems on reddit - if someone gets banned for something, they can just make a new account. If they get IP banned, they can just use a VPN. Other online platforms have the same problem - twitter being a good example. Twitter is also an example of where this idea might show its promise. Some people in the UK have been cautioned/arrested by police for online harassment done through twitter - because they were stupid enough to use their real name while posting. The reason this keeps happening is because there's no punishment for it. No one really cares about getting a silly reddit account banned, or a twitter account with a made-up handle banned. People do care about real-life consequences. One of these routes (carrying on as we are) will not discourage online behaviour and criminality that, let's be honest, no one wants to see. The other, even if it means sacrificing some online freedom and anonymity, will dissuade people from it. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: At some point, a law stating that people must use their real names in all online communication will be seen as a good thing. The amount of harassment, stalking, doxxing, fraud and otherwise illegal behaviour online is going to reach a tipping point at some point in the near future. We see the problems on reddit - if someone gets banned for something, they can just make a new account. If they get IP banned, they can just use a VPN. Other online platforms have the same problem - twitter being a good example. Twitter is also an example of where this idea might show its promise. Some people in the UK have been cautioned/arrested by police for online harassment done through twitter - because they were stupid enough to use their real name while posting. The reason this keeps happening is because there's no punishment for it. No one really cares about getting a silly reddit account banned, or a twitter account with a made-up handle banned. People do care about real-life consequences. One of these routes (carrying on as we are) will not discourage online behaviour and criminality that, let's be honest, no one wants to see. The other, even if it means sacrificing some online freedom and anonymity, will dissuade people from it.

t3_28kknv

CMV:I believe that affirmative action is a terrible solution to the problem of not enough minorities getting into college.

Affirmative action has never really made much sense to me, primarily because it bases whether you get into college on something you're born with instead of your own merit. In essence, it's "reverse" racism (I say that lightly since all racism is racist and wrong). My problems with it are the following: 1. What I just mentioned. Your merit should really be all that matters. If person A, who is of a racial majority, has a 3.6 GPA when he applies for college, is rejected in favor of person B, who is of a racial minority and has a 3.0 GPA, then that does person A a huge injustice since he had the merit to get in but didn't because he was born a certain way. Furthermore, it may do person B an injustice as well. Colleges have GPA thresholds so that the people who get in are prepared for the workload. Affirmative action blurs that threshold, so there is less guarantee that people will be able to handle the school, which leads to the second problem I have. 2. It doesn't solve the problem. By including race as a somewhat weighted factor, you might have more minorities in the school, but it doesn't mean they are more prepared to enter it. Affirmative action to me seems like an "ends justify the means" example. The problem that must be addressed is that minorities right now are not able to prepare their children to perform competitively at high level universities due to financial difficulties. The way to address the problem that affirmative action is trying to solve is to have comprehensive, low-cost (or free) SAT preparation. That way, more minorities get into college because of their own merit. This is better for everyone. It feels better to accomplish something because of YOU, and not the system, and the injustice suffered by high-performing students is eradicated. I know this is pretty idealistic, but I feel that affirmative action is only creating more problems in its dodging of the real problem. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I believe that affirmative action is a terrible solution to the problem of not enough minorities getting into college. Affirmative action has never really made much sense to me, primarily because it bases whether you get into college on something you're born with instead of your own merit. In essence, it's "reverse" racism (I say that lightly since all racism is racist and wrong). My problems with it are the following: 1. What I just mentioned. Your merit should really be all that matters. If person A, who is of a racial majority, has a 3.6 GPA when he applies for college, is rejected in favor of person B, who is of a racial minority and has a 3.0 GPA, then that does person A a huge injustice since he had the merit to get in but didn't because he was born a certain way. Furthermore, it may do person B an injustice as well. Colleges have GPA thresholds so that the people who get in are prepared for the workload. Affirmative action blurs that threshold, so there is less guarantee that people will be able to handle the school, which leads to the second problem I have. 2. It doesn't solve the problem. By including race as a somewhat weighted factor, you might have more minorities in the school, but it doesn't mean they are more prepared to enter it. Affirmative action to me seems like an "ends justify the means" example. The problem that must be addressed is that minorities right now are not able to prepare their children to perform competitively at high level universities due to financial difficulties. The way to address the problem that affirmative action is trying to solve is to have comprehensive, low-cost (or free) SAT preparation. That way, more minorities get into college because of their own merit. This is better for everyone. It feels better to accomplish something because of YOU, and not the system, and the injustice suffered by high-performing students is eradicated. I know this is pretty idealistic, but I feel that affirmative action is only creating more problems in its dodging of the real problem.

t3_1xr2ne

The existence of sociopaths/psychopaths is solid proof against Christianity. CMV.

Basically what the title says. Society has known about sociopaths/psychopaths for a long time, but we're always written them off in the past as either just people who chose terrible personalities or people possessed by demons. Modern neuroscience has definitively proven that these psychopaths are actually afflicted by material deficits in the brain, namely parts of the frontal lobe. They literally could not summon up empathy or love for their fellow human beings no matter how hard they tried. They are physically broken people and their "evil" habits are a result of a mental disease. This goes directly counter to what mainstream Christianity says. The Bible teaches that every person is capable of loving others, being charitable, following God's word, etc. How do psychopaths fit into this? Are they essentially fucked, and destined for hell, based on the fact that God made their brains different? Are they not considered human, and therefore not subject to God's laws? I strongly believe that the existence of psychopaths is evidence against the idea that God wants all people to be loving/kind/etc. If a person's brain is damaged and he is physically unable to summon up those emotions, it makes no sense for God to expect him to live up to some celestial rules and lifestyle. Change my view.

The existence of sociopaths/psychopaths is solid proof against Christianity. CMV. Basically what the title says. Society has known about sociopaths/psychopaths for a long time, but we're always written them off in the past as either just people who chose terrible personalities or people possessed by demons. Modern neuroscience has definitively proven that these psychopaths are actually afflicted by material deficits in the brain, namely parts of the frontal lobe. They literally could not summon up empathy or love for their fellow human beings no matter how hard they tried. They are physically broken people and their "evil" habits are a result of a mental disease. This goes directly counter to what mainstream Christianity says. The Bible teaches that every person is capable of loving others, being charitable, following God's word, etc. How do psychopaths fit into this? Are they essentially fucked, and destined for hell, based on the fact that God made their brains different? Are they not considered human, and therefore not subject to God's laws? I strongly believe that the existence of psychopaths is evidence against the idea that God wants all people to be loving/kind/etc. If a person's brain is damaged and he is physically unable to summon up those emotions, it makes no sense for God to expect him to live up to some celestial rules and lifestyle. Change my view.

t3_26nb7e

CMV: I think MRM is necessary in the Western/Developed World

I will preface this post by saying that there is absolutely a place for feminism in first world countries and in third world countries as well. There is still a long way to go before either (binary) gender reaches equality. But, there are many parts of life in which men are discriminated against. Men who suffer [domestic abuse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM) are often not treated with the same respect as their female counterparts. [People who try to help them are ridiculed and forced into financial ruin](http://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelter-for-abused-men-and-children-commits-suicide-after-financial-ruin-ridicule/). [Men get longer sentences for similar crimes](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html). Not mention the oft stated fact that men have higher workplace fatality rates, as well as higher successful suicide rates. Lastly, feminism does not do anything to help these men. They, understandably, are focused on women's issues, which is totally fine. But, what is not okay is to not do anything about men's issues, and then say that men's rights activism isn't necessary. CMV

CMV: I think MRM is necessary in the Western/Developed World. I will preface this post by saying that there is absolutely a place for feminism in first world countries and in third world countries as well. There is still a long way to go before either (binary) gender reaches equality. But, there are many parts of life in which men are discriminated against. Men who suffer [domestic abuse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM) are often not treated with the same respect as their female counterparts. [People who try to help them are ridiculed and forced into financial ruin](http://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelter-for-abused-men-and-children-commits-suicide-after-financial-ruin-ridicule/). [Men get longer sentences for similar crimes](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html). Not mention the oft stated fact that men have higher workplace fatality rates, as well as higher successful suicide rates. Lastly, feminism does not do anything to help these men. They, understandably, are focused on women's issues, which is totally fine. But, what is not okay is to not do anything about men's issues, and then say that men's rights activism isn't necessary. CMV

t3_2ujo2u

CMV: I hold no responsibility for war crimes

I served in the the US military in Iraq. War crimes were committed in this war, although I did not hear of them as they happened, took part in none, and could not have prevented any war crimes. I was recently told by another redditor that I held responsibility for these war crimes because I was part of a volunteer force, and thus enabled these crimes. When I tried to argue that I had no part, I was laughed at and ridiculed. I believe those responsible for war crimes are the ones who commit them and give orders to commit them. Citizens also are not responsible for the crimes, only for removing those directly responsible when the crime comes to light. You do not hold responsibility for a crime by association, and indirectly enabling these crimes (via paying taxes, volunteering, or voting [unless the candidate actually stands for committing war crimes]) does not make one responsible for them either. I consider myself open minded and willing to change my view, so if someone can provide a solid argument against the above, I will CMV. As some background, I am no longer in the armed forces, do not agree with the justifications for the war (I was very young when I joined and have changed my opinion in the time after joining) I do believe I did some good while I was deployed. I represented my country in a professional manner and taught the Iraqi army techniques to improve their forces and their methods. I worked to locate and remove ordnance from historical buildings and homes, among other things. They might not be great deeds in the grand scheme, but they are far from war crimes. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I hold no responsibility for war crimes. I served in the the US military in Iraq. War crimes were committed in this war, although I did not hear of them as they happened, took part in none, and could not have prevented any war crimes. I was recently told by another redditor that I held responsibility for these war crimes because I was part of a volunteer force, and thus enabled these crimes. When I tried to argue that I had no part, I was laughed at and ridiculed. I believe those responsible for war crimes are the ones who commit them and give orders to commit them. Citizens also are not responsible for the crimes, only for removing those directly responsible when the crime comes to light. You do not hold responsibility for a crime by association, and indirectly enabling these crimes (via paying taxes, volunteering, or voting [unless the candidate actually stands for committing war crimes]) does not make one responsible for them either. I consider myself open minded and willing to change my view, so if someone can provide a solid argument against the above, I will CMV. As some background, I am no longer in the armed forces, do not agree with the justifications for the war (I was very young when I joined and have changed my opinion in the time after joining) I do believe I did some good while I was deployed. I represented my country in a professional manner and taught the Iraqi army techniques to improve their forces and their methods. I worked to locate and remove ordnance from historical buildings and homes, among other things. They might not be great deeds in the grand scheme, but they are far from war crimes.

t3_2sb645

CMV: A National ID Card is a Good Idea

I'm from the US and I have never experienced anything but frustration in using government issued id. There's also been a push, in my view, to use some people's lack of id as a way to discriminate against lower income people by preventing them from voting. I think the most reasonable solution is to combine the passport/drivers license/social security card and all other forms of id into a single id that is free and issued by the federal government. First of all, it ends the fight over the voter id, which has been going on for a while and shouldn't be a huge issue. People who are allowed to vote shouldn't be hindered and if you can easily go get a free id card then you can't say low income people can't get them. It could function as a driver's license by simply including state information on the card. The existing system of state's approving licensed drivers doesn't have to change, just adapt to a new medium. Instead of printing their own cards, they imprint their data on your card (or maybe store it in a database to be looked up). It could also help identify illegal immigrants, something that so many people seem to be concerned about right now. Since it's universally recognizable, and everyone would have one, it's a form of identification that would easily verify citizenship (or visa status). I hate the social security cards they issue. It's a slip of paper with my name and a number on it. Yet every time I get a new job, they demand to see it. What the hell does it prove? Absolutely nothing. It does not identify me in any way. A national id card could have a ssn on it and since it would have a picture too, it would actually identify me. To subsidise the system, it need not be free for everyone. Ideally it would be, but as a compromise, it could be free to people earning fewer than *x* dollars a year. TL;DR A national id card would vastly improve the current US system of identification. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: A National ID Card is a Good Idea. I'm from the US and I have never experienced anything but frustration in using government issued id. There's also been a push, in my view, to use some people's lack of id as a way to discriminate against lower income people by preventing them from voting. I think the most reasonable solution is to combine the passport/drivers license/social security card and all other forms of id into a single id that is free and issued by the federal government. First of all, it ends the fight over the voter id, which has been going on for a while and shouldn't be a huge issue. People who are allowed to vote shouldn't be hindered and if you can easily go get a free id card then you can't say low income people can't get them. It could function as a driver's license by simply including state information on the card. The existing system of state's approving licensed drivers doesn't have to change, just adapt to a new medium. Instead of printing their own cards, they imprint their data on your card (or maybe store it in a database to be looked up). It could also help identify illegal immigrants, something that so many people seem to be concerned about right now. Since it's universally recognizable, and everyone would have one, it's a form of identification that would easily verify citizenship (or visa status). I hate the social security cards they issue. It's a slip of paper with my name and a number on it. Yet every time I get a new job, they demand to see it. What the hell does it prove? Absolutely nothing. It does not identify me in any way. A national id card could have a ssn on it and since it would have a picture too, it would actually identify me. To subsidise the system, it need not be free for everyone. Ideally it would be, but as a compromise, it could be free to people earning fewer than *x* dollars a year. TL;DR A national id card would vastly improve the current US system of identification.

t3_2blwq9

CMV: The Daily Show is Just as Partisan/Biased/Propaganda-ish as Fox News, and Neither Should be Viewed as News.

I was recently discussing news sources with my dad, and he started praising OReilly and the like. I scolded him for watching Fox News, and he asked, "Well where do you get your news from?" Of course I mentioned Reddit and various blogs/RSS-feeds, but in terms of TV, it's just The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. He said The Daily Show does for the left the same thing that Fox News does for the right. I got to thinking, and realized I have seen quite a bit of liberal bias on the show. Stewart's sidekicks will interview people and intentionally make them look stupid by cutting out their responses, making it look like they're staring blankly at the interviewer, or bumbling. It's all for laughs, but liberal guests are not treated the same way. Then Stewart will frame discussions on a biased foundation... recently there was a SCOTUS ruling that the First Amendment prevails on public ground outside an abortion clinic, a 9-0 decision that every legal analyst agrees was correct. Yet Stewart put his whole discussion in terms of how the Supreme Court itself has a protester buffer zone. Nevermind that these high-ranking govt officials could likely be assassinated or intimidated into changing the country's operations, or that the judicial branch is an organization which in its standard proceedings *does* listen to speech from plaintiffs/defendents of all points of view. Stewart just said, if SCOTUS gets a buffer, so do abortion clinics, end of story. As another example, Stewart (& sidekicks) always looks at Obamacare from a POV of "healthcare is a basic human right, now let's figure out which system provides the most of it at the least cost to the patients", which is of course flawed. He also never gives equal airtime to both sides of the minimum wage discussion. I usually overlook it b/c I'm capable of seeing the facts through the haze (at least, I hope I am). But my reality is shaken -- I now come to see The Daily Show as being on equal footing as Fox: * They both provide commentary on what's already been reported, rather than journalism. * They both have partisan agendas (who doesn't?). * They both entertain viewers who primarily watch to be entertained, primarily by seeing their partisan views confirmed. * They both frame the discussions in such a way that they're guaranteed to win an argument, or at least cause their viewers to operate in the frame of mind whereby they will reach a liberal conclusion. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The Daily Show is Just as Partisan/Biased/Propaganda-ish as Fox News, and Neither Should be Viewed as News. I was recently discussing news sources with my dad, and he started praising OReilly and the like. I scolded him for watching Fox News, and he asked, "Well where do you get your news from?" Of course I mentioned Reddit and various blogs/RSS-feeds, but in terms of TV, it's just The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. He said The Daily Show does for the left the same thing that Fox News does for the right. I got to thinking, and realized I have seen quite a bit of liberal bias on the show. Stewart's sidekicks will interview people and intentionally make them look stupid by cutting out their responses, making it look like they're staring blankly at the interviewer, or bumbling. It's all for laughs, but liberal guests are not treated the same way. Then Stewart will frame discussions on a biased foundation... recently there was a SCOTUS ruling that the First Amendment prevails on public ground outside an abortion clinic, a 9-0 decision that every legal analyst agrees was correct. Yet Stewart put his whole discussion in terms of how the Supreme Court itself has a protester buffer zone. Nevermind that these high-ranking govt officials could likely be assassinated or intimidated into changing the country's operations, or that the judicial branch is an organization which in its standard proceedings *does* listen to speech from plaintiffs/defendents of all points of view. Stewart just said, if SCOTUS gets a buffer, so do abortion clinics, end of story. As another example, Stewart (& sidekicks) always looks at Obamacare from a POV of "healthcare is a basic human right, now let's figure out which system provides the most of it at the least cost to the patients", which is of course flawed. He also never gives equal airtime to both sides of the minimum wage discussion. I usually overlook it b/c I'm capable of seeing the facts through the haze (at least, I hope I am). But my reality is shaken -- I now come to see The Daily Show as being on equal footing as Fox: * They both provide commentary on what's already been reported, rather than journalism. * They both have partisan agendas (who doesn't?). * They both entertain viewers who primarily watch to be entertained, primarily by seeing their partisan views confirmed. * They both frame the discussions in such a way that they're guaranteed to win an argument, or at least cause their viewers to operate in the frame of mind whereby they will reach a liberal conclusion. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1zgnzp

I believe that Black History Month and African American book sections & Brain Bowls are unintentionally racist and should be removed in American society. CMV

First, I would like to point out that I do encourage learning about and celebrating the lives of influential African American men, women, and historical events they lead or contributed to in their lifetime. Why I hold this view: The month dedicated to, the book section for, and the events high school children compete in to test their knowledge on African Americans promotes the idea of racial exclusivity. This notion of racial exclusivity which I argue these institutions hold, in turn, further promotes the idea of a society divided amongst its people. If our country continues to accept and hold these things up as pure and good, I believe it will continue to stretch the racial divide nation-wide thus catering to a new era of racist institutions. To give you an example of what I mean, I'd like to point out two instances which I think are A) caused as a result of this racially exclusive culture, and B) promoting racism by simply existing. The first example, I'm sad to say, comes from my own community college. In this community college, like most colleges, there is a student council group which helps implement changes on behalf of the students, called Student Council. There is also, however, a Black Student Council. This is maddening to me for the obvious reason of there *already being a student council in place for students*. The other example not affiliated with the community college--not even in the same state-- is a journalism club called the Black Journalism club. This club is specifically for African American men and women. Now, there may be positions that men and women who are not identified as African Americans can apply for, and be hired for, but this is simply ridiculous in my opinion, being a white male. Both of these clubs, if founded by a man or womam under the same exclusivity who was Caucasian/Korean/Chinese/Japanese/etc. would almost certainly be seen as racist, and their institutions be dismantled or unapproved on the spot, and would surely be ripped to shreds by the media, showing tolerance and therefore privilege to a certain racial community. My other reason for deeming these things racist is, aside from Spanish Month (I'm sincerely sorry if this is the politically incorrect title of the celebrated month) there will most likely never be an option for a "Chinese History Month/Japanese History Month/Korean History Month/ especially White History Month" or even Japanese American/Caucasian American etc book sections or Brain Bowls. I believe that they should either be banned altogether or that each and every race should have its own or AT LEAST THE RIGHT TO their own racially exclusive institutions. Is it wrong to think this way?

I believe that Black History Month and African American book sections & Brain Bowls are unintentionally racist and should be removed in American society. CMV. First, I would like to point out that I do encourage learning about and celebrating the lives of influential African American men, women, and historical events they lead or contributed to in their lifetime. Why I hold this view: The month dedicated to, the book section for, and the events high school children compete in to test their knowledge on African Americans promotes the idea of racial exclusivity. This notion of racial exclusivity which I argue these institutions hold, in turn, further promotes the idea of a society divided amongst its people. If our country continues to accept and hold these things up as pure and good, I believe it will continue to stretch the racial divide nation-wide thus catering to a new era of racist institutions. To give you an example of what I mean, I'd like to point out two instances which I think are A) caused as a result of this racially exclusive culture, and B) promoting racism by simply existing. The first example, I'm sad to say, comes from my own community college. In this community college, like most colleges, there is a student council group which helps implement changes on behalf of the students, called Student Council. There is also, however, a Black Student Council. This is maddening to me for the obvious reason of there *already being a student council in place for students*. The other example not affiliated with the community college--not even in the same state-- is a journalism club called the Black Journalism club. This club is specifically for African American men and women. Now, there may be positions that men and women who are not identified as African Americans can apply for, and be hired for, but this is simply ridiculous in my opinion, being a white male. Both of these clubs, if founded by a man or womam under the same exclusivity who was Caucasian/Korean/Chinese/Japanese/etc. would almost certainly be seen as racist, and their institutions be dismantled or unapproved on the spot, and would surely be ripped to shreds by the media, showing tolerance and therefore privilege to a certain racial community. My other reason for deeming these things racist is, aside from Spanish Month (I'm sincerely sorry if this is the politically incorrect title of the celebrated month) there will most likely never be an option for a "Chinese History Month/Japanese History Month/Korean History Month/ especially White History Month" or even Japanese American/Caucasian American etc book sections or Brain Bowls. I believe that they should either be banned altogether or that each and every race should have its own or AT LEAST THE RIGHT TO their own racially exclusive institutions. Is it wrong to think this way?

t3_1w8bpm

I believe "nice guys" are more sexist than jerks who emotionally manipulate women. CMV

I should mention that when I use the term "nice guy", I am not referring to men that treat women with legitimate respect, but rather guys that bitch about how women only go for assholes and think they are only being rejected for their niceness. Seriously, it's like these guys believe that doing "kind" favors for women and putting them on a ridiculous pedestal automatically grants them access to their pussy. Plus by doing things such as paying for women, opening doors and what not, it's as if they are suggesting women couldn't do these things themselves. Sure dudes who emotionally manipulate and play mind games with women aren't great people either, but at least they know how to cater to a woman's sexual interests. That's at least giving women something, something that "nice guys" can't provide. Therefore, I think men who psychologically manipulate women are a bit less sexist than self-pitying nice guys.

I believe "nice guys" are more sexist than jerks who emotionally manipulate women. CMV. I should mention that when I use the term "nice guy", I am not referring to men that treat women with legitimate respect, but rather guys that bitch about how women only go for assholes and think they are only being rejected for their niceness. Seriously, it's like these guys believe that doing "kind" favors for women and putting them on a ridiculous pedestal automatically grants them access to their pussy. Plus by doing things such as paying for women, opening doors and what not, it's as if they are suggesting women couldn't do these things themselves. Sure dudes who emotionally manipulate and play mind games with women aren't great people either, but at least they know how to cater to a woman's sexual interests. That's at least giving women something, something that "nice guys" can't provide. Therefore, I think men who psychologically manipulate women are a bit less sexist than self-pitying nice guys.

t3_2loro1

CMV: Humans are too selfish to prevent catastrophic climate change

If society is unable to prevent global temperatures from rising 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, then global climate change will cause droughts, flooding, and extreme weather. This could be catastrophic. Avoiding this severe climate change requires reducing greenhouse gas emission, including oil, natural gas, and coal. Since these natural resources form a foundation of the global economy, using less oil, natural gas, and coal would be disruptive to the global economy. An example of this selfishness is the fact that China and other developing countries demand that rich countries pay for the new technologies that would replace fossil fules ([Source](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-climate-talks-china-idUSBRE9AD0WZ20131114)). Based on this article, it seems that some countries want to blame the problem on other countries because they realize that they can't afford to replace fossil fuels. Developing countries have also asked rich countries to compensate them for the damages caused by climate change. I believe that humans (in both developed and developing countries) are too selfish to adopt the changes that would be necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. Change my view. Sources: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/11/03/345780.htm http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/08/climate-change-mitigation/18244249/ http://www.npr.org/2013/11/20/246409446/poor-countries-push-rich-nations-to-do-more-on-climate-change http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/rich-vs-poor-divide-deepens-over-who-should-pay-climate-f2D11624117

CMV: Humans are too selfish to prevent catastrophic climate change. If society is unable to prevent global temperatures from rising 4 degrees Celsius by 2100, then global climate change will cause droughts, flooding, and extreme weather. This could be catastrophic. Avoiding this severe climate change requires reducing greenhouse gas emission, including oil, natural gas, and coal. Since these natural resources form a foundation of the global economy, using less oil, natural gas, and coal would be disruptive to the global economy. An example of this selfishness is the fact that China and other developing countries demand that rich countries pay for the new technologies that would replace fossil fules ([Source](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-climate-talks-china-idUSBRE9AD0WZ20131114)). Based on this article, it seems that some countries want to blame the problem on other countries because they realize that they can't afford to replace fossil fuels. Developing countries have also asked rich countries to compensate them for the damages caused by climate change. I believe that humans (in both developed and developing countries) are too selfish to adopt the changes that would be necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. Change my view. Sources: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/11/03/345780.htm http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/11/08/climate-change-mitigation/18244249/ http://www.npr.org/2013/11/20/246409446/poor-countries-push-rich-nations-to-do-more-on-climate-change http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/rich-vs-poor-divide-deepens-over-who-should-pay-climate-f2D11624117