Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_28mqyp

CMV: Talent is a depressing concept.

My problem with this, even though it is very likely true, is that it's like some 'fate' hardwired into us. An example of this would be that someone who finds physics manageable and anything to do with creative arts impossible, or vice-versa. Rather than through free will becoming interested, or making ourselves interested in certain fields and applying the hard work, we are pigeonholed from birth. We can determine how far we get on our path, but its seems the path itself was determined in the first place, talent making the rest an illusion. _____ > *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: Talent is a depressing concept. My problem with this, even though it is very likely true, is that it's like some 'fate' hardwired into us. An example of this would be that someone who finds physics manageable and anything to do with creative arts impossible, or vice-versa. Rather than through free will becoming interested, or making ourselves interested in certain fields and applying the hard work, we are pigeonholed from birth. We can determine how far we get on our path, but its seems the path itself was determined in the first place, talent making the rest an illusion.

t3_2m13kr

CMV:I think Piers Morgan's article:If black Americans want the N-word to die, they will have to kill it themselves, was right and think we should do as he says.

I am not a racist, but I think if **everyone** stops using the the N-word, it will be a huge step in the right direction in terms of solving the issue of racism against black. I understand that he is getting a lot of criticism about the article, he's also been labeled a 'racist', but I think killing the word will do more good than what is right now. I also believe he is right in saying that blacks should not be given the exclusive right to use the word. Article Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/piers-morgan-branded-a-racist-after-he-suggests-the-nword-should-be-eradicated-from-the-english-language-using-slave-metaphors-9853960.html _____ > *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 Piers Morgan's article:If black Americans want the N-word to die, they will have to kill it themselves, was right and think we should do as he says. I am not a racist, but I think if **everyone** stops using the the N-word, it will be a huge step in the right direction in terms of solving the issue of racism against black. I understand that he is getting a lot of criticism about the article, he's also been labeled a 'racist', but I think killing the word will do more good than what is right now. I also believe he is right in saying that blacks should not be given the exclusive right to use the word. Article Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/piers-morgan-branded-a-racist-after-he-suggests-the-nword-should-be-eradicated-from-the-english-language-using-slave-metaphors-9853960.html

t3_1vu7lr

I think getting off to porn while in a relationship is a form of cheating. CMV

"Getting off to porn" is defined in my mind as watching pornography and masturbating to pornstars. I'm aware that being attracted to other people and having sex thoughts involving other people is naturally occurring, and I think that the defining difference between those naturally occurring thoughts versus cheating on your SO (in the situation where the relationship is monogamous) is your active mental decision to pursue other people outside of your relationship. However, in my opinion, getting off to porn involves consciously lusting after another person and sometimes imagining yourself having sex with another person for a prolonged amount of time. It's essentially that that pornstar is helping you orgasm with their physical features. It also seems like a relationship that many a porn-consumer does not want to give up- or rather than a relationship, a habitual practice of having 20 minute stands. Just because the person you're getting off to is on a digital screen and likely to never meet you, doesn't mean that you can't use them to gratify your sexual desires. And by exploiting them sexually while in a relationship, you would technically be cheating, if only in your innermost thoughts. I consider planning, not only executing, a second and secret relationship with someone that isn't your existing SO to be cheating as well. So, under that assumption, what can convince me that getting off to pornography (having active and prolonged sexual thoughts about another person) is different from the not-yet-physical cheating (planning to pursue someone, without any physical acts done yet)? I have watched porn for a significant portion of my life and never used to think this way. However, for these reasons, I've started feeling uneasy, insecure/inadequate, and sometimes betrayed whenever observing my SO looking at a picture of another woman's body. TLDR; I think getting off to porn in a relationship is cheating because you're consciously fantasizing of someone else and having sexual gratification from it. CMV!

I think getting off to porn while in a relationship is a form of cheating. CMV. "Getting off to porn" is defined in my mind as watching pornography and masturbating to pornstars. I'm aware that being attracted to other people and having sex thoughts involving other people is naturally occurring, and I think that the defining difference between those naturally occurring thoughts versus cheating on your SO (in the situation where the relationship is monogamous) is your active mental decision to pursue other people outside of your relationship. However, in my opinion, getting off to porn involves consciously lusting after another person and sometimes imagining yourself having sex with another person for a prolonged amount of time. It's essentially that that pornstar is helping you orgasm with their physical features. It also seems like a relationship that many a porn-consumer does not want to give up- or rather than a relationship, a habitual practice of having 20 minute stands. Just because the person you're getting off to is on a digital screen and likely to never meet you, doesn't mean that you can't use them to gratify your sexual desires. And by exploiting them sexually while in a relationship, you would technically be cheating, if only in your innermost thoughts. I consider planning, not only executing, a second and secret relationship with someone that isn't your existing SO to be cheating as well. So, under that assumption, what can convince me that getting off to pornography (having active and prolonged sexual thoughts about another person) is different from the not-yet-physical cheating (planning to pursue someone, without any physical acts done yet)? I have watched porn for a significant portion of my life and never used to think this way. However, for these reasons, I've started feeling uneasy, insecure/inadequate, and sometimes betrayed whenever observing my SO looking at a picture of another woman's body. TLDR; I think getting off to porn in a relationship is cheating because you're consciously fantasizing of someone else and having sexual gratification from it. CMV!

t3_1ogvzf

Reality is cognitively/socially constructed. It is meaningless to talk about an external reality. CMV.

It's going to be hard to sum up this belief. What is real is constructed entirely through cognition and reality is the overarching cognitive framework we use to impose meaning and structure on our experiences. All concepts such as shape, color, friendship, love, employment, electromagnetism are accessories to this process. I think of this as being similar to finding shapes in clouds. Truth is extensively socially constructed due to the importance of social processes in our cognition of the world. Even very basic concepts like shape and form are taught to us. The process is unavoidable. If you avoid communicating a concept explicitly, it will still affect your behavior and be tacitly communicated to others through social processes. Science is not immune to these effects and the construction of scientific knowledge is a social process. Pre-existing conceptual frameworks (“paradigms” in science) are the mechanisms used to interpret new evidence. Data has a different meaning depending on existing cognitions and has no meaning without them. Change in our concept of things in response to new experience is not becoming closer to an external truth. The configuration of our existing concepts determines the new beliefs we form in response to experience. It is possible for two people to fundamentally disagree and both be right. Not all beliefs are equally valid or true. Some thoughts are not useful and consistent with each other or our experiences. However, I believe there are a variety of valid beliefs for a given set of experiences and many beliefs are self-fulfilling in the way they affect our environment and cause us to select and interpret information. I'd like to clarify that this is not solipsism or nihilism. I believe in truth, knowledge and an outside world, but I believe that it is impossible to talk about these things in a way that is divorced from the social/cognitive framework through which we conceive of them.

Reality is cognitively/socially constructed. It is meaningless to talk about an external reality. CMV. It's going to be hard to sum up this belief. What is real is constructed entirely through cognition and reality is the overarching cognitive framework we use to impose meaning and structure on our experiences. All concepts such as shape, color, friendship, love, employment, electromagnetism are accessories to this process. I think of this as being similar to finding shapes in clouds. Truth is extensively socially constructed due to the importance of social processes in our cognition of the world. Even very basic concepts like shape and form are taught to us. The process is unavoidable. If you avoid communicating a concept explicitly, it will still affect your behavior and be tacitly communicated to others through social processes. Science is not immune to these effects and the construction of scientific knowledge is a social process. Pre-existing conceptual frameworks (“paradigms” in science) are the mechanisms used to interpret new evidence. Data has a different meaning depending on existing cognitions and has no meaning without them. Change in our concept of things in response to new experience is not becoming closer to an external truth. The configuration of our existing concepts determines the new beliefs we form in response to experience. It is possible for two people to fundamentally disagree and both be right. Not all beliefs are equally valid or true. Some thoughts are not useful and consistent with each other or our experiences. However, I believe there are a variety of valid beliefs for a given set of experiences and many beliefs are self-fulfilling in the way they affect our environment and cause us to select and interpret information. I'd like to clarify that this is not solipsism or nihilism. I believe in truth, knowledge and an outside world, but I believe that it is impossible to talk about these things in a way that is divorced from the social/cognitive framework through which we conceive of them.

t3_503mft

CMV: Tyrion Lannister is a better role model for children than Twilight Sparkle.

You first impulse might be to wonder, "Wait, this dumbass can't possibly be suggesting—" Well yes, actually, this dumbass is very much suggesting kids be raised watching a show full of political intrigue, backstabbing, graphic violence, dragons, and ice zombies. With that out of the way, here's why I think that's the case. The current run of My Little Pony is actually pretty good as far as children's shows go. (I never quite got into the whole Brony thing, but I understand why it happened). The characters are fleshed out and believable, they very much develop over time, and there are interesting story developments that happen from time to time. However! The whole purpose of the main character, Twilight Sparkle, is to learn how to build and maintain friendships, and eventually she takes on a student to impart the same. She starts as a reclusive, overly studious bookworm unwittingly nudged onto a path to become royalty. Nothing ever goes heinously wrong. Sure, setbacks and obstacles happen sometimes, like that parasprite infestation, or Discord running amok, or Tirek. But these are always resolved with the power of friendship, or occasionally with a magical asspull. The world Twilight occupies is otherwise quite idyllic. Royalty is always just and competent (Sombra is mostly lore, so he doesn't count), famines and disasters don't happen, people (ponies?) we care about don't die. Nothing particularly heavy is ever tackled in the series. Even the subject of bullying was glossed over and Babs Seed became friends with everyone. Contrast this with the setting Westeros in general and the circumstances around Tyrion in particular. Tyrion grew up in a privileged but isolated social position like Twilight. However, life in Westeros is short, violent, and cheap. Friendship is literally worth gold, allegiances can change overnight, and death is lurking at every bend in the road. Tyrion was born a dwarf, and his deformity cost him respect. His family hates him (with the exception of his brother Jamie), and his father didn't murder him at birth solely because he has a reputation to maintain. Despite everything, Tyrion survives and thrives because of his wit, his political savvy, his interpersonal skill, and his talent at applying his book-learning to life. He's a master at cold reading, he's quick to appeal to an adversary's self interests, and he's very resourceful with the hand he's dealt. He goes from being Cersei's scapegoat and Caitlyn's hostage, to a free man with a sellsword at his side to the leader of a wildling army, to the acting Hand of the King in an exceptionally short span of time. One misstep, and he could die in so many different ways, but he manages to turn bad situations into stepping stones, and thus rises meteorically. Then, as acting Hand of the King, he quickly identifies his adversaries, roots out the ones who could undo him and wins the trust of those who could support him, and keeps the kingdom together despite the monster his nephew turns out to be. Even after Baelish kills Joffrey and frames Tyrion as the presumed killed, his closest allies free him, he using his wits and skills, survives his travels through Esteros, earns the trust of Daenerys Targaryan, and stabilizes her holdings in Slavers Bay, again rising to become Hand of the Queen. I therefore posit that if a kid were to emulate Twilight Sparkle, they might learn a thing or two about friendship, and that's nice and all. But, if a kid were to follow the example set by Tyrion Lannister, they would have the skills to deal with terrifying setbacks, make sense of schoolyard power plays and parry them, talk their way out of disciplinary action imposed by teachers, win the respect and loyalty of their peers, manipulate their enemies, and rise to the top of the social pecking order. Moreover, if attained early and cultivated through adolescence, these skills would push them further in life.

CMV: Tyrion Lannister is a better role model for children than Twilight Sparkle. You first impulse might be to wonder, "Wait, this dumbass can't possibly be suggesting—" Well yes, actually, this dumbass is very much suggesting kids be raised watching a show full of political intrigue, backstabbing, graphic violence, dragons, and ice zombies. With that out of the way, here's why I think that's the case. The current run of My Little Pony is actually pretty good as far as children's shows go. (I never quite got into the whole Brony thing, but I understand why it happened). The characters are fleshed out and believable, they very much develop over time, and there are interesting story developments that happen from time to time. However! The whole purpose of the main character, Twilight Sparkle, is to learn how to build and maintain friendships, and eventually she takes on a student to impart the same. She starts as a reclusive, overly studious bookworm unwittingly nudged onto a path to become royalty. Nothing ever goes heinously wrong. Sure, setbacks and obstacles happen sometimes, like that parasprite infestation, or Discord running amok, or Tirek. But these are always resolved with the power of friendship, or occasionally with a magical asspull. The world Twilight occupies is otherwise quite idyllic. Royalty is always just and competent (Sombra is mostly lore, so he doesn't count), famines and disasters don't happen, people (ponies?) we care about don't die. Nothing particularly heavy is ever tackled in the series. Even the subject of bullying was glossed over and Babs Seed became friends with everyone. Contrast this with the setting Westeros in general and the circumstances around Tyrion in particular. Tyrion grew up in a privileged but isolated social position like Twilight. However, life in Westeros is short, violent, and cheap. Friendship is literally worth gold, allegiances can change overnight, and death is lurking at every bend in the road. Tyrion was born a dwarf, and his deformity cost him respect. His family hates him (with the exception of his brother Jamie), and his father didn't murder him at birth solely because he has a reputation to maintain. Despite everything, Tyrion survives and thrives because of his wit, his political savvy, his interpersonal skill, and his talent at applying his book-learning to life. He's a master at cold reading, he's quick to appeal to an adversary's self interests, and he's very resourceful with the hand he's dealt. He goes from being Cersei's scapegoat and Caitlyn's hostage, to a free man with a sellsword at his side to the leader of a wildling army, to the acting Hand of the King in an exceptionally short span of time. One misstep, and he could die in so many different ways, but he manages to turn bad situations into stepping stones, and thus rises meteorically. Then, as acting Hand of the King, he quickly identifies his adversaries, roots out the ones who could undo him and wins the trust of those who could support him, and keeps the kingdom together despite the monster his nephew turns out to be. Even after Baelish kills Joffrey and frames Tyrion as the presumed killed, his closest allies free him, he using his wits and skills, survives his travels through Esteros, earns the trust of Daenerys Targaryan, and stabilizes her holdings in Slavers Bay, again rising to become Hand of the Queen. I therefore posit that if a kid were to emulate Twilight Sparkle, they might learn a thing or two about friendship, and that's nice and all. But, if a kid were to follow the example set by Tyrion Lannister, they would have the skills to deal with terrifying setbacks, make sense of schoolyard power plays and parry them, talk their way out of disciplinary action imposed by teachers, win the respect and loyalty of their peers, manipulate their enemies, and rise to the top of the social pecking order. Moreover, if attained early and cultivated through adolescence, these skills would push them further in life.

t3_1gp5s8

I do not believe that protecting endangered animals or preserving nature is a moral or ethical issue. CMV

Evolution is the story of life adapting to changing environments. 99% of every species to ever live is now extinct. How can we say that the state of an environment at one time is objectively better than the state of it in other circumstances. Or that one species that currently exists is objectively better than a different species that would adapt to different circumstances? It seems most common to say that an area should be preserved as it is before human interaction, but why? It would be just as arbitrary to say that the environment should be preserved as it was when dinosaurs dominated the Earth, but if we had such power to stop change then most mammals would never exist. Is it better for Dinosaurs to never go extinct or for most mammals to never exist? I don't see how any one solution is ethically or morally any better than the other. Similarly, human changes to an environment may cause a species to become extinct, but inevitably others will adapt to take advantage of the changed circumstances. Why is it better that the species that exists now continue to exist rather than one that may adapt in the future. Another example that I think illustrates my point even better. People in the midwest say that Asian Carp threaten to ruin the great lakes. Why is Asian Carp worse than the other animals it may drive to extinction? That's the way evolution works. As far as I can tell, the only reason or justification for trying to preserve nature is one of aesthetics. We simply like the beauty of nature as it is today. We find an animal cute or majestic so we want to preserve it. That's fine, but it's really no different than wanting to preserve a piece of art.

I do not believe that protecting endangered animals or preserving nature is a moral or ethical issue. CMV. Evolution is the story of life adapting to changing environments. 99% of every species to ever live is now extinct. How can we say that the state of an environment at one time is objectively better than the state of it in other circumstances. Or that one species that currently exists is objectively better than a different species that would adapt to different circumstances? It seems most common to say that an area should be preserved as it is before human interaction, but why? It would be just as arbitrary to say that the environment should be preserved as it was when dinosaurs dominated the Earth, but if we had such power to stop change then most mammals would never exist. Is it better for Dinosaurs to never go extinct or for most mammals to never exist? I don't see how any one solution is ethically or morally any better than the other. Similarly, human changes to an environment may cause a species to become extinct, but inevitably others will adapt to take advantage of the changed circumstances. Why is it better that the species that exists now continue to exist rather than one that may adapt in the future. Another example that I think illustrates my point even better. People in the midwest say that Asian Carp threaten to ruin the great lakes. Why is Asian Carp worse than the other animals it may drive to extinction? That's the way evolution works. As far as I can tell, the only reason or justification for trying to preserve nature is one of aesthetics. We simply like the beauty of nature as it is today. We find an animal cute or majestic so we want to preserve it. That's fine, but it's really no different than wanting to preserve a piece of art.

t3_1reyq4

Religious Institutions are already Tax-Exempt, but they shouldn't be exempt from other laws. CMV.

In America there is something called the constitution and in this constitution there is an amendment called the 14th and in this amendment there is the "Equal Protection" Clause. This clause has come to been interpreted to mean that everyone must follow the same laws, and that no one is above them and no one can be denied the protections of the law. Christianity, however, seems to be above this. It is a fact of life in the United States that religious institutions are exempted from almost all taxes, but, using an example of the affordable care act, can also refuse to offer to cover any and all forms of birth control. Republican lawmakers kicked and screamed that no one should be exempted from obamacare, including lawmakers, but then said Churches should be exempted? that doesn't make sense to me. The employment non-discrimination act(ENDA) has a section that explicitly exempts religious institutions, that they can discriminate. this sets a terrible precedent. what's to prevent an employer from saying "my religion means i can't hire black people"(just an example)? nothing. In america, no one is allowed to discriminate, except religious people. It's not fair. CMV.

Religious Institutions are already Tax-Exempt, but they shouldn't be exempt from other laws. CMV. In America there is something called the constitution and in this constitution there is an amendment called the 14th and in this amendment there is the "Equal Protection" Clause. This clause has come to been interpreted to mean that everyone must follow the same laws, and that no one is above them and no one can be denied the protections of the law. Christianity, however, seems to be above this. It is a fact of life in the United States that religious institutions are exempted from almost all taxes, but, using an example of the affordable care act, can also refuse to offer to cover any and all forms of birth control. Republican lawmakers kicked and screamed that no one should be exempted from obamacare, including lawmakers, but then said Churches should be exempted? that doesn't make sense to me. The employment non-discrimination act(ENDA) has a section that explicitly exempts religious institutions, that they can discriminate. this sets a terrible precedent. what's to prevent an employer from saying "my religion means i can't hire black people"(just an example)? nothing. In america, no one is allowed to discriminate, except religious people. It's not fair. CMV.

t3_2cbqxq

CMV: I hate make up.

I'm a guy and I hate make up. I understand that girls don't wear it for men. I understand that it "makes them feel pretty" or "gives them more confidence." But I hate it. I think it's a drain of resources (time/money) women could use for anything else. To me its a sign that the wearer has fallen into the trap society constantly perpetrates that you have to wear it or else you're ugly. I can appreciate it when its done well but honestly I'd just rather it not exist in the first place. It may be selfish but literally my favorite thing to look at is a woman's natural face. So, 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 hate make up. I'm a guy and I hate make up. I understand that girls don't wear it for men. I understand that it "makes them feel pretty" or "gives them more confidence." But I hate it. I think it's a drain of resources (time/money) women could use for anything else. To me its a sign that the wearer has fallen into the trap society constantly perpetrates that you have to wear it or else you're ugly. I can appreciate it when its done well but honestly I'd just rather it not exist in the first place. It may be selfish but literally my favorite thing to look at is a woman's natural face. So, change my view.

t3_5gx92e

CMV: False Start and Ineligible Receiver penalties should be tracked as a stat for Offensive Linemen.

My team has a lineman who easily had about half of the team's false starts and almost all of the ineligible receiver downfield penalties. Because of him offensive drives stalled out multiple times. Yet today, I saw him being praised as the best lineman on the team. Although he probably is the best one, his errors caused a lot of problems for the offense. If I were an NFL scout, I would want to know how many times a player had false started since these penalties can really affect drives. If I had to decide between two relatively equal players, I would want to know these stats so I could make better decision. I also don't think that penalties like holding should count as a stat because they are judgement calls, whereas the two I listed are hard penalties and don't require judgement. _____ > *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: False Start and Ineligible Receiver penalties should be tracked as a stat for Offensive Linemen. My team has a lineman who easily had about half of the team's false starts and almost all of the ineligible receiver downfield penalties. Because of him offensive drives stalled out multiple times. Yet today, I saw him being praised as the best lineman on the team. Although he probably is the best one, his errors caused a lot of problems for the offense. If I were an NFL scout, I would want to know how many times a player had false started since these penalties can really affect drives. If I had to decide between two relatively equal players, I would want to know these stats so I could make better decision. I also don't think that penalties like holding should count as a stat because they are judgement calls, whereas the two I listed are hard penalties and don't require judgement.

t3_1gqgwr

I believe the doenvote button should be removed. CMV

Reddit has became a stupid karma whoring community instead of the sharing community it is suppose to be. And many people don't post or comment their different point of view in fear of loosing karma. Now I suggest removing Downvotes so they will have no fear of loosing karma(because admit it, if there is a point system, no one wants to lose a point even if it is worthless) and the less popular post will simply sink away into the bottom of the page

I believe the doenvote button should be removed. CMV. Reddit has became a stupid karma whoring community instead of the sharing community it is suppose to be. And many people don't post or comment their different point of view in fear of loosing karma. Now I suggest removing Downvotes so they will have no fear of loosing karma(because admit it, if there is a point system, no one wants to lose a point even if it is worthless) and the less popular post will simply sink away into the bottom of the page

t3_28aiva

CMV: New Jersey is underrated and isn't really one of the worst states in the country

Much of the stereotypes against NJ include "that state sucks" or "it's boring and there's nothing to do there" and "it's just one big sewer". I'm not going to deny its flaws, but its definitely not close to being one of the worst states. Its one of the wealthiest states with one of the best education systems in the country. Cost-of-living is relative. While the taxes are high, the wages are definitely higher than in other states. You are a fair distance away from NYC without having to live in a very urban environment. There's a variety of cities, suburbs, rural areas and places in between. Like 80% of America is just one giant countryside with very little to do in a 5 mile radius, yet NJ, one of the densest states, for some reason, gets the flak of being the most boring place. I'm not denying that NJ has crime-ridden areas (even if there are only 15 bad towns out of like 200.) But I would rather live in the most ghetto street of the 4th ward and hear gunshots every night than live away from venues entirely. _____ > *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: New Jersey is underrated and isn't really one of the worst states in the country. Much of the stereotypes against NJ include "that state sucks" or "it's boring and there's nothing to do there" and "it's just one big sewer". I'm not going to deny its flaws, but its definitely not close to being one of the worst states. Its one of the wealthiest states with one of the best education systems in the country. Cost-of-living is relative. While the taxes are high, the wages are definitely higher than in other states. You are a fair distance away from NYC without having to live in a very urban environment. There's a variety of cities, suburbs, rural areas and places in between. Like 80% of America is just one giant countryside with very little to do in a 5 mile radius, yet NJ, one of the densest states, for some reason, gets the flak of being the most boring place. I'm not denying that NJ has crime-ridden areas (even if there are only 15 bad towns out of like 200.) But I would rather live in the most ghetto street of the 4th ward and hear gunshots every night than live away from venues entirely.

t3_2670e2

CMV: Pet ownership is unethical

1. I would never put a leash on something I love. 2. It's environmentally irresponsible. It contributes to climate change. How many people pay carbon offsets for the consequences of pet ownership? moreover, two German shephards eat what one Bangladeshi does in a year. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/reduce-pets-sustainable-future-cats-dogs 3. Its gross. Why do I have to see an animal - something a person owns for personal entertainment - take a dump? Why do I have to smell urine on a public street? Even if you pick up after your dog, its still gross. 4. Why should I subsidize other peoples entertainment? Dog parks, the scoop bags, enforcing the laws associated with pet ownership are often tax payer funded. 5. Why is it okay to mutilate the genital's of your so-called family members? If you don't do that, why are the adverse consequences (strays) okay? _____ > *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: Pet ownership is unethical. 1. I would never put a leash on something I love. 2. It's environmentally irresponsible. It contributes to climate change. How many people pay carbon offsets for the consequences of pet ownership? moreover, two German shephards eat what one Bangladeshi does in a year. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/reduce-pets-sustainable-future-cats-dogs 3. Its gross. Why do I have to see an animal - something a person owns for personal entertainment - take a dump? Why do I have to smell urine on a public street? Even if you pick up after your dog, its still gross. 4. Why should I subsidize other peoples entertainment? Dog parks, the scoop bags, enforcing the laws associated with pet ownership are often tax payer funded. 5. Why is it okay to mutilate the genital's of your so-called family members? If you don't do that, why are the adverse consequences (strays) okay?

t3_3m7ozl

CMV: It is not necessarily a bad thing for politicians to pander to popular opinion.

Obviously there are some areas (particularly foreign policy and the rights of minority groups) where the majority of the public is not really in a good position to make sound independent judgments, and pandering on those issues is counterproductive. But on many other issues, "pandering" to public opinion can and should be seen as a sign of a flexible non-ideologue who listens to the voices of his or her constitutents. For instance, Hillary Clinton gets criticized for coming late to her stances on, for example, opposing TPP and criminal justice reform, whereas candidates like Bernie Sanders have held these positions for a long time. Now, I like Bernie a lot, and may well vote for him in the primary, but I don't see it as a weakness for Hillary that she is responsive to the public mood. If we live in a truly democratic society, politicians *should* be responsive to the beliefs of the public to some degree. Hillary supported tough criminal justice laws in the 90s when crime was a major problem and the public was in favor, but now, seeing the negative unintended consequences of those laws and recognizing that public opinion has shifted, she has changed her stance. I think on those issues she should be commended for her flexibility and pragmatism, rather than criticized for supposedly insufficient ideological purity. CMV. **NOTE:** I'm not interested in turning this into a Hillary vs. Bernie debate specifically. I'm more interested in the broader question of whether politicians should to some degree be willing to "shift in the wind." _____ > *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 not necessarily a bad thing for politicians to pander to popular opinion. Obviously there are some areas (particularly foreign policy and the rights of minority groups) where the majority of the public is not really in a good position to make sound independent judgments, and pandering on those issues is counterproductive. But on many other issues, "pandering" to public opinion can and should be seen as a sign of a flexible non-ideologue who listens to the voices of his or her constitutents. For instance, Hillary Clinton gets criticized for coming late to her stances on, for example, opposing TPP and criminal justice reform, whereas candidates like Bernie Sanders have held these positions for a long time. Now, I like Bernie a lot, and may well vote for him in the primary, but I don't see it as a weakness for Hillary that she is responsive to the public mood. If we live in a truly democratic society, politicians *should* be responsive to the beliefs of the public to some degree. Hillary supported tough criminal justice laws in the 90s when crime was a major problem and the public was in favor, but now, seeing the negative unintended consequences of those laws and recognizing that public opinion has shifted, she has changed her stance. I think on those issues she should be commended for her flexibility and pragmatism, rather than criticized for supposedly insufficient ideological purity. CMV. **NOTE:** I'm not interested in turning this into a Hillary vs. Bernie debate specifically. I'm more interested in the broader question of whether politicians should to some degree be willing to "shift in the wind."

t3_1uipgb

I believe that the British Monarchy should not exist in the modern world. It should not be idolized, allowed to consult British government, or have any form of power. CMV

The entire notion of a "noble family" being recognized and worshipped in the modern world confounds and disgusts me (and for one of the most powerful and modernized countries in the world, no less). Sure, I understand how their celebrity would carry throughout the centuries... but it's ridiculous that in the 21st century someone should be born into a position of power merely because of their family name. I understand that the actual amount of power the Queen has is fairly small, but it simply seems wrong in principle for her to have any power at all. **TL;DR The British royal family is the Kim Kardashian of the UK, except with less idiocy and power over an army.**

I believe that the British Monarchy should not exist in the modern world. It should not be idolized, allowed to consult British government, or have any form of power. CMV. The entire notion of a "noble family" being recognized and worshipped in the modern world confounds and disgusts me (and for one of the most powerful and modernized countries in the world, no less). Sure, I understand how their celebrity would carry throughout the centuries... but it's ridiculous that in the 21st century someone should be born into a position of power merely because of their family name. I understand that the actual amount of power the Queen has is fairly small, but it simply seems wrong in principle for her to have any power at all. **TL;DR The British royal family is the Kim Kardashian of the UK, except with less idiocy and power over an army.**

t3_1yo29s

I believe that it is wrong to undergo a sex-change operation. CMV.

I am prejudiced towards transgender people, because I believe that sex change is wrong. It is unnatural, and there is no medical reason to undergo one. I don't believe that someone can be "born a member of the wrong sex" and have a need to rectify it. Sex change operations are different from other cosmetic surgeries in terms of morality, because a sex change operation allows a transgender person to fool people with their appearance far more than what a normal cosmetic surgery would allow. If people could live without sex-change operations for all of human history, why can't we live that way now? CMV

I believe that it is wrong to undergo a sex-change operation. CMV. I am prejudiced towards transgender people, because I believe that sex change is wrong. It is unnatural, and there is no medical reason to undergo one. I don't believe that someone can be "born a member of the wrong sex" and have a need to rectify it. Sex change operations are different from other cosmetic surgeries in terms of morality, because a sex change operation allows a transgender person to fool people with their appearance far more than what a normal cosmetic surgery would allow. If people could live without sex-change operations for all of human history, why can't we live that way now? CMV

t3_1k51tw

I believe that expression of any "negative" emotions except for sadness and related emotions in the company of any other person is an unacceptable breach of personal control. CMV

From my point of view, sadness and its derivative emotional states are just about the only negative feeling that adults should allow themselves to outwardly show, while anger&co are absolutely unacceptable. There are four main reasons for this: I) Infants and children usually express their emotions without any control. As they grow older, they (ideally) gain increased emotional control, until they're (again, ideally) able to not go into rampages once they're old enough. I completely agree with this progression and believe that the penultimate stage should be the ability to completely control all (at least) negative emotions, so they don't outwardly show, if we don't want them to, with the final stage being the ability to work through the emotions, let them dissipate and then react rationally to whatever triggered the emotion in the first place. II) Outward expression of (negative) emotions is damaging to relationships with people around you. Even if you're "superior" to others and your anger/rage intimidates them into doing something they normally wouldn't do, that isn't a productive way of achieving anything. III) Showing negative emotions also let's your "opponent" know they hit a weak spot, which is usually a bad idea. IV) Finally, I think that showing specifically anger and its derivatives is utterly disrespectful towards the person at which it's directed. I feel this to be especially true for intimate relationships. I'm not saying that emotions should be suppressed or bottled up indefinitely. What I'm saying is that they should be prevented from being noticeable to other people, and when the person that felt the emotion is alone, they are certainly free to do with it whatever they please, be it take it out on a punching bag, go on a rampage in a multiplayer game, or actively dissipate the emotion by meditating or similar means. CMV! Edit: Examples of negative emotions - anger, rage, hate, disgust (with a person), feeling superior ...

I believe that expression of any "negative" emotions except for sadness and related emotions in the company of any other person is an unacceptable breach of personal control. CMV. From my point of view, sadness and its derivative emotional states are just about the only negative feeling that adults should allow themselves to outwardly show, while anger&co are absolutely unacceptable. There are four main reasons for this: I) Infants and children usually express their emotions without any control. As they grow older, they (ideally) gain increased emotional control, until they're (again, ideally) able to not go into rampages once they're old enough. I completely agree with this progression and believe that the penultimate stage should be the ability to completely control all (at least) negative emotions, so they don't outwardly show, if we don't want them to, with the final stage being the ability to work through the emotions, let them dissipate and then react rationally to whatever triggered the emotion in the first place. II) Outward expression of (negative) emotions is damaging to relationships with people around you. Even if you're "superior" to others and your anger/rage intimidates them into doing something they normally wouldn't do, that isn't a productive way of achieving anything. III) Showing negative emotions also let's your "opponent" know they hit a weak spot, which is usually a bad idea. IV) Finally, I think that showing specifically anger and its derivatives is utterly disrespectful towards the person at which it's directed. I feel this to be especially true for intimate relationships. I'm not saying that emotions should be suppressed or bottled up indefinitely. What I'm saying is that they should be prevented from being noticeable to other people, and when the person that felt the emotion is alone, they are certainly free to do with it whatever they please, be it take it out on a punching bag, go on a rampage in a multiplayer game, or actively dissipate the emotion by meditating or similar means. CMV! Edit: Examples of negative emotions - anger, rage, hate, disgust (with a person), feeling superior ...

t3_1igxdk

Edward Snowden's leaks regarding the NSA spying revelation was a courageous act. CMV

Let me take you back to Season 7 of the West Wing. Toby Ziegler leaked classified information that the US Military had a vehicle capable of rescuing 2 American Astronauts and 1 Russian Cosmonaut from a distressed spaceship. The mission to rescue these men was opposed by the National Security Advisor to the President, for fear that the Russian Cosmonaut would inform the Russian government about the "asset". The weaponization of space had the potential to threaten the survival of civilization IMHO. He decided to leak this info to the press, forcing a mass public debate on the subject. Because of his close personal ties to the President, he was pardoned on the last day of fictitious, yet desperately needed in a time like the present, president Josiah Bartlet's second term in office. What does Edward Snowden have to do with the West Wing? Listen up Aaron Sorkin, this is Newsroom Season 3 gold here. Snowden's position in the NSA gave him access to some astonishing information. He observed the full capabilities of the NSA through a by some standards, normal work routine. When I first heard about this, my first thoughts were of relief. I have always assumed that the government had the capability to monitor the personal information of all Americans, if not the whole world, via some method of telephone and Internet control. The PRISM system sounds like a feat of programming genius. Although the notion of determining how threatening someone is from their emails is a bit suspect. But on the whole, definitely a good thing because this immense intelligence network keeps our state on a constant state of vigilance. Let's face it, 21st century technology could possibly be the next theater of war. It's not our of the question. So would we rather have our guard up at all times against that sort of threat, or should we be reactionary and risk harm. I prefer the first. When it comes to national security, we need to play it safe. Anyhow, Snowden committed a crime by releasing this information to the public. He will surely not receive a pardon from Obama or any other future President, but I think we should be grateful that this man decided that his life was worth telling people the truth. From a moral/ethical POV, Snowden has the high ground. His actions were in the name of justice and transparency in OUR government. TL;DR - Thanks Eddy. It wasn't an easy call, but it was the right one. http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/07/16/responding-to-government-legal-demands-for-customer-data.aspx EDIT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/education/barrage-of-cyberattacks-challenges-campus-culture.html?hp&_r=0 Turns out the Chinese are attacking universities through cyber attacks now. Thanks Snowden.

Edward Snowden's leaks regarding the NSA spying revelation was a courageous act. CMV. Let me take you back to Season 7 of the West Wing. Toby Ziegler leaked classified information that the US Military had a vehicle capable of rescuing 2 American Astronauts and 1 Russian Cosmonaut from a distressed spaceship. The mission to rescue these men was opposed by the National Security Advisor to the President, for fear that the Russian Cosmonaut would inform the Russian government about the "asset". The weaponization of space had the potential to threaten the survival of civilization IMHO. He decided to leak this info to the press, forcing a mass public debate on the subject. Because of his close personal ties to the President, he was pardoned on the last day of fictitious, yet desperately needed in a time like the present, president Josiah Bartlet's second term in office. What does Edward Snowden have to do with the West Wing? Listen up Aaron Sorkin, this is Newsroom Season 3 gold here. Snowden's position in the NSA gave him access to some astonishing information. He observed the full capabilities of the NSA through a by some standards, normal work routine. When I first heard about this, my first thoughts were of relief. I have always assumed that the government had the capability to monitor the personal information of all Americans, if not the whole world, via some method of telephone and Internet control. The PRISM system sounds like a feat of programming genius. Although the notion of determining how threatening someone is from their emails is a bit suspect. But on the whole, definitely a good thing because this immense intelligence network keeps our state on a constant state of vigilance. Let's face it, 21st century technology could possibly be the next theater of war. It's not our of the question. So would we rather have our guard up at all times against that sort of threat, or should we be reactionary and risk harm. I prefer the first. When it comes to national security, we need to play it safe. Anyhow, Snowden committed a crime by releasing this information to the public. He will surely not receive a pardon from Obama or any other future President, but I think we should be grateful that this man decided that his life was worth telling people the truth. From a moral/ethical POV, Snowden has the high ground. His actions were in the name of justice and transparency in OUR government. TL;DR - Thanks Eddy. It wasn't an easy call, but it was the right one. http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2013/07/16/responding-to-government-legal-demands-for-customer-data.aspx EDIT: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/education/barrage-of-cyberattacks-challenges-campus-culture.html?hp&_r=0 Turns out the Chinese are attacking universities through cyber attacks now. Thanks Snowden.

t3_1y0q8w

I believe murder-by-hospice is widespread in the US. We kill off many our sick and elderly, and nobody cares. CMV.

I've watched a number of people die in hospice care, and I've made several observations. 1. They push you into hospice. I believe people are rushed into hospice care, especially those with poorer insurance coverage. Once one primary physician or oncologist says treatment options are limited, the hospice people get involved and start pushing to have you placed in hospice care. Once you are in hospice care your insurance will NOT cover treatments or physical/occupational therapy. You get "palliative" care (i.e. morphine) and that's about it. In other words, once you go into hospice you are not going to be getting better (I don't mean cured, I just mean more functional), unless by some miracle you teach yourself to eat and walk and talk again. 2. Morphine kills people faster. [Medical studies](http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/7/1163.abstract) purport to show that terminal patients receiving palliative narcotics survive just as long as those who don't. But my own lying eyes have shown me otherwise: I've seen how fast people go downhill once they're given morphine for pain. They rapidly become less responsive, more detached, disinterested in others, confused, they usually stop eating completely, and organ & respiratory failure seem to follow shortly after. Many of these are normal symptoms of encroaching death, but I have witnessed half a dozen times just how much faster these symptoms appear once narcotics are administered. Since morphine is a CNS depressant known to inhibit respiration, it makes sense that giving a sick person heavy doses might cause their health to deteriorate more rapidly. 3. In many cases, hospice is involuntary or, worse, semi-voluntary. People with a critically or terminally ill family member are often in a state of shock and not thinking clearly. I believe some hospice organizations make money by quietly pressuring these people into committing their loved ones to hospice early, forgoing treatments AND rehabilitative therapies that could extend their lives and enjoyment of their last days. The sick person may be in a state of confusion and fear and unable to make good decisions about their own care. It seems to be a popular opinion on Reddit that euthanasia should be more widely accepted. From what I've seen of the end-of-life industry, *it already is*, and I think they should be stopped, or at least we need to take a hard, critical look at how end-of-life decisions are actually being made and whether they are in the best interest of terminal patients and/or their families. We might not all live to be old, but nearly all of us will one day be dying in a hospital bed somewhere. How would it feel as you are lying there in pain and fear to know your death is being hastened in order to save insurers and/or your younger family members a bit of expense? Edit: Many **of** our sick and elderly.

I believe murder-by-hospice is widespread in the US. We kill off many our sick and elderly, and nobody cares. CMV. I've watched a number of people die in hospice care, and I've made several observations. 1. They push you into hospice. I believe people are rushed into hospice care, especially those with poorer insurance coverage. Once one primary physician or oncologist says treatment options are limited, the hospice people get involved and start pushing to have you placed in hospice care. Once you are in hospice care your insurance will NOT cover treatments or physical/occupational therapy. You get "palliative" care (i.e. morphine) and that's about it. In other words, once you go into hospice you are not going to be getting better (I don't mean cured, I just mean more functional), unless by some miracle you teach yourself to eat and walk and talk again. 2. Morphine kills people faster. [Medical studies](http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/7/1163.abstract) purport to show that terminal patients receiving palliative narcotics survive just as long as those who don't. But my own lying eyes have shown me otherwise: I've seen how fast people go downhill once they're given morphine for pain. They rapidly become less responsive, more detached, disinterested in others, confused, they usually stop eating completely, and organ & respiratory failure seem to follow shortly after. Many of these are normal symptoms of encroaching death, but I have witnessed half a dozen times just how much faster these symptoms appear once narcotics are administered. Since morphine is a CNS depressant known to inhibit respiration, it makes sense that giving a sick person heavy doses might cause their health to deteriorate more rapidly. 3. In many cases, hospice is involuntary or, worse, semi-voluntary. People with a critically or terminally ill family member are often in a state of shock and not thinking clearly. I believe some hospice organizations make money by quietly pressuring these people into committing their loved ones to hospice early, forgoing treatments AND rehabilitative therapies that could extend their lives and enjoyment of their last days. The sick person may be in a state of confusion and fear and unable to make good decisions about their own care. It seems to be a popular opinion on Reddit that euthanasia should be more widely accepted. From what I've seen of the end-of-life industry, *it already is*, and I think they should be stopped, or at least we need to take a hard, critical look at how end-of-life decisions are actually being made and whether they are in the best interest of terminal patients and/or their families. We might not all live to be old, but nearly all of us will one day be dying in a hospital bed somewhere. How would it feel as you are lying there in pain and fear to know your death is being hastened in order to save insurers and/or your younger family members a bit of expense? Edit: Many **of** our sick and elderly.

t3_1la9pb

CMV: I believe Bigfoot is a hoax

I have no experience with Sasquatches or Yetis etc. and have always assumed them to be stories. I believe the Patterson Gimlin footage is a man in a suit. The vast majority of sightings are attention seekers, and the few sightings that honestly believe they saw Bigfoot more than likely saw a Bear. Hollywood is to blame for the popularization of the urban legend, and it seems like everyone wants to believe that a monster exists away from civilization. Plus it makes for *terrific* TV shows, and movies. I think its just an urban legend getting every exploit to make money.

CMV: I believe Bigfoot is a hoax. I have no experience with Sasquatches or Yetis etc. and have always assumed them to be stories. I believe the Patterson Gimlin footage is a man in a suit. The vast majority of sightings are attention seekers, and the few sightings that honestly believe they saw Bigfoot more than likely saw a Bear. Hollywood is to blame for the popularization of the urban legend, and it seems like everyone wants to believe that a monster exists away from civilization. Plus it makes for *terrific* TV shows, and movies. I think its just an urban legend getting every exploit to make money.

t3_52mon4

CMV: Speed limit signs should be eliminated with very few exceptions

I believe that speed limits serve only as a method to extort money from peaceful and safe people and to act as probable cause to harass motorists by highway patrol officers. The existence of speed limits on standard roads should be eliminated because they are ineffective at making roads safer and cause the roads to function less efficiently leading to lost productivity time and increased fuel consumption. 1) Posted speed limits are ignored anyway. Every few years someone will stage a [protest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoETMCosULQ ) where a number of cars will drive side by side at the speed limit and we are shown that this greatly impedes the flow of traffic. Cars are safer at speeds well above the posted limits of 55-65 in most areas. 2) It is used as a justification to violate civil rights. If everyone on the road is driving at 80mph, then the cop can pull over anyone at his choosing and time and time again we see that minorities are accused and punished for committing crimes at a far higher rate than white people despite the incidence of the crime being approximately the same. 3) There have been experimental areas that have done away with speed limits and it worked great It's worked famously well for [Montana](https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/) and many other places. The overwhelming [evidence](http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-best-takedown-of-the-speed-kills-myth-you-1302382244) is that speed is not a contributing factor to the extreme majority of accidents on the road. Trained police officers could certainly issue tickets for reckless driving, endangerment, tailgating, and other unsafe driving behaviors. Also a posted speed limit in residential areas where pedestrians are often present or in school zones where toys or children could leap into the street at any moment are permissible. From all of this evidence, I feel that any road not open to pedestrian traffic should have the speed limits completely done away with. 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: Speed limit signs should be eliminated with very few exceptions. I believe that speed limits serve only as a method to extort money from peaceful and safe people and to act as probable cause to harass motorists by highway patrol officers. The existence of speed limits on standard roads should be eliminated because they are ineffective at making roads safer and cause the roads to function less efficiently leading to lost productivity time and increased fuel consumption. 1) Posted speed limits are ignored anyway. Every few years someone will stage a [protest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoETMCosULQ ) where a number of cars will drive side by side at the speed limit and we are shown that this greatly impedes the flow of traffic. Cars are safer at speeds well above the posted limits of 55-65 in most areas. 2) It is used as a justification to violate civil rights. If everyone on the road is driving at 80mph, then the cop can pull over anyone at his choosing and time and time again we see that minorities are accused and punished for committing crimes at a far higher rate than white people despite the incidence of the crime being approximately the same. 3) There have been experimental areas that have done away with speed limits and it worked great It's worked famously well for [Montana](https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/) and many other places. The overwhelming [evidence](http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-best-takedown-of-the-speed-kills-myth-you-1302382244) is that speed is not a contributing factor to the extreme majority of accidents on the road. Trained police officers could certainly issue tickets for reckless driving, endangerment, tailgating, and other unsafe driving behaviors. Also a posted speed limit in residential areas where pedestrians are often present or in school zones where toys or children could leap into the street at any moment are permissible. From all of this evidence, I feel that any road not open to pedestrian traffic should have the speed limits completely done away with. Change my view.

t3_1yu0ql

I believe a two party political system is good for a country and the citizens. CMV.

A strong economy benefits everyone subject to that economy. Business leaders need a stable political environment in order to make long term strategies and investments. A two party system gives business leaders more stability and predictability and are thus more likely to make investments in a country with a two party system. When businesses invest in a country, they create jobs, new products and pay taxes which benefits the citizens and economy of that country. Therefore, a two party system is better for the country and the citizens then a multiparty system. CMV.

I believe a two party political system is good for a country and the citizens. CMV. A strong economy benefits everyone subject to that economy. Business leaders need a stable political environment in order to make long term strategies and investments. A two party system gives business leaders more stability and predictability and are thus more likely to make investments in a country with a two party system. When businesses invest in a country, they create jobs, new products and pay taxes which benefits the citizens and economy of that country. Therefore, a two party system is better for the country and the citizens then a multiparty system. CMV.

t3_62i0yp

CMV: We are in an age of complete political obsession.

I believe that pretty much since Obama's election and especially with Trump's, America has developed an unhealthy obsession with its politics. I can't go a single day without hearing about something Trump did, something about our foreign policies, something some politician said, or some social issue that's causing all sorts of drama and chaos, and it's unavoidable. I see headlines on Facebook, people constantly talk about them ("Did you hear what Trump said????"), groups of people are constantly protesting something, and it's basically just ingrained itself into our culture more than ever through daily conversation, TV shows, humor, and basically any other source of communication or media. Maybe it's because I was a young kid for most of Bush's presidency and didn't start becoming more aware of the world until Obama, but it just seems like it's on overload. This is partially a rant about how I'm sick of it, but I'm also hoping you guys can somehow show me that it's not as bad as I think. _____ > *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 are in an age of complete political obsession. I believe that pretty much since Obama's election and especially with Trump's, America has developed an unhealthy obsession with its politics. I can't go a single day without hearing about something Trump did, something about our foreign policies, something some politician said, or some social issue that's causing all sorts of drama and chaos, and it's unavoidable. I see headlines on Facebook, people constantly talk about them ("Did you hear what Trump said????"), groups of people are constantly protesting something, and it's basically just ingrained itself into our culture more than ever through daily conversation, TV shows, humor, and basically any other source of communication or media. Maybe it's because I was a young kid for most of Bush's presidency and didn't start becoming more aware of the world until Obama, but it just seems like it's on overload. This is partially a rant about how I'm sick of it, but I'm also hoping you guys can somehow show me that it's not as bad as I think.

t3_1reme1

It is unethical for companies to make products that do not have built in rechargeable batteries. CMV!

I of course am only talking about products that require batteries, I do not care if my bananas come with batteries or not. I realize I over simplified a bit, but I didn't want my title to be too long, it's fine when objects (such as a TV remote) do not come with rechargeable batteries, the longevity of batteries inside TV remotes is long enough that it does not need to be rechargeable. In this day and age rechargeable batteries are mass produced and most products use them, but there are a few (such as an Xbox controller) that still by default do not use rechargeable batteries. Sure, we can buy rechargeable batteries seperate, but it just seems like an additional little money grab the company uses to get you to buy their particular recharging station or what have you. Of course it's their right to attempt to make money, and even their obligation to the share holders, I just believe this particular means of making money to be unethical because there is a more consumer friendly way already available. Edit: There=their

It is unethical for companies to make products that do not have built in rechargeable batteries. CMV!. I of course am only talking about products that require batteries, I do not care if my bananas come with batteries or not. I realize I over simplified a bit, but I didn't want my title to be too long, it's fine when objects (such as a TV remote) do not come with rechargeable batteries, the longevity of batteries inside TV remotes is long enough that it does not need to be rechargeable. In this day and age rechargeable batteries are mass produced and most products use them, but there are a few (such as an Xbox controller) that still by default do not use rechargeable batteries. Sure, we can buy rechargeable batteries seperate, but it just seems like an additional little money grab the company uses to get you to buy their particular recharging station or what have you. Of course it's their right to attempt to make money, and even their obligation to the share holders, I just believe this particular means of making money to be unethical because there is a more consumer friendly way already available. Edit: There=their

t3_3xb5kx

CMV: The word Football should be phased out.

The reason I believe that Football should be phased out is that it is the name for different sports in different countries. There is Football/soccer, Football/gridiron, Football/Aussie rules and Football/Gaelic football. There may be more but these are the most common, gridiron is american/canadian football. The reason I do not like the word Football is that it is a large argument starter mainly between Americans and Europeans. Now i realise that the word is unlikely to be phased out in global association but i would like if people would use alternative names for the sports. Soccer is quite commonplace but the Americans and Canadian still need to climatise to calling it Gridiron _____ > *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 word Football should be phased out. The reason I believe that Football should be phased out is that it is the name for different sports in different countries. There is Football/soccer, Football/gridiron, Football/Aussie rules and Football/Gaelic football. There may be more but these are the most common, gridiron is american/canadian football. The reason I do not like the word Football is that it is a large argument starter mainly between Americans and Europeans. Now i realise that the word is unlikely to be phased out in global association but i would like if people would use alternative names for the sports. Soccer is quite commonplace but the Americans and Canadian still need to climatise to calling it Gridiron

t3_6uxjgm

CMV: Some European countries are practicing eugenics because they abort over 90% of down syndrome babies

European countries such as [England](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189) and [Iceland](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/) have extremely high abortion rates when it is discovered that the baby has down syndrome. Per the first definition I find on [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=eugenics&oq=eugenics&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2136j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) > the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis. To me this sounds like such countries are clearly practicing eugenics. They use scientific means (pregnancy screening) in an attempt to improve the human population (because down syndrome is a disability) and increase desirable heritable characteristics (by removing down syndrome genes from the gene pool). I'm trying to find out how such countries can say that these practices aren't eugenics, especially the eugenics that the Nazi's practiced by attempting to breed out disabled people. **EDIT:** A few points that keep coming up that I want to have a common point of reference to: **Point 1:** Females with Down Syndrome are all or almost entirely sterile. This seems to be mostly incorrect, as many females with Down Syndrome are still fertile >**[If a Woman with Down Syndrome Becomes Pregnant, Will the Baby Have Down Syndrome?](http://www.ndss.org/Resources/Wellness/Sexuality/Sexuality-and-Down-Syndrome/)** > >At least half of all women with Down syndrome do ovulate and are fertile. Between 35 and 50 percent of children born to mothers with Down syndrome are likely to have trisomy 21 or other developmental disabilities. **Point 2:** Down Syndrome isn't heritable. Correct in the cases where the mother doesn't have Down Syndrome, but if the mother does have Down Syndrome then the genetic predisposition does significantly increase of the child having Down Syndrome (see quote in point 1). **Point 3:** Eugenics isn't actually bad so who cares. This thread is not about debating the merits of eugenics (or abortion for that matter). Please stay on topic by avoiding this point. **Point 4:** All people with Down Syndrome develop Alzheimer's. This appears to be mostly but not entirely true. [Many but not all people with Down Syndrome develop Alzheimer's](https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers-disease-people-down-syndrome), and the age of onset varies. > However, not all people with these brain plaques will develop the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. Estimates suggest that 50 percent or more of people with Down syndrome will develop dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease as they age. People with Down syndrome begin to show symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in their 50s or 60s. **Point 5:** Down Syndrome is not hereditary and therefore aborting a Down Syndrome fetus doesn't quality as "increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics". See points 1 and 2 for additional info. This is true in the case where the mother does not have Down Syndrome but is not true when she does. Therefore if you abort a Down Syndrome child you are making it (slightly) more likely that the next generation will have less Down Syndrome children. **IMPORTANT NOTE:** Even if we consider point 5 to be true and aborting Down Syndrome fetuses does not qualify as Eugenics, I consider this to be a minor semantic point. I believe that such countries to be practicing the *spirit* of eugenics. If you want to change my view you must convince me otherwise. _____ > *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: Some European countries are practicing eugenics because they abort over 90% of down syndrome babies. European countries such as [England](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189) and [Iceland](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/) have extremely high abortion rates when it is discovered that the baby has down syndrome. Per the first definition I find on [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=eugenics&oq=eugenics&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2136j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) > the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis. To me this sounds like such countries are clearly practicing eugenics. They use scientific means (pregnancy screening) in an attempt to improve the human population (because down syndrome is a disability) and increase desirable heritable characteristics (by removing down syndrome genes from the gene pool). I'm trying to find out how such countries can say that these practices aren't eugenics, especially the eugenics that the Nazi's practiced by attempting to breed out disabled people. **EDIT:** A few points that keep coming up that I want to have a common point of reference to: **Point 1:** Females with Down Syndrome are all or almost entirely sterile. This seems to be mostly incorrect, as many females with Down Syndrome are still fertile >**[If a Woman with Down Syndrome Becomes Pregnant, Will the Baby Have Down Syndrome?](http://www.ndss.org/Resources/Wellness/Sexuality/Sexuality-and-Down-Syndrome/)** > >At least half of all women with Down syndrome do ovulate and are fertile. Between 35 and 50 percent of children born to mothers with Down syndrome are likely to have trisomy 21 or other developmental disabilities. **Point 2:** Down Syndrome isn't heritable. Correct in the cases where the mother doesn't have Down Syndrome, but if the mother does have Down Syndrome then the genetic predisposition does significantly increase of the child having Down Syndrome (see quote in point 1). **Point 3:** Eugenics isn't actually bad so who cares. This thread is not about debating the merits of eugenics (or abortion for that matter). Please stay on topic by avoiding this point. **Point 4:** All people with Down Syndrome develop Alzheimer's. This appears to be mostly but not entirely true. [Many but not all people with Down Syndrome develop Alzheimer's](https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/alzheimers-disease-people-down-syndrome), and the age of onset varies. > However, not all people with these brain plaques will develop the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. Estimates suggest that 50 percent or more of people with Down syndrome will develop dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease as they age. People with Down syndrome begin to show symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in their 50s or 60s. **Point 5:** Down Syndrome is not hereditary and therefore aborting a Down Syndrome fetus doesn't quality as "increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics". See points 1 and 2 for additional info. This is true in the case where the mother does not have Down Syndrome but is not true when she does. Therefore if you abort a Down Syndrome child you are making it (slightly) more likely that the next generation will have less Down Syndrome children. **IMPORTANT NOTE:** Even if we consider point 5 to be true and aborting Down Syndrome fetuses does not qualify as Eugenics, I consider this to be a minor semantic point. I believe that such countries to be practicing the *spirit* of eugenics. If you want to change my view you must convince me otherwise.

t3_6p7zpt

CMV:people who disagree with me on "most" social issues are not bad people, just people who hold a view I disagree with.

For example, I am pro-abortion rights, but I do not view people who oppose abortion as misogynists who hate women and view them as subhuman, just a person who holds a view that I do not agree with. I say "most" in the title because there are some views that I think that people who disagree with me are bad people. For example, I think that what Hitler did was wrong, and if someone disagrees with that, I will consider them to be bad people. But it is not very common to debate whether or not what Hitler did was wrong, but abortion, transgender issues, and similar issues are hotly debated, so they apply to my CMV. This is how the word "most" in the title should be interpreted - issues where there is legitimate reason to take either side. I believe this because rejecting it will make me intolerant of other people who hold different views. It makes me a bad person if I cannot get along with people who disagree with me. Additionally, people who disagree should be welcomed as they can provide thought-stimulating discussion, not ostracized for being bad people. Finally, viewing those who disagree as bad people can lead to an authoritarian system where one must agree with those in power or face punishment, which is bad because freedom of thought and freedom of speech will be denied to people. Why do I want this view changed? because I have some friends who view anti-abortion people as misogynists and those who oppose affirmative action as racists, and I want to understand their point of 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:people who disagree with me on "most" social issues are not bad people, just people who hold a view I disagree with. For example, I am pro-abortion rights, but I do not view people who oppose abortion as misogynists who hate women and view them as subhuman, just a person who holds a view that I do not agree with. I say "most" in the title because there are some views that I think that people who disagree with me are bad people. For example, I think that what Hitler did was wrong, and if someone disagrees with that, I will consider them to be bad people. But it is not very common to debate whether or not what Hitler did was wrong, but abortion, transgender issues, and similar issues are hotly debated, so they apply to my CMV. This is how the word "most" in the title should be interpreted - issues where there is legitimate reason to take either side. I believe this because rejecting it will make me intolerant of other people who hold different views. It makes me a bad person if I cannot get along with people who disagree with me. Additionally, people who disagree should be welcomed as they can provide thought-stimulating discussion, not ostracized for being bad people. Finally, viewing those who disagree as bad people can lead to an authoritarian system where one must agree with those in power or face punishment, which is bad because freedom of thought and freedom of speech will be denied to people. Why do I want this view changed? because I have some friends who view anti-abortion people as misogynists and those who oppose affirmative action as racists, and I want to understand their point of view.

t3_1g7kyo

I believe that if I managed to do something then anyone can do it to. CMV.

Discarting obvious physical limitations, I truely believe that "I would never be able to do that therefore I won't bother" is not a valid argument. A good example of this would be at my last workplace, where they were supposed to recruit perfectly bilingual people but ended-up recruting many people, specially French, that only spoke their native language. Included in their contract was an obligation to learn English, at least to a communication level. Almost none actually learned anything and I was often asked by management to translate (text or speech). Whilst I wasn't bother at all by that, it irks me that the people who were recrutied on the basis that they would invest time and effort refused to do it and circlejerked. Comments like "what do I even need English for?" or "well, if they want to deal with **us** they need to learn French" were common place. Simply put: if I, a relatively normal bloke, managed to learn a bunch of language I see no reason someone who **wants** or **agrees to** can't do it. I have no problem with people not wanting to do something they find hard, but claiming to want and even signing a promise to do so and then saying they "can't do it because it's too hard" whilst millions did... it's just, forgive the expression, bullsh*t.

I believe that if I managed to do something then anyone can do it to. CMV. Discarting obvious physical limitations, I truely believe that "I would never be able to do that therefore I won't bother" is not a valid argument. A good example of this would be at my last workplace, where they were supposed to recruit perfectly bilingual people but ended-up recruting many people, specially French, that only spoke their native language. Included in their contract was an obligation to learn English, at least to a communication level. Almost none actually learned anything and I was often asked by management to translate (text or speech). Whilst I wasn't bother at all by that, it irks me that the people who were recrutied on the basis that they would invest time and effort refused to do it and circlejerked. Comments like "what do I even need English for?" or "well, if they want to deal with **us** they need to learn French" were common place. Simply put: if I, a relatively normal bloke, managed to learn a bunch of language I see no reason someone who **wants** or **agrees to** can't do it. I have no problem with people not wanting to do something they find hard, but claiming to want and even signing a promise to do so and then saying they "can't do it because it's too hard" whilst millions did... it's just, forgive the expression, bullsh*t.

t3_3onu27

CMV: There is an objective basis for ethics.

A lot of people have this weird idea that ethics are just completely subjective and totally arbitrary. I think thats just kinda stupid. The way I see it, good and bad, right and wrong are entirely based on happiness/pleasure/good emotion, and suffering. We classify something as bad if it makes us suffer and good if it alleviates suffering or creates good emotion (and because we're hardwired with [mirror neurons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron) we are born empathetic so this feeling extends to how others are treated too). Or rather, we have it classified that way for us, we dont have a choice its just an objective part of our being. So it seems obvious to me that utilitarian style ethics have an obejective basis similar to morals handed down from god but less retarded. They're morals which naturally occurred. I think torture is wrong and charity is right even if I have no idea about the concept of morality, im born with a sense that some things are right and some things are wrong. _____ > *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 an objective basis for ethics. A lot of people have this weird idea that ethics are just completely subjective and totally arbitrary. I think thats just kinda stupid. The way I see it, good and bad, right and wrong are entirely based on happiness/pleasure/good emotion, and suffering. We classify something as bad if it makes us suffer and good if it alleviates suffering or creates good emotion (and because we're hardwired with [mirror neurons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron) we are born empathetic so this feeling extends to how others are treated too). Or rather, we have it classified that way for us, we dont have a choice its just an objective part of our being. So it seems obvious to me that utilitarian style ethics have an obejective basis similar to morals handed down from god but less retarded. They're morals which naturally occurred. I think torture is wrong and charity is right even if I have no idea about the concept of morality, im born with a sense that some things are right and some things are wrong.

t3_1crb6a

I think the way men and women are wired sexually is severely flawed and society is sexist. CMV

For the sake of no biased answers, I'm not going to say my sex or age. I'll just say I am bisexual and genderqueer, and I am obsessed with sex. Human sexuality is severely flawed. Not trying to be sexist, but we know the usual difference between men and women sexually right? Men usually are very sexual. Women are also sexual, only they attach it to emotion. Because of this injustice, we have double standards. A horny woman is considered awesome but also slutty by some and a horny man is considered creepy. Women never have to worry about being creepy. Men do. If as a woman, you randomly kiss some guy on the street, he won't care. If as a man, you randomly kiss some girl on the street, you get slapped and she'll get pissed and possibly charge you for sexual assault. If a woman wants advice on asking a man out, everyone says "JUST ASK HIM OUT, GIRLS DON'T GET REJECTED" while if a man wants advice on asking a woman out, he'll get a variety of answers, because they're afraid of being creepy. If you flash your tits in front of a bunch of guys, they'll all like it. Every single one. If you flash your dick in front of a bunch of girls, some will scream in horror, some will laugh, some will like it, and some wont respond at all. Men have to work hard for women. Women don't even need to try. Go to a bar and you'll see what I mean. In Middle School, all the boys I knew ever talked about was sex sex sex. Girls talked about everything other than that and were grossed out by sex. In High School, I've seen boys having crushes on girls all the time. They try to get her but a lot of them fail. I've only heard of girls crushing on boys a few times. All they had to do was ask them out and they went out. Simple. For those lucky boys it was like a goddamn miracle. As an man, you can rape any woman. As a woman, you can only rape a few men. For almost all men, it'll be unexpected sex. Men rape women all the time. But when's the last time you heard about a woman raping a man? If a man rapes a woman, the news media calls it "rape". If a woman rapes a man, the news media usually calls it "forced to have sex" Playboy is a popular magazine. Some people don't even know that Playgirl exists. Almost all men are sex maniacs. Not all women are sex maniacs. Like seriously, what kind of cruel world is this? Why can't we both be equal!? Why!? In an evolutionary perspective, I don't think its biologically right. But it's also society's fault. Don't be ashamed of your sexuality, be open about it ladies and gentlemen. Don't be scared of being called slutty or creepy. If someone does, they're ignorant, remind them that sexual urges is part of human nature and it's nothing to be ashamed of. We live in a fucked up society. I'm sorry if I offended you, but this honestly bothers me everyday.

I think the way men and women are wired sexually is severely flawed and society is sexist. CMV. For the sake of no biased answers, I'm not going to say my sex or age. I'll just say I am bisexual and genderqueer, and I am obsessed with sex. Human sexuality is severely flawed. Not trying to be sexist, but we know the usual difference between men and women sexually right? Men usually are very sexual. Women are also sexual, only they attach it to emotion. Because of this injustice, we have double standards. A horny woman is considered awesome but also slutty by some and a horny man is considered creepy. Women never have to worry about being creepy. Men do. If as a woman, you randomly kiss some guy on the street, he won't care. If as a man, you randomly kiss some girl on the street, you get slapped and she'll get pissed and possibly charge you for sexual assault. If a woman wants advice on asking a man out, everyone says "JUST ASK HIM OUT, GIRLS DON'T GET REJECTED" while if a man wants advice on asking a woman out, he'll get a variety of answers, because they're afraid of being creepy. If you flash your tits in front of a bunch of guys, they'll all like it. Every single one. If you flash your dick in front of a bunch of girls, some will scream in horror, some will laugh, some will like it, and some wont respond at all. Men have to work hard for women. Women don't even need to try. Go to a bar and you'll see what I mean. In Middle School, all the boys I knew ever talked about was sex sex sex. Girls talked about everything other than that and were grossed out by sex. In High School, I've seen boys having crushes on girls all the time. They try to get her but a lot of them fail. I've only heard of girls crushing on boys a few times. All they had to do was ask them out and they went out. Simple. For those lucky boys it was like a goddamn miracle. As an man, you can rape any woman. As a woman, you can only rape a few men. For almost all men, it'll be unexpected sex. Men rape women all the time. But when's the last time you heard about a woman raping a man? If a man rapes a woman, the news media calls it "rape". If a woman rapes a man, the news media usually calls it "forced to have sex" Playboy is a popular magazine. Some people don't even know that Playgirl exists. Almost all men are sex maniacs. Not all women are sex maniacs. Like seriously, what kind of cruel world is this? Why can't we both be equal!? Why!? In an evolutionary perspective, I don't think its biologically right. But it's also society's fault. Don't be ashamed of your sexuality, be open about it ladies and gentlemen. Don't be scared of being called slutty or creepy. If someone does, they're ignorant, remind them that sexual urges is part of human nature and it's nothing to be ashamed of. We live in a fucked up society. I'm sorry if I offended you, but this honestly bothers me everyday.

t3_353zbl

CMV: Les Miserables is Boring and I Will Gain Nothing From Watching It

I like musicals. When I was little, I watched High School Musical and loved it. I sing, I dance, and I'm in a show choir that performs showtunes. Just from being around theatre geeks, I know most of the words to Can You Hear The People Sing...they all LOVE this musical. I've only seen the first five minutes of it, and I want to motivate myself to watch it again, but it just seems so....bland. Dull. Please CMV and convince me that I NEED to watch this. (I am, of course, referring to the 2012 version.) _____ > *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: Les Miserables is Boring and I Will Gain Nothing From Watching It. I like musicals. When I was little, I watched High School Musical and loved it. I sing, I dance, and I'm in a show choir that performs showtunes. Just from being around theatre geeks, I know most of the words to Can You Hear The People Sing...they all LOVE this musical. I've only seen the first five minutes of it, and I want to motivate myself to watch it again, but it just seems so....bland. Dull. Please CMV and convince me that I NEED to watch this. (I am, of course, referring to the 2012 version.)

t3_2lzqvs

Restaurant tipping should be based on the performance of the server, not a percentage of the bill.

It always seemed strange to me that the norm in many restaurants, especially in much of North America, is to tip you waiter or waitress based on a percentage of the bill (eg: 15-20%) rather than the performance of the server. The former would seem to be rewarding the server based on someone else's efforts (like those who actually prepared the food.) I welcome any corrections to this view but please try to avoid using blanket statements and acting like they apply everywhere universally.

Restaurant tipping should be based on the performance of the server, not a percentage of the bill. It always seemed strange to me that the norm in many restaurants, especially in much of North America, is to tip you waiter or waitress based on a percentage of the bill (eg: 15-20%) rather than the performance of the server. The former would seem to be rewarding the server based on someone else's efforts (like those who actually prepared the food.) I welcome any corrections to this view but please try to avoid using blanket statements and acting like they apply everywhere universally.

t3_3sxkke

CMV: If you live within an hour's drive of the Canadian border, you should have your baby in Canada, not the US.

The reasons can be broken out into two categories, those that benefit you and those that benefit your baby. YOU Canadian healthcare is generally better and less alienating than US healthcare. Canadians are half as likely to die in pregnancy than their American counterparts. Canadian healthcare, even for foreigners, is likely to cost less out of pocket than its American equivalent. YOUR CHILDREN If you're born in Canada, you get Canadian citizenship. That means that when you're eighteen, the following things happen to you: -You're eligible to live and work anywhere in North America or anywhere that has a working-holiday agreement with Canada (more countries than have a working-holiday with the US). -You're eligible for locals tuition at Canadian universities, which is lower than in-state tuition at comparably good American universities. -You get to claim free healthcare (except for dental and some prescriptions) and all sorts of benefits associated with being a Canadian citizen. _____ > *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 you live within an hour's drive of the Canadian border, you should have your baby in Canada, not the US. The reasons can be broken out into two categories, those that benefit you and those that benefit your baby. YOU Canadian healthcare is generally better and less alienating than US healthcare. Canadians are half as likely to die in pregnancy than their American counterparts. Canadian healthcare, even for foreigners, is likely to cost less out of pocket than its American equivalent. YOUR CHILDREN If you're born in Canada, you get Canadian citizenship. That means that when you're eighteen, the following things happen to you: -You're eligible to live and work anywhere in North America or anywhere that has a working-holiday agreement with Canada (more countries than have a working-holiday with the US). -You're eligible for locals tuition at Canadian universities, which is lower than in-state tuition at comparably good American universities. -You get to claim free healthcare (except for dental and some prescriptions) and all sorts of benefits associated with being a Canadian citizen.

t3_4z8vpw

CMV:Walter is to blame for the bathtub incident, not Jesse

Apologies for spoilers I guess? When Jesse phones Walter from the store, Jesse asks why the material used matters so much. Walter responds harshly criticizing his performance in class and refuses to explain why. Throughout the short history of the duo up to this point, Walter has consistently corrected Jesse's bad chemistry knowledge. The relationship between the two characters is also abrasive, with both personalities and egos colliding. The smart/dumb divide works into this as well with the remark that the plastic tubs are flimsy, ignoring the scientific specifics of material and Walter's knowledge. Once again, he had a chance to prevent accidents and failed to adequately communicate. Walter's own arrogance and bad temper led to the situation which transpired with the roof falling in. 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:Walter is to blame for the bathtub incident, not Jesse. Apologies for spoilers I guess? When Jesse phones Walter from the store, Jesse asks why the material used matters so much. Walter responds harshly criticizing his performance in class and refuses to explain why. Throughout the short history of the duo up to this point, Walter has consistently corrected Jesse's bad chemistry knowledge. The relationship between the two characters is also abrasive, with both personalities and egos colliding. The smart/dumb divide works into this as well with the remark that the plastic tubs are flimsy, ignoring the scientific specifics of material and Walter's knowledge. Once again, he had a chance to prevent accidents and failed to adequately communicate. Walter's own arrogance and bad temper led to the situation which transpired with the roof falling in. CMV.

t3_2rvv6l

CMV: it is the duty of privileged people to take advantage of their opportunities.

_____ Because privilege is not a product of individual achievement - and is often provided by parents - people born into privilege have a duty to take full advantage of their opportunities. Taking privilege for granted 1. invalidates the sacrifices your family members made for you, or 2. demeans the people who lack the same opportunities and would do anything to have them. For #1 I am specifically interested in financial and educational privilege. One example of #2 is the character of Will Hunting, who is privileged intellectually (having an eidetic memory). Will turns down a great job offer and says that he wants to continue being a laborer, like his friends. His best friend, Chuckie, then tells him, "it would be an insult to us for you to waste your potential and that my fondest wish is that you leave to pursue something greater."

CMV: it is the duty of privileged people to take advantage of their opportunities. _____ Because privilege is not a product of individual achievement - and is often provided by parents - people born into privilege have a duty to take full advantage of their opportunities. Taking privilege for granted 1. invalidates the sacrifices your family members made for you, or 2. demeans the people who lack the same opportunities and would do anything to have them. For #1 I am specifically interested in financial and educational privilege. One example of #2 is the character of Will Hunting, who is privileged intellectually (having an eidetic memory). Will turns down a great job offer and says that he wants to continue being a laborer, like his friends. His best friend, Chuckie, then tells him, "it would be an insult to us for you to waste your potential and that my fondest wish is that you leave to pursue something greater."

t3_6eil4s

CMV: Enjoying exploration in video games but not real life is not illogical

This is meant to be a fairly light hearted CMV. I have heard on more than a few occasions that enjoying video game exploration is odd considering the wealth of opportunities available in the real world. Now, I'm going to ignore is physical ability. I won't say that video games are better purely because it's less strenuous than say hiking. I'd also like to point out that I do enjoy camping and hiking. Point 1: There's nothing interesting for most people to find. There are thousands of acres of forest where I live. You can look off from the interstate and see miles of forest that has probably not seen a human for hundreds of years. I find that thought interesting, but the truth of the matter is that the deepest, oldest part likely looks and contains the exact same things as the rest. You're not going to stumble across interesting hitherto unexplored ruins or find anything neat wandering around the heart of it. Point 1b: The big things have been found and throughly documented. I will not doubt that the first person to see Niagara Falls or the Grand Canyon experienced thoughts and emotions I never will. There's likely nothing left on the planet of that scale. **Edit** I do not believe you have to be the first person for something to be interesting, I simply believe that knowing and expecting to see something detracts from the experience. I would love to see the pyramids of Egypt, but the experience is much less grand than if I had no clue they existed. Point 2: Assuming there are legitimately unexplored places on earth, they are likely prohibitively expense and time consuming to reach for the vast majority of the population. Perhaps there's interesting stuff on Gangkhar Puensum (highest unclimbed mountain) or in the heart of the Amazon, but I'll likely never be able to fund an expedition. Hopefully someone can convince me that exploring my nearby world is as interesting if not more so than a game world. I've also thought of an argument against myself while typing, but I'll leave that for someone else.

CMV: Enjoying exploration in video games but not real life is not illogical. This is meant to be a fairly light hearted CMV. I have heard on more than a few occasions that enjoying video game exploration is odd considering the wealth of opportunities available in the real world. Now, I'm going to ignore is physical ability. I won't say that video games are better purely because it's less strenuous than say hiking. I'd also like to point out that I do enjoy camping and hiking. Point 1: There's nothing interesting for most people to find. There are thousands of acres of forest where I live. You can look off from the interstate and see miles of forest that has probably not seen a human for hundreds of years. I find that thought interesting, but the truth of the matter is that the deepest, oldest part likely looks and contains the exact same things as the rest. You're not going to stumble across interesting hitherto unexplored ruins or find anything neat wandering around the heart of it. Point 1b: The big things have been found and throughly documented. I will not doubt that the first person to see Niagara Falls or the Grand Canyon experienced thoughts and emotions I never will. There's likely nothing left on the planet of that scale. **Edit** I do not believe you have to be the first person for something to be interesting, I simply believe that knowing and expecting to see something detracts from the experience. I would love to see the pyramids of Egypt, but the experience is much less grand than if I had no clue they existed. Point 2: Assuming there are legitimately unexplored places on earth, they are likely prohibitively expense and time consuming to reach for the vast majority of the population. Perhaps there's interesting stuff on Gangkhar Puensum (highest unclimbed mountain) or in the heart of the Amazon, but I'll likely never be able to fund an expedition. Hopefully someone can convince me that exploring my nearby world is as interesting if not more so than a game world. I've also thought of an argument against myself while typing, but I'll leave that for someone else.

t3_1m6byb

I think its about time America got over 9/11. CMV

I'm not saying we shouldn't remember what happened, or just let those responsible off the hook or anything, I just think the mass memorials need to stop. I understand grieving if you lost someone, or if you were in close proximity of what happened, etc etc. But its been over a decade. Its time to stop living in the past and start moving forward. I'll forever remember the guys who drowned in the USS Arizona on Dec 7th (a significantly larger event, mind you), but we do not need 12 hours of crying and flag waving on TV every year. We've found and killed the man who was leading the party responsible for it. We've decimated a good chunk of their organization. We've spent trillions on a war against terror. Its time to stop and get on with our lives. No more halftime tributes, no more mass vigils, no more showing footage of crying mourners. It happened, its terrible, and its important to remember it, but its over. We have to move on. Edit: I'm at work all day so I won't really be able to respond until tonight

I think its about time America got over 9/11. CMV. I'm not saying we shouldn't remember what happened, or just let those responsible off the hook or anything, I just think the mass memorials need to stop. I understand grieving if you lost someone, or if you were in close proximity of what happened, etc etc. But its been over a decade. Its time to stop living in the past and start moving forward. I'll forever remember the guys who drowned in the USS Arizona on Dec 7th (a significantly larger event, mind you), but we do not need 12 hours of crying and flag waving on TV every year. We've found and killed the man who was leading the party responsible for it. We've decimated a good chunk of their organization. We've spent trillions on a war against terror. Its time to stop and get on with our lives. No more halftime tributes, no more mass vigils, no more showing footage of crying mourners. It happened, its terrible, and its important to remember it, but its over. We have to move on. Edit: I'm at work all day so I won't really be able to respond until tonight

t3_2j47kt

CMV: Ideas are discover not created

I think this applies to all forms of information including but not limited to philosophy, mathematics, all sciences, and any form of art. So the view is that when you think of an idea you are not creating that idea you are merely discovering it. The strongest argument I can think of for this view at the moment is as follows: Take the number pi it is objective, well defined, and measurable. So I would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas (IE it was not created). Yet the digits of pi are never ending and never repeating. So within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information. Thinking of an idea is then one way to come to know it, but another would simply be to measure/calculate pi to a sufficient number of digits then just read out the idea. With this view in mind it seems clear that ideas are discovered not created. In fact I have given a process by which you can discover any idea. Yet it is still often claimed that philosophies, physical theories, movies, songs, etc. are created. Can you C my V? Convince me that you have created an idea. _____ > *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: Ideas are discover not created. I think this applies to all forms of information including but not limited to philosophy, mathematics, all sciences, and any form of art. So the view is that when you think of an idea you are not creating that idea you are merely discovering it. The strongest argument I can think of for this view at the moment is as follows: Take the number pi it is objective, well defined, and measurable. So I would say it clearly exists independent of us and our thoughts/ideas (IE it was not created). Yet the digits of pi are never ending and never repeating. So within the digits you can find any possible combination of digits and by extension all information. Thinking of an idea is then one way to come to know it, but another would simply be to measure/calculate pi to a sufficient number of digits then just read out the idea. With this view in mind it seems clear that ideas are discovered not created. In fact I have given a process by which you can discover any idea. Yet it is still often claimed that philosophies, physical theories, movies, songs, etc. are created. Can you C my V? Convince me that you have created an idea.

t3_1kr8vj

I think A Feast for Crows was a sub-par novel, CMV

Out of all the Song of Fire and Ice novels, it was easily the least interesting, but I felt like it fell short of Martin's normally fantastic writing abilities. Cersei - In the first three novels, Cersei was portrayed as a conniving, scheming, evil mastermind. She came out on top again and again, but in AFFC she mysteriously becomes a crazy, paranoid lunatic who is totally incapable of making any good decisions when it comes to ruling. It was such a stark (har) departure from her earlier characterization it threw me for a loop. The cast of characters in AFFC didn't really do anything interesting. Everything having to do with the Iron Islands is just uninteresting. Their actions are totally removed from what the rest of the world is doing; they have no effect on anyone and no seemingly interesting plotlines that could spring from them until Euron shows off that horn at the end of the book (In the last chapter) after a long and boring build up. I love Brienne of Tarth, but she doesn't do anything of note other than wander around aimlessly, stumbling upon some random ex-mercenaries, and (Once again in her last chapter) stumbles into something that might actually be interesting. Sansa continues to be a disappointment in all aspects, which is nothing new, so I suppose I cannot fault Martin here. Overall, the book just seems like filler. It's just setup for A Dance With Dragons, but without any truly interesting suspense. And no, I'm not just bitter that Danny didn't get any chapters, but it doesn't help Martin either. Change my view

I think A Feast for Crows was a sub-par novel, CMV. Out of all the Song of Fire and Ice novels, it was easily the least interesting, but I felt like it fell short of Martin's normally fantastic writing abilities. Cersei - In the first three novels, Cersei was portrayed as a conniving, scheming, evil mastermind. She came out on top again and again, but in AFFC she mysteriously becomes a crazy, paranoid lunatic who is totally incapable of making any good decisions when it comes to ruling. It was such a stark (har) departure from her earlier characterization it threw me for a loop. The cast of characters in AFFC didn't really do anything interesting. Everything having to do with the Iron Islands is just uninteresting. Their actions are totally removed from what the rest of the world is doing; they have no effect on anyone and no seemingly interesting plotlines that could spring from them until Euron shows off that horn at the end of the book (In the last chapter) after a long and boring build up. I love Brienne of Tarth, but she doesn't do anything of note other than wander around aimlessly, stumbling upon some random ex-mercenaries, and (Once again in her last chapter) stumbles into something that might actually be interesting. Sansa continues to be a disappointment in all aspects, which is nothing new, so I suppose I cannot fault Martin here. Overall, the book just seems like filler. It's just setup for A Dance With Dragons, but without any truly interesting suspense. And no, I'm not just bitter that Danny didn't get any chapters, but it doesn't help Martin either. Change my view

t3_22297w

CMV: I think that the recent Supreme Court decision (McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission) is going to have a myriad of unintended consequences, and will make the US much worse off (than it already is)

Here's an article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html Basically, I think all this is going to do is allow rich people to have even *more* influence in Washington, which is going to mean worse candidates that only have the interest of their corporate 'sponsors' in mind when they write and pass legislation. The government will become even more cronyist than it is now. Instead, I think: * This should go back to the way it was, a limit on individual donations. I honestly think $1,000/person per election cycle would be better. * Citizen United should be overturned, thus disallowing corporations from donating money. It should come from the individuals *within* said corporation, if at all. I can't really see how this helps out individuals who don't have a lot of money (or any money) to donate. It just seems like it will allow the 0.01% to donate as much as they want, thus ensuring that they get even *more* [regulatory capture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) from the government. Thanks 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 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 think that the recent Supreme Court decision (McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission) is going to have a myriad of unintended consequences, and will make the US much worse off (than it already is). Here's an article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html Basically, I think all this is going to do is allow rich people to have even *more* influence in Washington, which is going to mean worse candidates that only have the interest of their corporate 'sponsors' in mind when they write and pass legislation. The government will become even more cronyist than it is now. Instead, I think: * This should go back to the way it was, a limit on individual donations. I honestly think $1,000/person per election cycle would be better. * Citizen United should be overturned, thus disallowing corporations from donating money. It should come from the individuals *within* said corporation, if at all. I can't really see how this helps out individuals who don't have a lot of money (or any money) to donate. It just seems like it will allow the 0.01% to donate as much as they want, thus ensuring that they get even *more* [regulatory capture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) from the government. Thanks CMV!

t3_2jknh9

CMV: There is an anime for everyone.

My view is that anime is more of a medium than a genre, whilst some of the more popular anime will share similarities there is a huge variety of shows and they aren't all intended for the same audience. I see people saying that they have tried anime, "I tried X, Y and Z and I still hate anime!" but it's usually just that they tried 3 of the same type of anime, all with the same target demo and very similar themes. Whilst Attack on Titan, Naruto, Death Note etc are big names you may have heard of, they don't represent all anime in the slightest. Saying I don't like anime is similar to saying "I don't like movies" or "I don't like music", when really you have only seen the PG-13 crap that sells like crazy, or only heard pop music on the radio. _____ > *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 an anime for everyone. My view is that anime is more of a medium than a genre, whilst some of the more popular anime will share similarities there is a huge variety of shows and they aren't all intended for the same audience. I see people saying that they have tried anime, "I tried X, Y and Z and I still hate anime!" but it's usually just that they tried 3 of the same type of anime, all with the same target demo and very similar themes. Whilst Attack on Titan, Naruto, Death Note etc are big names you may have heard of, they don't represent all anime in the slightest. Saying I don't like anime is similar to saying "I don't like movies" or "I don't like music", when really you have only seen the PG-13 crap that sells like crazy, or only heard pop music on the radio.

t3_224bjr

CMV: There's nothing wrong with the public school "hierarchy" that organizes jocks, stoners, nerds, etc. into groups

First off, I'd like to say that I'm a high-schooler on the southwest coast of the good ol' USA. Having gone through the public school system my entire life, I was a bright, confident kid who loved people and some (but not all) of my teachers. I did all the free volleyball, tennis, and golf classes that my school offered, considering my dad was just a parts salesman and my mom raised me and my brother. We never had a lot of money, but I was always invited to the "rich kid" parties and events. My entire life, I was told that I was the perfect "bully" type. Not that I was ever accused of bullying anyone, and I never would, but my greatest fear was becoming "that bully" who was confident, athletic, and had a lot of friends, only to be brought down by someone less socially-adept. All the movies I watched growing up were from the perspective of an awkward-but-usually-likable protagonist whose largest adversary was the "popular" kid (who, in addition, was absolutely evil to said protagonist for no reason). Because of this, I really saw "nerd culture" develop in kids who I never imagined would have been "nerds" to begin with. They pretended to like math and wear big hipster glasses to avoid the "popular" stereotype that said any large, chatty, good-looking group of kids must also be mean, cocky douchebags who bully other kids. I think that the hierarchy that our parents so vehemently oppose in the school system is there for a reason. The "traditional loners" I had to become friends with to avoid the bully stereotype turned out to be bitter, rude to teachers and parents, and horrible to eachother. I would have never treated them like they treat themselves: with contempt. They saw themselves in these 'bullied' roles all the time, just because other kids seemed to be smarter, more extroverted, and more communal. We were always the bad guys, even when we were being nice. They no longer had to control their behavior because the "peer pressure" to fit in was replaced by a "you're the hero" attitude that, I swear, gave them all inferiority/superiority complexes to this day. Groups give people identification. Being stereotyped is all how you choose to present yourself; you simply have to ask, "Is this how I want people to see me?" By taking away the cause of self-awareness in our schools, we are putting down people who want to make a positive difference in their own lives and others (sports, leadership clubs, etc) in favor of people whose social skills might end up denying them jobs and relationships someday. EDIT:// TLDR; For some reason, I'm always told that we need to "lift up" our unpopular kids and "bring down to size" our popular ones. I know there has to be a reason, which is why I'm asking you people. Am I nuts because I don't want to idolize future neckbeards? _____ > *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: There's nothing wrong with the public school "hierarchy" that organizes jocks, stoners, nerds, etc. into groups. First off, I'd like to say that I'm a high-schooler on the southwest coast of the good ol' USA. Having gone through the public school system my entire life, I was a bright, confident kid who loved people and some (but not all) of my teachers. I did all the free volleyball, tennis, and golf classes that my school offered, considering my dad was just a parts salesman and my mom raised me and my brother. We never had a lot of money, but I was always invited to the "rich kid" parties and events. My entire life, I was told that I was the perfect "bully" type. Not that I was ever accused of bullying anyone, and I never would, but my greatest fear was becoming "that bully" who was confident, athletic, and had a lot of friends, only to be brought down by someone less socially-adept. All the movies I watched growing up were from the perspective of an awkward-but-usually-likable protagonist whose largest adversary was the "popular" kid (who, in addition, was absolutely evil to said protagonist for no reason). Because of this, I really saw "nerd culture" develop in kids who I never imagined would have been "nerds" to begin with. They pretended to like math and wear big hipster glasses to avoid the "popular" stereotype that said any large, chatty, good-looking group of kids must also be mean, cocky douchebags who bully other kids. I think that the hierarchy that our parents so vehemently oppose in the school system is there for a reason. The "traditional loners" I had to become friends with to avoid the bully stereotype turned out to be bitter, rude to teachers and parents, and horrible to eachother. I would have never treated them like they treat themselves: with contempt. They saw themselves in these 'bullied' roles all the time, just because other kids seemed to be smarter, more extroverted, and more communal. We were always the bad guys, even when we were being nice. They no longer had to control their behavior because the "peer pressure" to fit in was replaced by a "you're the hero" attitude that, I swear, gave them all inferiority/superiority complexes to this day. Groups give people identification. Being stereotyped is all how you choose to present yourself; you simply have to ask, "Is this how I want people to see me?" By taking away the cause of self-awareness in our schools, we are putting down people who want to make a positive difference in their own lives and others (sports, leadership clubs, etc) in favor of people whose social skills might end up denying them jobs and relationships someday. EDIT:// TLDR; For some reason, I'm always told that we need to "lift up" our unpopular kids and "bring down to size" our popular ones. I know there has to be a reason, which is why I'm asking you people. Am I nuts because I don't want to idolize future neckbeards?

t3_1gcv8c

I don't think that minorities don't deserve any more scholarships than others. CMV

I'm not racist, I just don't think that it's too fair that minorities get scholarships to colleges or get accepted into colleges easilier than Caucasians. Someone was telling me that a Puerto Rican who was 20th in her class was accepted into Harvard where as the Class President who was also the valedictorian of the same school was not accepted. Why should minorities get these advantages?

I don't think that minorities don't deserve any more scholarships than others. CMV. I'm not racist, I just don't think that it's too fair that minorities get scholarships to colleges or get accepted into colleges easilier than Caucasians. Someone was telling me that a Puerto Rican who was 20th in her class was accepted into Harvard where as the Class President who was also the valedictorian of the same school was not accepted. Why should minorities get these advantages?

t3_2oywqx

CMV: Whenever a violent criminal (burglar, thief, murderer) dies, even if the circumstances surrounding his death are shady (police brutality, vigilantism, etcetera), society didn't lose anything of value and might have even gained from the event.

"Violent criminal" as defined as someone who mugs, kills, and steals, regardless of context or intention of the person, be it just for kicks or crawling out of poverty. Even though there are sociological factors related to crime and some people are practically *forced* into it due to lack of opportunity, I still cannot feel any empathy for someone who thinks they 'deserve' whatever they're stealing more than the person who legally owns it, especially if they would be prepared to *kill* the person for it. Whenever a thief gets shot down by police or a homeowner/mugging victim who reacted and got the upper hand, there's always people who treat him as a martyr and says that property isn't worth killing someone over. But really, what does society lose from the death of that person? They don't produce goods, they don't create art, they aren't involved in political movements, there is literally nothing useful they could possibly do aside from *maybe* paying taxes. The only people that could possibly gain from their existence would be their direct family and themselves. *The criminal's mere existence is counterproductive*. And even though, like I said before, there are sociological contexts that cause crime and a criminal doesn't necessarily do it because he's evil. He might be trying to make ends meet, feed his children, pay rent, but it still makes him an enemy in the eyes of any potential victim. If someone walked in your house with a gun trying to take your things and possibly harm your family, would you: A)Shoot them. B)Rationalize the situation considering the economic background of the burglar and the effects of social inequality on crime, concluding that they don't deserve to get shot because they're just trying to survive and might have young children and are only burglarizing your home and threatening your family since they never had any other opportunity in life, which means they need your things more than you do, so you just let them carry on with their business. _____ > *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: Whenever a violent criminal (burglar, thief, murderer) dies, even if the circumstances surrounding his death are shady (police brutality, vigilantism, etcetera), society didn't lose anything of value and might have even gained from the event. "Violent criminal" as defined as someone who mugs, kills, and steals, regardless of context or intention of the person, be it just for kicks or crawling out of poverty. Even though there are sociological factors related to crime and some people are practically *forced* into it due to lack of opportunity, I still cannot feel any empathy for someone who thinks they 'deserve' whatever they're stealing more than the person who legally owns it, especially if they would be prepared to *kill* the person for it. Whenever a thief gets shot down by police or a homeowner/mugging victim who reacted and got the upper hand, there's always people who treat him as a martyr and says that property isn't worth killing someone over. But really, what does society lose from the death of that person? They don't produce goods, they don't create art, they aren't involved in political movements, there is literally nothing useful they could possibly do aside from *maybe* paying taxes. The only people that could possibly gain from their existence would be their direct family and themselves. *The criminal's mere existence is counterproductive*. And even though, like I said before, there are sociological contexts that cause crime and a criminal doesn't necessarily do it because he's evil. He might be trying to make ends meet, feed his children, pay rent, but it still makes him an enemy in the eyes of any potential victim. If someone walked in your house with a gun trying to take your things and possibly harm your family, would you: A)Shoot them. B)Rationalize the situation considering the economic background of the burglar and the effects of social inequality on crime, concluding that they don't deserve to get shot because they're just trying to survive and might have young children and are only burglarizing your home and threatening your family since they never had any other opportunity in life, which means they need your things more than you do, so you just let them carry on with their business.

t3_6p2hvp

CMV: I've outgrown my parents financially and intellectually among others that I am now unable to relate to them at all and would prefer to cut them off completely.

However, I feel guilty for some reason as society expects us to care for our parents and such but I can't even converse with them for 10 minutes without getting frustrated. All they ever do is fight over what happened decades ago (they literally bring up and argue all day about the past and never aim to resolve things) and gossip about other people. All this time I've been working on bettering myself and staying away from drama so there literally is nothing that I can talk to my parents about. I cannot stand talking to them at all because I get really frustrated and have almost exclusively talked to them through my brother in the past few years.

CMV: I've outgrown my parents financially and intellectually among others that I am now unable to relate to them at all and would prefer to cut them off completely. However, I feel guilty for some reason as society expects us to care for our parents and such but I can't even converse with them for 10 minutes without getting frustrated. All they ever do is fight over what happened decades ago (they literally bring up and argue all day about the past and never aim to resolve things) and gossip about other people. All this time I've been working on bettering myself and staying away from drama so there literally is nothing that I can talk to my parents about. I cannot stand talking to them at all because I get really frustrated and have almost exclusively talked to them through my brother in the past few years.

t3_1z9ia6

CMV Overtime should be paid for multiple unrelated employers

Currenty for hourly workers, time over 40 hours per week is paid at time and a half. This is for single and joint employers, but not multiple unrelated employers, see http://www.payroll-taxes.com/articles/qvertime-and-multiple-employers But the time of a single employee needs to be coordinated since you cannot work two jobs at the same time. So this implies that multiple employers need to coordinate scheduling and all employers should be considered as joint employers. Having multiple unrelated employers pay overtime will either increase pay of current employees or result in employers hiring extra employees to avoid paying overtime resulting in reduced unemployment. The number of people who work multiple jobs, about 5% see http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/01/17/states-where-the-most-people-work-two-jobs/, is about the same as the unemployment rate.

CMV Overtime should be paid for multiple unrelated employers. Currenty for hourly workers, time over 40 hours per week is paid at time and a half. This is for single and joint employers, but not multiple unrelated employers, see http://www.payroll-taxes.com/articles/qvertime-and-multiple-employers But the time of a single employee needs to be coordinated since you cannot work two jobs at the same time. So this implies that multiple employers need to coordinate scheduling and all employers should be considered as joint employers. Having multiple unrelated employers pay overtime will either increase pay of current employees or result in employers hiring extra employees to avoid paying overtime resulting in reduced unemployment. The number of people who work multiple jobs, about 5% see http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/01/17/states-where-the-most-people-work-two-jobs/, is about the same as the unemployment rate.

t3_1hwwuw

The Environment is the most important aspect of our lives. CMV

I believe that our planet/environment is _the_ most important part of our lives, as such, demands our highest respect and consideration. It is (should be) paramount in decision making above all else. Definition: (the environment) the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity Why: Our and all other life is contained on our planet, our food and water and air come from it, it supports us. We owe it to ourselves to ensure that our source of life continues on, and continues on supporting healthy lives for the current population and future. As well as the other inhabitants to sustain a healthy environment, now that we, as a species, can impact the environment on a global scale. tl;dr You wouldn't shit in your kitchen sink.

The Environment is the most important aspect of our lives. CMV. I believe that our planet/environment is _the_ most important part of our lives, as such, demands our highest respect and consideration. It is (should be) paramount in decision making above all else. Definition: (the environment) the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity Why: Our and all other life is contained on our planet, our food and water and air come from it, it supports us. We owe it to ourselves to ensure that our source of life continues on, and continues on supporting healthy lives for the current population and future. As well as the other inhabitants to sustain a healthy environment, now that we, as a species, can impact the environment on a global scale. tl;dr You wouldn't shit in your kitchen sink.

t3_2eopfb

CMV:If you are a majority whether in race, gender, etc. to be proud is frowned upon.

I saw a post on the front page (r/funny I believe) a few days ago that said "I'm proud to be black said the black man, I'm proud to be asian said the asian man, I'm proud to be white said the racist." Having quite a few upvotes it seemed several thousand people agree with that sentiment. I sadly agree. It seems in many parts of the world especially in the United States that if you are a majority then you are not allowed to be proud or to feel oppressed. From the prior example, if a white person says I'm proud to be white most people immediately say wow what a racist. I am proud to be straight makes you a homophobe. We have societies for women such as the Society for Women Engineers, yet if there was a Society for Male Engineers it would be attacked for it's misogyny. Society allows you to be proud unless you are the majority in which case you must feel bad that you are. Reddit, Change My View.

CMV:If you are a majority whether in race, gender, etc. to be proud is frowned upon. I saw a post on the front page (r/funny I believe) a few days ago that said "I'm proud to be black said the black man, I'm proud to be asian said the asian man, I'm proud to be white said the racist." Having quite a few upvotes it seemed several thousand people agree with that sentiment. I sadly agree. It seems in many parts of the world especially in the United States that if you are a majority then you are not allowed to be proud or to feel oppressed. From the prior example, if a white person says I'm proud to be white most people immediately say wow what a racist. I am proud to be straight makes you a homophobe. We have societies for women such as the Society for Women Engineers, yet if there was a Society for Male Engineers it would be attacked for it's misogyny. Society allows you to be proud unless you are the majority in which case you must feel bad that you are. Reddit, Change My View.

t3_48ujmo

CMV: Women's only hours are a lazy solution that is unfair to men.

This topic was touched upon [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1hp8cm/i_believe_that_womens_only_hours_at_gyms_are/) but I don't think either side really did a good job of explaining their points. I am a regular gym goer who attends my university gym as it's included in my university fees. There are three gyms on campus, and the largest one devotes one hours a day during peak times for women only use. The reasoning behind the WOH (women's only hours) is to provide a "safe space" for women who may fear harassment from men. My argument is that although harassment may occur at the gym, simply separating the men and the women is not a viable solution. If the goal is to prevent women from getting harassed from the gym, by preventing men from going only at certain times, all that is being achieved is stopping the women who go during that time of day from being harassed. Along the WOH line of thinking, to truly eliminate any harassment there should be two seperate gyms for men and women. Furthermore, it's unfair to men as they make up the largest proportion of gym-goers. It treats the entire gender as though they are all wolves just waiting to harass any one with boobs. When discussing this issue with others people bring up the fact that some women have had passed altercations with men, and as such, would feel uncomfortable around men in a gym setting, where they feel vulnerable. I think this is an absurd argument to make that is extremely sexist. The same logic could used to segregate blacks and whites from the gym, because some white people had been mugged by black people. It just makes no sense. Wouldn't a better solution be to educate the gym's population of various etiquette, and ban those who didn't mean the expectations? To change my view you have to convince me that separating men and women at the gym is the best solution to problems of harassment. My view will not be changed by any arguments that say something to the effect of "couldn't you just go to another gym", or "it's only 1 hour a day, that's not that much", as that does not interact with my argument whatsoever. It will also not be changed by any reasoning citing religion, as that is a separate issue entirely. _____ > *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: Women's only hours are a lazy solution that is unfair to men. This topic was touched upon [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1hp8cm/i_believe_that_womens_only_hours_at_gyms_are/) but I don't think either side really did a good job of explaining their points. I am a regular gym goer who attends my university gym as it's included in my university fees. There are three gyms on campus, and the largest one devotes one hours a day during peak times for women only use. The reasoning behind the WOH (women's only hours) is to provide a "safe space" for women who may fear harassment from men. My argument is that although harassment may occur at the gym, simply separating the men and the women is not a viable solution. If the goal is to prevent women from getting harassed from the gym, by preventing men from going only at certain times, all that is being achieved is stopping the women who go during that time of day from being harassed. Along the WOH line of thinking, to truly eliminate any harassment there should be two seperate gyms for men and women. Furthermore, it's unfair to men as they make up the largest proportion of gym-goers. It treats the entire gender as though they are all wolves just waiting to harass any one with boobs. When discussing this issue with others people bring up the fact that some women have had passed altercations with men, and as such, would feel uncomfortable around men in a gym setting, where they feel vulnerable. I think this is an absurd argument to make that is extremely sexist. The same logic could used to segregate blacks and whites from the gym, because some white people had been mugged by black people. It just makes no sense. Wouldn't a better solution be to educate the gym's population of various etiquette, and ban those who didn't mean the expectations? To change my view you have to convince me that separating men and women at the gym is the best solution to problems of harassment. My view will not be changed by any arguments that say something to the effect of "couldn't you just go to another gym", or "it's only 1 hour a day, that's not that much", as that does not interact with my argument whatsoever. It will also not be changed by any reasoning citing religion, as that is a separate issue entirely.

t3_2whgfh

CMV: $7.25 /hr is a fair minimum wage, and raising it will only hurt the poor even more.

A lot of people, especially fast food workers complain about the minimum wage being too low. I see so many campaigns protesting to have it raised up to $14 an hour. I think that is ridiculous. First off, minimum wage is a starting wage for low-level jobs. These jobs are great to fill with teenagers, young adults, and other people with little to no work experience. People work these minimum wage job to have an occupation while they are getting education, or to gain work experience. If you've been in the workforce for more than 2 years and still working minimum wage, it's no one's fault but your own. On to my second point, that it will hurt the poor even more. Think about it. You're a young adult and need to get a job, you have no work experience. Well, only problem is that the minimum wage is now $12 an hour. Why would companies hire people with no experience to work a job that requires at least some basic work skills? Raising the minimum wage will only put more people out of work and will make it that much harder for people with no work experience or education to get a job to start out in. Also, a tad off topic, but as a solution to this, here's my alternative solution: Minimum wage is minimum wage, if you apply for a job at McDonalds, that's all they have to start you out with. However, I do think that companies should be required to give raises to people who have worked there for an extended period of time. So yeah, a person who has worked at McDonalds for 4 years+ can now get their $10-14 an hour. But don't expect to get started out at $14 having no skills or experience. Imo, people complaining about minimum wage are just whiny entitled people.

CMV: $7.25 /hr is a fair minimum wage, and raising it will only hurt the poor even more. A lot of people, especially fast food workers complain about the minimum wage being too low. I see so many campaigns protesting to have it raised up to $14 an hour. I think that is ridiculous. First off, minimum wage is a starting wage for low-level jobs. These jobs are great to fill with teenagers, young adults, and other people with little to no work experience. People work these minimum wage job to have an occupation while they are getting education, or to gain work experience. If you've been in the workforce for more than 2 years and still working minimum wage, it's no one's fault but your own. On to my second point, that it will hurt the poor even more. Think about it. You're a young adult and need to get a job, you have no work experience. Well, only problem is that the minimum wage is now $12 an hour. Why would companies hire people with no experience to work a job that requires at least some basic work skills? Raising the minimum wage will only put more people out of work and will make it that much harder for people with no work experience or education to get a job to start out in. Also, a tad off topic, but as a solution to this, here's my alternative solution: Minimum wage is minimum wage, if you apply for a job at McDonalds, that's all they have to start you out with. However, I do think that companies should be required to give raises to people who have worked there for an extended period of time. So yeah, a person who has worked at McDonalds for 4 years+ can now get their $10-14 an hour. But don't expect to get started out at $14 having no skills or experience. Imo, people complaining about minimum wage are just whiny entitled people.

t3_1uhpfr

I belive that while women should be free to breastfeed in public they should need to be discrete and have guidelines to follow CMV

Please note I am 100% okay with woman breastfeeding in public as long as they are discrete however the woman you see completely topless with their full breast exposed as they massage it in complete view of everyone at the public pool or whatever other venue they enjoy doing this in is indecent and could easily be taken to a private room or simply covered with a towel. I'm also refering to people who make this nonsense their profile picture. Essentialy I feel one persons rights should not infringe on any other one persons right to be comfortable in public setting. The reason why I mentioned the public pool is because this is a situation I saw once. I was at the public pool a woman was breast feeding her child IN the pool with her bathing suit top pulled down so that her breasts were exposed. Once she had finished feeding she handed the child off to what I assume is her husband and began massaging her breasts I understand they propably get sore but there is a time and a place for this. As this is no longer about her childs basic need for food but now about her comfort. I think this is unacceptable and to avoid people from being uneasy about the situation she could have simply sat on a bench with a towel. Please note she was approached by a life guard who informed her that other guests had complained and it would be perfered if she could be more descrete. Not only did she refuse to comply but she made a huge scene and attempted lawsuit on the pool. I feel this is completly unacceptable behaviour. Case and point. I think woman should be allowed to breastfeed wherever they want but must do it in a logical and discrete way. Sorry about spelling I'm typing this up in a rush as my break is almost over at work.

I belive that while women should be free to breastfeed in public they should need to be discrete and have guidelines to follow CMV. Please note I am 100% okay with woman breastfeeding in public as long as they are discrete however the woman you see completely topless with their full breast exposed as they massage it in complete view of everyone at the public pool or whatever other venue they enjoy doing this in is indecent and could easily be taken to a private room or simply covered with a towel. I'm also refering to people who make this nonsense their profile picture. Essentialy I feel one persons rights should not infringe on any other one persons right to be comfortable in public setting. The reason why I mentioned the public pool is because this is a situation I saw once. I was at the public pool a woman was breast feeding her child IN the pool with her bathing suit top pulled down so that her breasts were exposed. Once she had finished feeding she handed the child off to what I assume is her husband and began massaging her breasts I understand they propably get sore but there is a time and a place for this. As this is no longer about her childs basic need for food but now about her comfort. I think this is unacceptable and to avoid people from being uneasy about the situation she could have simply sat on a bench with a towel. Please note she was approached by a life guard who informed her that other guests had complained and it would be perfered if she could be more descrete. Not only did she refuse to comply but she made a huge scene and attempted lawsuit on the pool. I feel this is completly unacceptable behaviour. Case and point. I think woman should be allowed to breastfeed wherever they want but must do it in a logical and discrete way. Sorry about spelling I'm typing this up in a rush as my break is almost over at work.

t3_2kiocs

CMV:Victoria Secret's new advertising, in which they call certain women's bodies "perfect", is totally reasonable and shouldn't be seen as offensive to women.

Here is an article by the Huffington post which outlines the new advertisement line http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/27/victorias-secret-the-perfect-body-petition-changeorg_n_6055642.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-women Am I wrong in thinking that this shouldn't be offensive to women? I struggle to find what is wrong when saying that these three women have perfect bodies when it seems kinda accurate, i.e. impossibly good My view would be that advertisement like this doesn't seem damaging, and I would like to understand it from another 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:Victoria Secret's new advertising, in which they call certain women's bodies "perfect", is totally reasonable and shouldn't be seen as offensive to women. Here is an article by the Huffington post which outlines the new advertisement line http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/27/victorias-secret-the-perfect-body-petition-changeorg_n_6055642.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-women Am I wrong in thinking that this shouldn't be offensive to women? I struggle to find what is wrong when saying that these three women have perfect bodies when it seems kinda accurate, i.e. impossibly good My view would be that advertisement like this doesn't seem damaging, and I would like to understand it from another point of view.

t3_1fpjcv

The current software industry job boom will subside in 10-15 years or less. CMV.

I think what we're seeing is entrepreneurs starting to fully utilize the massive computing power and new computer interfaces that humans have designed over the past 30 years. At some point in near two or three years, computing power will reach a point where consumers will stop noticing a difference. HCI is a very slow changing field in general. Thus, at some point, we are going to have a most people using similar performing hardware with similar interfaces. Given that the recent boom in software companies has been driven by consumer demand, it only reasonable to think that every software niche will soon be covered. At that point, since these software companies now have fewer opportunities, they will find ways to reduce costs; given that labor is a huge cost, we will see software companies invest more in automation. This will result in layoffs and decreased job opportunities, ending the massive employment growth in software. IMO this is only natural. This has been the progression of most industries; for example, there used to be big money in fossil fuels for 60 or so years in the late 19th, early 20th century before the industry consolidated itself.

The current software industry job boom will subside in 10-15 years or less. CMV. I think what we're seeing is entrepreneurs starting to fully utilize the massive computing power and new computer interfaces that humans have designed over the past 30 years. At some point in near two or three years, computing power will reach a point where consumers will stop noticing a difference. HCI is a very slow changing field in general. Thus, at some point, we are going to have a most people using similar performing hardware with similar interfaces. Given that the recent boom in software companies has been driven by consumer demand, it only reasonable to think that every software niche will soon be covered. At that point, since these software companies now have fewer opportunities, they will find ways to reduce costs; given that labor is a huge cost, we will see software companies invest more in automation. This will result in layoffs and decreased job opportunities, ending the massive employment growth in software. IMO this is only natural. This has been the progression of most industries; for example, there used to be big money in fossil fuels for 60 or so years in the late 19th, early 20th century before the industry consolidated itself.

t3_2mv3n4

CMV: I believe society causes more trauma for rape victims

This is something I noticed after seeing the huge amount of discussion about rape on reddit. Now note specifically I am talking about the non-violent kind of rape where neither member is injured physically, but express verbal consent still wasn't given or statutory rape where one member is too young to give consent. It seems to me that in today's society, men are expected to want sex all the time. It's most obvious in cases where female teachers have sex with younger boys and peoples reaction to it (mostly) is 'NOICCE' or 'I wish this happened to me, my teacher was hot'. Then when it happens with the sexes reversed the reaction is mostly, 'That disgusting pedo deserves to get anally raped in jail' and 'Oh that poor girl, a terrible thing has been done to her'. As a result of this, you come across a lot of men who have been technically raped but who simply get over it extremely quickly despite feeling dirty, violated etc as other guys around them just say stuff like 'You got laid dude quit complaining'. Essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly. However, when a woman gets raped, society's reaction amplifies these bad feelings to make the woman feel even worse. Society makes women feel they are now damaged, and a mark has been burned on them forever. This kind of thing is obvious in cases where a woman who initially thought a sexual encounter was just uncomfortable is now told she was raped. Society's general reaction to rape would only make the woman feel even worse about it, and not let her move on for a much longer time than for a man. I am not saying if I think either reaction is right or wrong, but it seems to be that way. So CMV, does society make female rape victims feel worse about it then they would otherwise? _____

CMV: I believe society causes more trauma for rape victims. This is something I noticed after seeing the huge amount of discussion about rape on reddit. Now note specifically I am talking about the non-violent kind of rape where neither member is injured physically, but express verbal consent still wasn't given or statutory rape where one member is too young to give consent. It seems to me that in today's society, men are expected to want sex all the time. It's most obvious in cases where female teachers have sex with younger boys and peoples reaction to it (mostly) is 'NOICCE' or 'I wish this happened to me, my teacher was hot'. Then when it happens with the sexes reversed the reaction is mostly, 'That disgusting pedo deserves to get anally raped in jail' and 'Oh that poor girl, a terrible thing has been done to her'. As a result of this, you come across a lot of men who have been technically raped but who simply get over it extremely quickly despite feeling dirty, violated etc as other guys around them just say stuff like 'You got laid dude quit complaining'. Essentially, society acts to minimise those bad feelings, allowing the man to move on quickly. However, when a woman gets raped, society's reaction amplifies these bad feelings to make the woman feel even worse. Society makes women feel they are now damaged, and a mark has been burned on them forever. This kind of thing is obvious in cases where a woman who initially thought a sexual encounter was just uncomfortable is now told she was raped. Society's general reaction to rape would only make the woman feel even worse about it, and not let her move on for a much longer time than for a man. I am not saying if I think either reaction is right or wrong, but it seems to be that way. So CMV, does society make female rape victims feel worse about it then they would otherwise?

t3_28z2xh

CMV: I don't believe the lack of Women in tech is a problem.

Howdy, so let me start by saying I am not trying to shit on anyone with this statement. I am open minded and willing to take everything into consideration. I am coming from the point of view of a male Graphic Designer who has been in the industry about 5 years. Change my view you lovely people. Basically my thought is that the lack of women in tech is not so much a result of fewer options being available for them to break into tech but more a result of women not being interested in the subject matter. I am constantly seeing figures in the news and on blogs that there are less than 1% of women in the tech industry and how alarmingly wrong that is. Now what I also see is tons of opportunities and incentives for women to be a part of these industries, whether that comes from college scholarships or other programs to encourage the young women of today to be a part of the industry. I think that if these women were interested in the subject matter they would get involved and the ones who are interested DO get involved, they just happen to be the minority. My whole reasoning for this comes from the idea that we don't see it a problem that there are less men in the fashion and garment creation industry. We don't offer men scholarships to go to fashion school and there are no media reports telling me how terribly sexist the fashion and garment creation industry is for not hiring more men. Now this is a BAD example and I know this but I wanted to pick something that was a little more cut and dry female dominated. I don't think that there is anything wrong with women being a part of the tech industry nor do I think that lack of women in the industry is alarming. Just as I don't think there is anything wrong with men being a part of the fashion industry nor do I think we should be alarmed by the lack of men in it either. I don't want this to become a him vs her argument. I just don't believe that forcing an uninterested party into an industry is the answer to a non existent problem. Thanks! EDIT: Let me just say where some of my views are coming from, a little backstory. **My sister is an extremely strong women who is top of her class for her BofS in Geology** **My girlfriend's Finance courses (mathematics heavy) are female dominated** **The lead developer at our company is a woman who has three men working for her** From my point of view these are all women who decided they wanted to be interested in their fields and took charge. I have the utmost respect for them but don't feel like they have any troubles with male domination in their fields, albeit not being the subject at hand. _____ > *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 believe the lack of Women in tech is a problem. Howdy, so let me start by saying I am not trying to shit on anyone with this statement. I am open minded and willing to take everything into consideration. I am coming from the point of view of a male Graphic Designer who has been in the industry about 5 years. Change my view you lovely people. Basically my thought is that the lack of women in tech is not so much a result of fewer options being available for them to break into tech but more a result of women not being interested in the subject matter. I am constantly seeing figures in the news and on blogs that there are less than 1% of women in the tech industry and how alarmingly wrong that is. Now what I also see is tons of opportunities and incentives for women to be a part of these industries, whether that comes from college scholarships or other programs to encourage the young women of today to be a part of the industry. I think that if these women were interested in the subject matter they would get involved and the ones who are interested DO get involved, they just happen to be the minority. My whole reasoning for this comes from the idea that we don't see it a problem that there are less men in the fashion and garment creation industry. We don't offer men scholarships to go to fashion school and there are no media reports telling me how terribly sexist the fashion and garment creation industry is for not hiring more men. Now this is a BAD example and I know this but I wanted to pick something that was a little more cut and dry female dominated. I don't think that there is anything wrong with women being a part of the tech industry nor do I think that lack of women in the industry is alarming. Just as I don't think there is anything wrong with men being a part of the fashion industry nor do I think we should be alarmed by the lack of men in it either. I don't want this to become a him vs her argument. I just don't believe that forcing an uninterested party into an industry is the answer to a non existent problem. Thanks! EDIT: Let me just say where some of my views are coming from, a little backstory. **My sister is an extremely strong women who is top of her class for her BofS in Geology** **My girlfriend's Finance courses (mathematics heavy) are female dominated** **The lead developer at our company is a woman who has three men working for her** From my point of view these are all women who decided they wanted to be interested in their fields and took charge. I have the utmost respect for them but don't feel like they have any troubles with male domination in their fields, albeit not being the subject at hand.

t3_34yo0h

CMV: The mutiny in Battlestar Galactica was justified.

**Obviously, spoilers below.** I'm watching BSG my first time through right now and just finished the mutiny arc, when Gaeta and Zarek were executed. The last three episodes, I've been sitting here and thinking to myself... I actually sympathize with most of the mutineers, except Zarek because of that scumbag move he pulled on the Quorum of Twelve. But besides Zarek, doesn't it make perfect sense why people on the ship would revolt? Think about it. - The fleet has been desperately searching for a home for years now. Roslin and Adama explicitly promised the people that they had mystical visions from the Gods and would find a livable planet. Well, Earth turned out to be a bust. In the people's eyes, it's completely legit to think that Roslin was basically stringing them along fraudulently by pretending to be endowed with wisdom from the Gods. Not only is it heresy, it's a poor way to run a government and maintain a presidency. - There's a fucking Cylon baseship sitting right squat in the middle of the fleet. Imagine if you were a bunch of Jews hiding in the forest from the Nazis for several months, eating grubs to survive and having to deal with memories of SS officers murdering your mothers/spouses/babies back home. Then out of nowhere, a few SS officers (including a gas chamber operator) show up. They've angered their own leadership and are now on the run from the government. They offer you weapons as a peace offering and then ask that you make nice and happy with them. Who in the right minds would be okay with this? If I was a Jew in that group and my leader made a deal with the gas chamber operator, I would be pissed off beyond belief. - Admiral Adama seems to be considering the people's opinion less and less as time goes on. The latest situation was the last straw. When captains objected to having Cylons walk around and install upgrades on their ships, his response was essentially "Fuck you, get in line". And Roslin was too busy sitting around cooking dinner for the Admiral to actually, oh I don't know... do her duty as President and rally support for her cause. With all that in mind, I was hoping that Gaeta would actually take control and do things different. Again, Zarek gets no sympathy from me. Having him onboard as a ringleader was one of the biggest mistakes the mutineers made. But everyone else seemed completely legitimate and justified. _____ > *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 mutiny in Battlestar Galactica was justified. **Obviously, spoilers below.** I'm watching BSG my first time through right now and just finished the mutiny arc, when Gaeta and Zarek were executed. The last three episodes, I've been sitting here and thinking to myself... I actually sympathize with most of the mutineers, except Zarek because of that scumbag move he pulled on the Quorum of Twelve. But besides Zarek, doesn't it make perfect sense why people on the ship would revolt? Think about it. - The fleet has been desperately searching for a home for years now. Roslin and Adama explicitly promised the people that they had mystical visions from the Gods and would find a livable planet. Well, Earth turned out to be a bust. In the people's eyes, it's completely legit to think that Roslin was basically stringing them along fraudulently by pretending to be endowed with wisdom from the Gods. Not only is it heresy, it's a poor way to run a government and maintain a presidency. - There's a fucking Cylon baseship sitting right squat in the middle of the fleet. Imagine if you were a bunch of Jews hiding in the forest from the Nazis for several months, eating grubs to survive and having to deal with memories of SS officers murdering your mothers/spouses/babies back home. Then out of nowhere, a few SS officers (including a gas chamber operator) show up. They've angered their own leadership and are now on the run from the government. They offer you weapons as a peace offering and then ask that you make nice and happy with them. Who in the right minds would be okay with this? If I was a Jew in that group and my leader made a deal with the gas chamber operator, I would be pissed off beyond belief. - Admiral Adama seems to be considering the people's opinion less and less as time goes on. The latest situation was the last straw. When captains objected to having Cylons walk around and install upgrades on their ships, his response was essentially "Fuck you, get in line". And Roslin was too busy sitting around cooking dinner for the Admiral to actually, oh I don't know... do her duty as President and rally support for her cause. With all that in mind, I was hoping that Gaeta would actually take control and do things different. Again, Zarek gets no sympathy from me. Having him onboard as a ringleader was one of the biggest mistakes the mutineers made. But everyone else seemed completely legitimate and justified.

t3_3h9ljy

CMV: Many Parents Have a Lop-Sided Reaction to People Mentioning the Joys of Not Having Children

I've noticed this in person, but it is even more apparent on reddit. Almost anywhere on reddit, if there is a comment that gets popular that mentions something good about not having children or something bad about having children it seems there will soon be people replying stuff like "Geez, apparently all of the child haters are out on reddit today." I find this to be an oddly aggressive pushback considering parents often spend a huge amount of time advertising to others exactly how amazing their children are. To a certain degree, I think I can understand why this might be. It is kind of like getting a tattoo. Being a parent is something that only goes one direction. Unless you're willing to be practically socially ostracized, then once you have a child there is no going back. So just like getting a tattoo, people suddenly become much more aggressive about defending the practice in the face of even mild disagreement. This also reminds me of a similar problem with religious belief. Where people will share their deepest religious convictions in public and make definitive statements about how the universe works and then respond with an out-sized reaction when someone posts something about how they don't really think any of that makes much sense.

CMV: Many Parents Have a Lop-Sided Reaction to People Mentioning the Joys of Not Having Children. I've noticed this in person, but it is even more apparent on reddit. Almost anywhere on reddit, if there is a comment that gets popular that mentions something good about not having children or something bad about having children it seems there will soon be people replying stuff like "Geez, apparently all of the child haters are out on reddit today." I find this to be an oddly aggressive pushback considering parents often spend a huge amount of time advertising to others exactly how amazing their children are. To a certain degree, I think I can understand why this might be. It is kind of like getting a tattoo. Being a parent is something that only goes one direction. Unless you're willing to be practically socially ostracized, then once you have a child there is no going back. So just like getting a tattoo, people suddenly become much more aggressive about defending the practice in the face of even mild disagreement. This also reminds me of a similar problem with religious belief. Where people will share their deepest religious convictions in public and make definitive statements about how the universe works and then respond with an out-sized reaction when someone posts something about how they don't really think any of that makes much sense.

t3_26pbgl

CMV: I believe spanking children should outlawed in America

For several reasons: * Spanking escalates - No one ever goes out to abuse their child (unless they're just a monster) but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent. * Children are a cognitively disabled part of society: How can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence? Many children are incredibly young (less than 3) when they start getting spanked. At this stage it's very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did. * Spanking does not encourage critical thinking: Child A: "I better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me" Child B: "I better not do that because daddy/mommy explained X will happen." Some objections I get often: * "I was spanked and I turned out fine": But if you didn't turn out fine, would you know? And what is 'fine'? * "I only spank when it's needed, maybe once or twice if ever." A new study on spanking, I could find the link if requested, found that when parents don't self-report and are monitored, they spank much more than they'll admit to. It's human bias to think we aren't as bad as we really are. * "Kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline!" I would posit that some of the worst behaved children I've met are some of the most spanked. Spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues. Go ahead reddit, CMV.. Good luck.

CMV: I believe spanking children should outlawed in America. For several reasons: * Spanking escalates - No one ever goes out to abuse their child (unless they're just a monster) but for spanking to be effective it usually escalates and turns into something much more violent. * Children are a cognitively disabled part of society: How can you be held responsible for your actions if you do not understand consequence? Many children are incredibly young (less than 3) when they start getting spanked. At this stage it's very unlikely they have the capacity to understand the full implications of whatever they did. * Spanking does not encourage critical thinking: Child A: "I better not do that because daddy/mommy will hit me" Child B: "I better not do that because daddy/mommy explained X will happen." Some objections I get often: * "I was spanked and I turned out fine": But if you didn't turn out fine, would you know? And what is 'fine'? * "I only spank when it's needed, maybe once or twice if ever." A new study on spanking, I could find the link if requested, found that when parents don't self-report and are monitored, they spank much more than they'll admit to. It's human bias to think we aren't as bad as we really are. * "Kids these days are unruly and need to be taught discipline!" I would posit that some of the worst behaved children I've met are some of the most spanked. Spanking has also been linked to drug abuse, criminal behavior, and mental/emotional issues. Go ahead reddit, CMV.. Good luck.

t3_28u6tb

CMV: Copyright should be reduced to five years.

Hello there! Over this past week I've been reading up on free/libre culture and piracy/sharing, and thought a lot about it and read a lot of arguments on the concept of copyright, what it does, what it's intended to do, who it's for, what kind of behaviour it encourages in it's current form, etcetera. My previous view was that copyright is to protect authors and ensure they can make a living off of their work without someone else stealing it. It seemed a simple premise and based on all the arguments I had read from pro-piracy and anti-piracy sides it made sense. However this week I began to consider the viewpoint (that I now believe) copyright is meant to benefit the public, by being an incentive for authors to create works in return for being able to have temporary exclusive rights to their work, which feed the author if the idea is any good, and encourage innovation by other authors to think of new things, and by (and importantly) the author after the copyright has expired, so they can't just sit on a work and make no benefit to society. After five years (which is arbitrary but small enough that I think that all benefit could be made from a work would be exhausted) the work would be released in to the public domain for other authors to innovate upon. In this belief, copyright is to benefit the public and innovate. This is in contrast to the existing laws that have extended copyright lengths that do nothing but benefit the author and not have as much incentive to create new works, and crucially doesn't give back to society or allow building on top of it. I'd like to know the arguments against this as I'm still keen to have a well-informed opinion. Thanks! _____ > *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: Copyright should be reduced to five years. Hello there! Over this past week I've been reading up on free/libre culture and piracy/sharing, and thought a lot about it and read a lot of arguments on the concept of copyright, what it does, what it's intended to do, who it's for, what kind of behaviour it encourages in it's current form, etcetera. My previous view was that copyright is to protect authors and ensure they can make a living off of their work without someone else stealing it. It seemed a simple premise and based on all the arguments I had read from pro-piracy and anti-piracy sides it made sense. However this week I began to consider the viewpoint (that I now believe) copyright is meant to benefit the public, by being an incentive for authors to create works in return for being able to have temporary exclusive rights to their work, which feed the author if the idea is any good, and encourage innovation by other authors to think of new things, and by (and importantly) the author after the copyright has expired, so they can't just sit on a work and make no benefit to society. After five years (which is arbitrary but small enough that I think that all benefit could be made from a work would be exhausted) the work would be released in to the public domain for other authors to innovate upon. In this belief, copyright is to benefit the public and innovate. This is in contrast to the existing laws that have extended copyright lengths that do nothing but benefit the author and not have as much incentive to create new works, and crucially doesn't give back to society or allow building on top of it. I'd like to know the arguments against this as I'm still keen to have a well-informed opinion. Thanks!

t3_24fjg2

CMV: I think it's morally ok to kill an animal for food, but I'm a vegan because I hate the way animals are treated, for such food..

I'm been stuck with this debate with myself for months now, and I can't think what is the right moral path.. I've always thought that killing an animal for the right purpose, food and not fun, is morally right because there animals don't understand death, like a human does. They will have the same wonderful life, in the wild, even if I kill it or not.. As for producing animals, in order for food, I also think this is ok as long as the animals are treated right, and fair. That's why i'm a vegan right now, because I hate how the main meat sources we have come from horrible people who treat animals with un needed cruelty, or atleast it seems like they do. Edit: What i'm also asking is, is it wrong to actually eat meat from these factories? People make it seem like it's horrible, but I just don't know. Any pro and con arguments would help me out a lot, thanks!

CMV: I think it's morally ok to kill an animal for food, but I'm a vegan because I hate the way animals are treated, for such food.. I'm been stuck with this debate with myself for months now, and I can't think what is the right moral path.. I've always thought that killing an animal for the right purpose, food and not fun, is morally right because there animals don't understand death, like a human does. They will have the same wonderful life, in the wild, even if I kill it or not.. As for producing animals, in order for food, I also think this is ok as long as the animals are treated right, and fair. That's why i'm a vegan right now, because I hate how the main meat sources we have come from horrible people who treat animals with un needed cruelty, or atleast it seems like they do. Edit: What i'm also asking is, is it wrong to actually eat meat from these factories? People make it seem like it's horrible, but I just don't know. Any pro and con arguments would help me out a lot, thanks!

t3_20tmci

Those who are elected democratically who do not act according to what they promised to the voters they would do if elected, should be tried for treason. CMV.

Lying to the people who elected you to responsibly act upon the promises that won you an election I feel is an act of treason, and the punishment for this disloyalty should be of the highest order. They should be tried by the people who voted for them or an unbiased committee to decide the verdict. Politics shouldn't be a career where you say whatever the electorate want to hear just so the individual can roam free to do as they please. I understand that not all promises or believes in party manifestos can be acted upon, but those who have the opportunity to do so should act on what they stand for. I also realize that most politicians are legitimate and that something like this is quite a strong and extreme view, but corruption and under-the-table handshakes are ruining what should be the sanctity of democracy. EDIT: This is about all countries with democracies, I understand that some countries have Constitutions that follow a similar rule of thought, but this should be a staple of all democracies. Just my two cents.

Those who are elected democratically who do not act according to what they promised to the voters they would do if elected, should be tried for treason. CMV. Lying to the people who elected you to responsibly act upon the promises that won you an election I feel is an act of treason, and the punishment for this disloyalty should be of the highest order. They should be tried by the people who voted for them or an unbiased committee to decide the verdict. Politics shouldn't be a career where you say whatever the electorate want to hear just so the individual can roam free to do as they please. I understand that not all promises or believes in party manifestos can be acted upon, but those who have the opportunity to do so should act on what they stand for. I also realize that most politicians are legitimate and that something like this is quite a strong and extreme view, but corruption and under-the-table handshakes are ruining what should be the sanctity of democracy. EDIT: This is about all countries with democracies, I understand that some countries have Constitutions that follow a similar rule of thought, but this should be a staple of all democracies. Just my two cents.

t3_1df4xl

The electoral college is bad for America. CMV

I don't understand why we don't go with a popular vote. Liberals in Texas, Conservatives in California, these two voices are barely, if at all, counted in national elections. A single persons vote in California is worth considerably less than one in Vermont, and due to the "all or nothing" policy of many states swing states get extra attention and pandering. CMV

The electoral college is bad for America. CMV. I don't understand why we don't go with a popular vote. Liberals in Texas, Conservatives in California, these two voices are barely, if at all, counted in national elections. A single persons vote in California is worth considerably less than one in Vermont, and due to the "all or nothing" policy of many states swing states get extra attention and pandering. CMV

t3_6g190n

CMV: Only soldiers, police officers and firefighters should be allowed to vote.

_____ Premise: 1) A country is a collective of individuals sharing a common heritage. 2) It's the duty of the members of such collective to defend it. 3) Duties come before rights. If we consider that these three categories of citiziens (soldiers, police officers and firefighters) are the only ones who willingly to put their life to protect everyone else ( yes, there are work accidents in other jobs, but they're not part of the job description), then it is clear that they are the only ones following point 2 of my premise. If we consider point 3 of my premise, shouldn't it be logical to allow only those who worked in those tree dangerous jobs to vote? Why should the opinion of someone who has risked to lose his life in Iraq be comparable to the opinion of someone who has only risked to lose his seat at the cinema? To be clear, i'm not 100% fond of the democratic process, so the " it would quickly become a military dictatorship" argument is not going to change my view, but if we must live in a democracy the right to vote should be earned, not taken for granted. TL;DR: The country should belong to those willing to risk their life for it.

CMV: Only soldiers, police officers and firefighters should be allowed to vote. _____ Premise: 1) A country is a collective of individuals sharing a common heritage. 2) It's the duty of the members of such collective to defend it. 3) Duties come before rights. If we consider that these three categories of citiziens (soldiers, police officers and firefighters) are the only ones who willingly to put their life to protect everyone else ( yes, there are work accidents in other jobs, but they're not part of the job description), then it is clear that they are the only ones following point 2 of my premise. If we consider point 3 of my premise, shouldn't it be logical to allow only those who worked in those tree dangerous jobs to vote? Why should the opinion of someone who has risked to lose his life in Iraq be comparable to the opinion of someone who has only risked to lose his seat at the cinema? To be clear, i'm not 100% fond of the democratic process, so the " it would quickly become a military dictatorship" argument is not going to change my view, but if we must live in a democracy the right to vote should be earned, not taken for granted. TL;DR: The country should belong to those willing to risk their life for it.

t3_1gkbe6

Relationships aren't worth it and girls can't be trusted. CMV.

For background on myself, I'm just a 17-year-old high schooler. I'm aware that I'm naive in ways I can't see right now. In my history of romance with girls (only two girls), I've been cheated on, lied to and left for another guy. Not just basing my view on my own experience though, I see cheating happen all around me in my environment. Not even basing my view on my own environment, either. You hear about married couples of 10 years cheating. You hear about soldiers coming home from Afghanistan, left for another man, or cheated on. It's ridiculous, aren't relationships supposed to be about trust and connection? How is someone supposed to have faith in any of that? The way I see it, relationships are hopeless. Please change my view. Edit: grammar

Relationships aren't worth it and girls can't be trusted. CMV. For background on myself, I'm just a 17-year-old high schooler. I'm aware that I'm naive in ways I can't see right now. In my history of romance with girls (only two girls), I've been cheated on, lied to and left for another guy. Not just basing my view on my own experience though, I see cheating happen all around me in my environment. Not even basing my view on my own environment, either. You hear about married couples of 10 years cheating. You hear about soldiers coming home from Afghanistan, left for another man, or cheated on. It's ridiculous, aren't relationships supposed to be about trust and connection? How is someone supposed to have faith in any of that? The way I see it, relationships are hopeless. Please change my view. Edit: grammar

t3_4fp7j7

CMV: Harriet Tubman is a good candidate for the new face of the $20 bill.

As someone passionate about human rights over political impact, I personally believe that Harriet Tubman is one of the best candidates for the new face of the $20 bill. However, I think that this Washington Post contributor's point is valid that putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill may not be the best way to honor her legacy. Here is the gist of the author's argument: "Tubman didn’t respect America’s economic system, so making her a symbol of it would be insulting…There’s no doubt that black women have a political representation problem in America. But putting the face of an admired black American heroine on currency won’t fix it – it will only mask it…it only promises to distort Tubman’s legacy and distract from the economic issues that American women continue to face" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/14/keep-harriet-tubman-and-all-women-off-the-20-bill/). _____ > *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: Harriet Tubman is a good candidate for the new face of the $20 bill. As someone passionate about human rights over political impact, I personally believe that Harriet Tubman is one of the best candidates for the new face of the $20 bill. However, I think that this Washington Post contributor's point is valid that putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill may not be the best way to honor her legacy. Here is the gist of the author's argument: "Tubman didn’t respect America’s economic system, so making her a symbol of it would be insulting…There’s no doubt that black women have a political representation problem in America. But putting the face of an admired black American heroine on currency won’t fix it – it will only mask it…it only promises to distort Tubman’s legacy and distract from the economic issues that American women continue to face" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/14/keep-harriet-tubman-and-all-women-off-the-20-bill/).

t3_6tptcw

CMV: There is more diversity of thought outside of the Democratic Party.

Last election, I was a registered Democrat and voted Obama in 2012 when I was uninformed on politics. My politics have always been to the center, but I've found out that I pretty much lean right. I did not vote Clinton or Trump and voted Johnson hoping for a 15% needed for federal funding in the future. From the mainstream media to academia, I'm very skeptical of dialogue from those who lean left. Idealogical fallacies and character attacks are responses I've seen multiple times instead of rational rebuttals or simply agreeing to disagree. Nowadays, classical liberals seem to be underground, and even they suffer character attacks for not following in line with the collectivist groups. Party loyalty between true conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals seems to be more loose in contrast as well. There are those who lean further left like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but the GOP has conservatives, RINOs, libertarians, and some fiscally conservative liberals. Is there more diversity of thought in the Democratic Party, regarding economics and social politics, compared to the Republican Party? _____ > *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: There is more diversity of thought outside of the Democratic Party. Last election, I was a registered Democrat and voted Obama in 2012 when I was uninformed on politics. My politics have always been to the center, but I've found out that I pretty much lean right. I did not vote Clinton or Trump and voted Johnson hoping for a 15% needed for federal funding in the future. From the mainstream media to academia, I'm very skeptical of dialogue from those who lean left. Idealogical fallacies and character attacks are responses I've seen multiple times instead of rational rebuttals or simply agreeing to disagree. Nowadays, classical liberals seem to be underground, and even they suffer character attacks for not following in line with the collectivist groups. Party loyalty between true conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals seems to be more loose in contrast as well. There are those who lean further left like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but the GOP has conservatives, RINOs, libertarians, and some fiscally conservative liberals. Is there more diversity of thought in the Democratic Party, regarding economics and social politics, compared to the Republican Party?

t3_68092v

CMV: I prefer the words "Negro" and "Oriental"

I'm well aware of that those words are controversial in usage. While no one would deny that they were once neutral words referring to minority ethnicities have a tendency to slowly become offensive over time requiring replacement. I however content that both words are the best and most communicative way to refer to what they are refering to. # negro has a couple of alternatives: ## black This is flawed and creates ambiguities because it can also refer to the colour. "black person" can just as wel refer to someone who is literally black in a non racial sense. Whiel "negro" is literally Spanish for black that's never how the word is used in English; the word unambiguously refers relation to the race of people originating from Subsaharan Africa in English ## African-X These words create numerous problems. A white Mozambique-born US expat [got into trouble](http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291&page=1) calling himsel "white African-American" oblivious of the context of the word in the US. Terms like "German-American", "Irish-American" and whato not all refer to _nationality_ not race. If we say that "African-American" refers to race only then what are we going to use for _actual_ African-Americans as in people born in Africa who live in the US? Most negros in the US in fact cannot be called "African-American" in that meaning any more in the same way no one calls people who's German ancestry goes back 8 generations "German-American". At the very least one parent needs to have been born in Germany. Furthermore Africa is far larger than just the Subsharan mostly central-west region whence negros originate. The word "African-American" by convention is sometimes also used for people who are neither African nor American like people from the UK who are "ambiguously brown". ## urban I'm not even going to provide an argument for how stupid this is, it insults my own intellect as well as yours to do so. ## subsaharan An accurate term that causes almost no confusion except that it has almost no currency and is often not understood. ---- All in all the word "negro" is in a unique position to be unambiguous and lead to no confusion for anyone about what is meant. # Oriental has a couple of alternatives ## Asian This is often used in North America because most Asian people in North America are oriental though recently there has been an influx of South- Asians. The obvious problem with this term is the miscommunication it causes over the globe: - In NA it refers to the Oriental regions - In the UK it refers to the South-Asian regions - In the rest of the world it mostly refers to the continent of Asia as a whole ## East-Asian This term is far superior and clearer to "Asian" obviously but a lot of parts of East-Asia are still excluded from the vernacular usage of "East-Asian". For instance Vladivostok lies in East-Asia and a lot of people are not really thinking about Vladivostok when using the term "East-Asian" ---- While oriental is just Latin for "eastern", in English "the Orient" is a well defined region including China, Tawain, Tibet, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. A group of countries with a history that is culturally intertwined. When people in NA say "Asian" or "East-Asian" they tend to refer to the Orient and not Asia or East-Asia as a whole. The term "Orient" is not ambiguous and delivers no problems communicating with people in other regions of the world.

CMV: I prefer the words "Negro" and "Oriental". I'm well aware of that those words are controversial in usage. While no one would deny that they were once neutral words referring to minority ethnicities have a tendency to slowly become offensive over time requiring replacement. I however content that both words are the best and most communicative way to refer to what they are refering to. # negro has a couple of alternatives: ## black This is flawed and creates ambiguities because it can also refer to the colour. "black person" can just as wel refer to someone who is literally black in a non racial sense. Whiel "negro" is literally Spanish for black that's never how the word is used in English; the word unambiguously refers relation to the race of people originating from Subsaharan Africa in English ## African-X These words create numerous problems. A white Mozambique-born US expat [got into trouble](http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291&page=1) calling himsel "white African-American" oblivious of the context of the word in the US. Terms like "German-American", "Irish-American" and whato not all refer to _nationality_ not race. If we say that "African-American" refers to race only then what are we going to use for _actual_ African-Americans as in people born in Africa who live in the US? Most negros in the US in fact cannot be called "African-American" in that meaning any more in the same way no one calls people who's German ancestry goes back 8 generations "German-American". At the very least one parent needs to have been born in Germany. Furthermore Africa is far larger than just the Subsharan mostly central-west region whence negros originate. The word "African-American" by convention is sometimes also used for people who are neither African nor American like people from the UK who are "ambiguously brown". ## urban I'm not even going to provide an argument for how stupid this is, it insults my own intellect as well as yours to do so. ## subsaharan An accurate term that causes almost no confusion except that it has almost no currency and is often not understood. ---- All in all the word "negro" is in a unique position to be unambiguous and lead to no confusion for anyone about what is meant. # Oriental has a couple of alternatives ## Asian This is often used in North America because most Asian people in North America are oriental though recently there has been an influx of South- Asians. The obvious problem with this term is the miscommunication it causes over the globe: - In NA it refers to the Oriental regions - In the UK it refers to the South-Asian regions - In the rest of the world it mostly refers to the continent of Asia as a whole ## East-Asian This term is far superior and clearer to "Asian" obviously but a lot of parts of East-Asia are still excluded from the vernacular usage of "East-Asian". For instance Vladivostok lies in East-Asia and a lot of people are not really thinking about Vladivostok when using the term "East-Asian" ---- While oriental is just Latin for "eastern", in English "the Orient" is a well defined region including China, Tawain, Tibet, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. A group of countries with a history that is culturally intertwined. When people in NA say "Asian" or "East-Asian" they tend to refer to the Orient and not Asia or East-Asia as a whole. The term "Orient" is not ambiguous and delivers no problems communicating with people in other regions of the world.

t3_6uz2aj

CMV: Agroforestry as an alternative to normal cultivation is a well-intentioned accidental scam

EDIT: Explaining agroforestry shortly: It's a system of cultivation that tries to mantain the ecological processes that occur in an actual forest. In other words, you would want to plant different species of trees, weeds, bushes, etc that can produce food for you or for the animals that will help mantain the other plants in your cultivation. There would be little to no use of industrial fertilizers since you could use the excess biomass you made. Theoretically you would have access to more water since forest tend to retain it on site. Everyone that I know that is into agroforestry have dreams of helping climate change, biodiversity loss and environment contamination/destruction. However, agroforests require heavy handwork, for there are no large scale specialized machinery (and probably there will never be, given the mix of heights and wood types). This makes the cultivated goods be really expensive when compared with what's being sold on market shelfs today. Doing some research, it came to no surprise that people who cultivate agroforests either have large savings beforehand or make most of their income not with their cultivated products, but with consulting and agroforestry courses. Since there are just a few of agroforests out there, the producers can still make a living. If the number of them increases to normal cultivation numbers, the income from courses will go low and they won't be able to sustain themselfes of just their production. I know it's not the same, but it shares its quota of similarities with pyramid schemes.

CMV: Agroforestry as an alternative to normal cultivation is a well-intentioned accidental scam. EDIT: Explaining agroforestry shortly: It's a system of cultivation that tries to mantain the ecological processes that occur in an actual forest. In other words, you would want to plant different species of trees, weeds, bushes, etc that can produce food for you or for the animals that will help mantain the other plants in your cultivation. There would be little to no use of industrial fertilizers since you could use the excess biomass you made. Theoretically you would have access to more water since forest tend to retain it on site. Everyone that I know that is into agroforestry have dreams of helping climate change, biodiversity loss and environment contamination/destruction. However, agroforests require heavy handwork, for there are no large scale specialized machinery (and probably there will never be, given the mix of heights and wood types). This makes the cultivated goods be really expensive when compared with what's being sold on market shelfs today. Doing some research, it came to no surprise that people who cultivate agroforests either have large savings beforehand or make most of their income not with their cultivated products, but with consulting and agroforestry courses. Since there are just a few of agroforests out there, the producers can still make a living. If the number of them increases to normal cultivation numbers, the income from courses will go low and they won't be able to sustain themselfes of just their production. I know it's not the same, but it shares its quota of similarities with pyramid schemes.

t3_6yph9h

CMV: Body Shaming happens because of negative personality traits, not societal standards of beauty.

The rationale of this post could probably apply to other societal woes, as well, but I am limiting it to body shaming for simplicity at this time. So, anyone replying to this is probably aware of the "body shaming" problem that our society seems to have, according to blogs & articles, and perhaps our own experience. Basically, body shaming occurs when we have a negative perception of someone's physical attributes: they are too fat, too skinny, too flat chested, their breasts are saggy, his dick is small, he has man boobs, her labia minora hang out too far, she has a mustache, he can't grow a beard, etc. AND THEN we proceed to make comments to that person, or even just in public in such a way that the person can see or hear the comments. It doesn't even have to be directed at an individual, but against everyone who shares that characteristic we find unappealing. Many people blame this problem almost solely on the beauty standards that are set by magazine ads, celebrities, models, make-up companies, porn actors, etc. Now, I don't want to get into whether or not the "Marketing World" truly influences our perceptions of beauty and to what degree, but I do deny that our lofty beauty standards actually cause us to shame other people for their physical failings, and it for this reason that I do not think the Marketing World holds any culpability for body shaming at all. People make fun of others because they are mean, immature, jealous, or are themselves insecure. Really, there are all kinds of unpleasant character traits people have that make them act unkindly toward people, and that includes making comments about someone's body. After all, have you ever known anyone who was entirely nice and pleasant in every possible way, except that they constantly made fun of someone ONLY because of the way they look? The point is, you can have personal standards (and preferences) of beauty that are unrealistic or rarified, but that will never cause you to shame someone's else's body unless you already have shitty personality traits that make you lash out at people. Your standards of physical attraction have nothing to do with your behavior toward other people -- necessarily. Obviously, people who shame others for their body traits will likely have typical and uneducated views on this topic, but that is not what actually causes them to shame others. Keep in mind, my argument is specifically with the idea that the marketing world is to blame for Body Shaming. so if you have never heard that argument, please do not try and convince me that is not what people think. The "nobody believes that" argument will not get you a delta in this post, so respond in good faith please. _____ > *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: Body Shaming happens because of negative personality traits, not societal standards of beauty. The rationale of this post could probably apply to other societal woes, as well, but I am limiting it to body shaming for simplicity at this time. So, anyone replying to this is probably aware of the "body shaming" problem that our society seems to have, according to blogs & articles, and perhaps our own experience. Basically, body shaming occurs when we have a negative perception of someone's physical attributes: they are too fat, too skinny, too flat chested, their breasts are saggy, his dick is small, he has man boobs, her labia minora hang out too far, she has a mustache, he can't grow a beard, etc. AND THEN we proceed to make comments to that person, or even just in public in such a way that the person can see or hear the comments. It doesn't even have to be directed at an individual, but against everyone who shares that characteristic we find unappealing. Many people blame this problem almost solely on the beauty standards that are set by magazine ads, celebrities, models, make-up companies, porn actors, etc. Now, I don't want to get into whether or not the "Marketing World" truly influences our perceptions of beauty and to what degree, but I do deny that our lofty beauty standards actually cause us to shame other people for their physical failings, and it for this reason that I do not think the Marketing World holds any culpability for body shaming at all. People make fun of others because they are mean, immature, jealous, or are themselves insecure. Really, there are all kinds of unpleasant character traits people have that make them act unkindly toward people, and that includes making comments about someone's body. After all, have you ever known anyone who was entirely nice and pleasant in every possible way, except that they constantly made fun of someone ONLY because of the way they look? The point is, you can have personal standards (and preferences) of beauty that are unrealistic or rarified, but that will never cause you to shame someone's else's body unless you already have shitty personality traits that make you lash out at people. Your standards of physical attraction have nothing to do with your behavior toward other people -- necessarily. Obviously, people who shame others for their body traits will likely have typical and uneducated views on this topic, but that is not what actually causes them to shame others. Keep in mind, my argument is specifically with the idea that the marketing world is to blame for Body Shaming. so if you have never heard that argument, please do not try and convince me that is not what people think. The "nobody believes that" argument will not get you a delta in this post, so respond in good faith please.

t3_2wxcjb

CMV: Edward Snowden betrayed The United States

I thought in light of today's AMA I would voice my opinion that Snowden is little more than a glorified traitor who damaged our countries standing in the supposed name of freedom but then left for a country that is amongst the worst in that category. In my opinion he has create a storm of skepticism that is largely unwarranted as the NSA is a huge part of why another 911 esque attack has not occurred on our soil, why is his act considered noble by so many especially on this site but in reality he compromised the security of our nation in a way. I understand people needing privacy but at the same time it is foolish to think the NSA gives a damn about our daily life and despite them collecting the data unless someone created a safety concern for the well being of the nation it's unlikely their information would be in anyway used. I love Reddit and I love the people here but for the love of god someone please tell me why he isn't the enemy , change my view. Edit: can we talk more about how he fled to Russia of all places and the logistics of how what he's releasing hurts Russia's enemies Edit2: sorry for short responses trying to get to all of them > *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: Edward Snowden betrayed The United States. I thought in light of today's AMA I would voice my opinion that Snowden is little more than a glorified traitor who damaged our countries standing in the supposed name of freedom but then left for a country that is amongst the worst in that category. In my opinion he has create a storm of skepticism that is largely unwarranted as the NSA is a huge part of why another 911 esque attack has not occurred on our soil, why is his act considered noble by so many especially on this site but in reality he compromised the security of our nation in a way. I understand people needing privacy but at the same time it is foolish to think the NSA gives a damn about our daily life and despite them collecting the data unless someone created a safety concern for the well being of the nation it's unlikely their information would be in anyway used. I love Reddit and I love the people here but for the love of god someone please tell me why he isn't the enemy , change my view. Edit: can we talk more about how he fled to Russia of all places and the logistics of how what he's releasing hurts Russia's enemies Edit2: sorry for short responses trying to get to all of them > *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_6p8k2n

CMV: The idea of an election integrity/voter fraud commission is not a bad one, and necessary to (dis)prove claims of voter fraud.

Donald Trump famously claimed that millions of people illegally voted for Hillary Clinton, therefore giving her the ~3 million vote edge in the popular vote. This claim may or may not be bonkers, but it is worth investigating to finally settle the argument of whether or not voter fraud is a significant event. The main barrier to voting for someone that is ineligible is fear of consequence. Besides that, it's essentially based on the honor system. [States that automatically register drivers to vote when they get their drivers license rely on such a system.](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/01/experts-california-voter-registration-system-highly-susceptible-to-fraud.html) They don't double check whether or not the person is allowed to vote during this process. [A federal appeals court has struck down laws that require proof of citizenship for voter registration in three states \(at the time of this article Sept 2016\)](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/10/493405211/court-blocks-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voters-in-3-states). NPR states: >As NPR's Pam Fessler explained, in other states "the federal form, which can be used throughout the United States as an alternative to local voter registration forms, requires individuals to swear that they are citizens. It does not require a birth certificate or other document as proof." Given there is such a low bar to voter registration it's not that far-fetched to believe that voter fraud could be occurring on some scale. An thorough investigation into this matter could finally settle the matter of whether this is a significant event or not. Common argument against it: >Trump's commission wants the data to be emailed into an unsecured server/how they want to do it doesn't keep the data safe/other security concern. Just because Trump's commission might be doing it the wrong way doesn't argue against the notion of it happening. >They barely prosecute any people for it annually so it can't be occurring. Voter fraud is low on police radar, just like jaywalking. Relatively few people are cited for jaywalking each year, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

CMV: The idea of an election integrity/voter fraud commission is not a bad one, and necessary to (dis)prove claims of voter fraud. Donald Trump famously claimed that millions of people illegally voted for Hillary Clinton, therefore giving her the ~3 million vote edge in the popular vote. This claim may or may not be bonkers, but it is worth investigating to finally settle the argument of whether or not voter fraud is a significant event. The main barrier to voting for someone that is ineligible is fear of consequence. Besides that, it's essentially based on the honor system. [States that automatically register drivers to vote when they get their drivers license rely on such a system.](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/01/experts-california-voter-registration-system-highly-susceptible-to-fraud.html) They don't double check whether or not the person is allowed to vote during this process. [A federal appeals court has struck down laws that require proof of citizenship for voter registration in three states \(at the time of this article Sept 2016\)](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/10/493405211/court-blocks-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voters-in-3-states). NPR states: >As NPR's Pam Fessler explained, in other states "the federal form, which can be used throughout the United States as an alternative to local voter registration forms, requires individuals to swear that they are citizens. It does not require a birth certificate or other document as proof." Given there is such a low bar to voter registration it's not that far-fetched to believe that voter fraud could be occurring on some scale. An thorough investigation into this matter could finally settle the matter of whether this is a significant event or not. Common argument against it: >Trump's commission wants the data to be emailed into an unsecured server/how they want to do it doesn't keep the data safe/other security concern. Just because Trump's commission might be doing it the wrong way doesn't argue against the notion of it happening. >They barely prosecute any people for it annually so it can't be occurring. Voter fraud is low on police radar, just like jaywalking. Relatively few people are cited for jaywalking each year, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

t3_28v5mx

CMV: Marijuana, Tobacco, and Alcohol should all be illegal.

I know I'm in a pretty serious minority on reddit, but I think all of the aforementioned substances should be illegal. Prohibition showed us how difficult it is to outlaw something that is so frequently used. Because of this, making an actual legal motion to ban alcohol or tobacco seems likely to fail. The primary argument that I see from pro-pot supporters is that it's "less bad than tobacco and alcohol." This argument seems really bad to me. Morally justifying based on such a criteria is a slippery slope in that trying to be "less bad" instead striving to be the best possible just seems like a toxic approach. Marijuana use is bad for the body, it does produce secondhand smoke, and it does alter the mind in a way that impairs basic function. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that we as a people should strive to be the best we can, but there are a myriad of more worthwhile ideals to be spending our time and energy on than fighting extremely hard for the right to legally make bad choices that can potentially harm others. Explain to me why I should feel different about this. Thanks! Edit: Thank you all for your insightful comments and thought-provoking questions. I'm only able to be on mobile for about another week, so I'm not going to try to reply to everybody in the immediate future. Some important points people have hit on that I find interesting: The "war on drugs" as it's called costs society more resources than attempts to fight against decriminalization. This was something I needed to see, because I think I've kind of assumed the standpoint that the necessity of law enforcement just validates the resources invested into it. While this necessity is accurate, law enforcement can still easily be wasteful. My view on marijuana legalization up to this point has just been, "Since pot doesn't directly help people as much as it hurts them (except in medicinal uses), then fighting for it is wasteful." Clearly this isn't quite the case as there is quite a bit to gain through decriminalization beyond an individual's ability to get high.

CMV: Marijuana, Tobacco, and Alcohol should all be illegal. I know I'm in a pretty serious minority on reddit, but I think all of the aforementioned substances should be illegal. Prohibition showed us how difficult it is to outlaw something that is so frequently used. Because of this, making an actual legal motion to ban alcohol or tobacco seems likely to fail. The primary argument that I see from pro-pot supporters is that it's "less bad than tobacco and alcohol." This argument seems really bad to me. Morally justifying based on such a criteria is a slippery slope in that trying to be "less bad" instead striving to be the best possible just seems like a toxic approach. Marijuana use is bad for the body, it does produce secondhand smoke, and it does alter the mind in a way that impairs basic function. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that we as a people should strive to be the best we can, but there are a myriad of more worthwhile ideals to be spending our time and energy on than fighting extremely hard for the right to legally make bad choices that can potentially harm others. Explain to me why I should feel different about this. Thanks! Edit: Thank you all for your insightful comments and thought-provoking questions. I'm only able to be on mobile for about another week, so I'm not going to try to reply to everybody in the immediate future. Some important points people have hit on that I find interesting: The "war on drugs" as it's called costs society more resources than attempts to fight against decriminalization. This was something I needed to see, because I think I've kind of assumed the standpoint that the necessity of law enforcement just validates the resources invested into it. While this necessity is accurate, law enforcement can still easily be wasteful. My view on marijuana legalization up to this point has just been, "Since pot doesn't directly help people as much as it hurts them (except in medicinal uses), then fighting for it is wasteful." Clearly this isn't quite the case as there is quite a bit to gain through decriminalization beyond an individual's ability to get high.

t3_1ucgh6

I really don't care for endangered species of animals (Tigers, Condors, etc) CMV

I get strange looks from peers and family when I say that I really don't care about endangered animals. I understand that many of the reasons why these animals are endangered and even extinct due to humanity's greed and other factors but other than that I really don't care. Its a shame that many animals are overhunted but does this really affect me? Other than people giving me dirty looks I just can't muster any other sympathy for animals. I don't know if this is how most feel but in essence I just could not care less.

I really don't care for endangered species of animals (Tigers, Condors, etc) CMV. I get strange looks from peers and family when I say that I really don't care about endangered animals. I understand that many of the reasons why these animals are endangered and even extinct due to humanity's greed and other factors but other than that I really don't care. Its a shame that many animals are overhunted but does this really affect me? Other than people giving me dirty looks I just can't muster any other sympathy for animals. I don't know if this is how most feel but in essence I just could not care less.

t3_4zuec1

CMV: It is impossible NOT to appropriate some culture

I’m using a throwaway because of the sensitive subject matter. For a while now I’ve been trying to understand the term cultural appropriation and have searched information on it. However the more articles and opinions I read about it, the more confused I become. The definition of cultural apprpropriation seems to be a bit hazy, but Susan Scafidi, the author of Who Owns Culture?: Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law, defines cultural appropriation as the act of: “Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc.” The problem here is where we draw the line. For example, it is a commonly held view that a white American person wearing a bindi or a Native American headdress is appropriating, since those things have religious significance and are seen as hole by some people. Fair enough, but where do we draw a line? If doing anything not traditional for your tribe or ethnic group is appropriating, life gets very difficult. And I’m pretty sure that I have been appropriating other cultures for my whole life. For example clothes are very multicultural. I often wear jeans, even though I am not an American and cotton shirts even though cotton doesn’t even grow where I live (Northern Europe). If I really wanted to be culturally sensitive I should probably wear the folk dress that is traditional to my region. It consists of a flax shirt, an apron and a woollen skirt and bodice. Except that my people didn’t invent blouses or skirts, they copied the clothes of noblewomen, who probably got their fashion ideas from the French court or something. So unless go around naked I’ll be appropriating French culture. Food is another big issue. Am I appropriating Indian culture if I use chili sauce? What about black pepper, it certainly doesn’t grow up here. And of course potatoes have long been a staple of diet here, but they’re originally American. So are tomatoes, coffee and chocolate. Rise and sugarbeet are Asian and pasta and olive oil are Mediterranean. And of course, agriculture was invented by Egyptians and Mesopotamians, so I would have to become a hunter gatherer to not to appropriate any cultures. And even hunter gatherers didn’t live in a vaccuum, isolated from other cultures. The concept of cultural appropriation is based on the idea, that there was a time, sometime before globalization, when different cultures were “pure” and free from outside influence. But even back in the stone age different tribes were communicating and adopting different cultural practises from each other. Cultural appropriation has always been happening and is inevitable. I apologize for any grammar mistakes, English is not my first language._____ > *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 impossible NOT to appropriate some culture. I’m using a throwaway because of the sensitive subject matter. For a while now I’ve been trying to understand the term cultural appropriation and have searched information on it. However the more articles and opinions I read about it, the more confused I become. The definition of cultural apprpropriation seems to be a bit hazy, but Susan Scafidi, the author of Who Owns Culture?: Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law, defines cultural appropriation as the act of: “Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc.” The problem here is where we draw the line. For example, it is a commonly held view that a white American person wearing a bindi or a Native American headdress is appropriating, since those things have religious significance and are seen as hole by some people. Fair enough, but where do we draw a line? If doing anything not traditional for your tribe or ethnic group is appropriating, life gets very difficult. And I’m pretty sure that I have been appropriating other cultures for my whole life. For example clothes are very multicultural. I often wear jeans, even though I am not an American and cotton shirts even though cotton doesn’t even grow where I live (Northern Europe). If I really wanted to be culturally sensitive I should probably wear the folk dress that is traditional to my region. It consists of a flax shirt, an apron and a woollen skirt and bodice. Except that my people didn’t invent blouses or skirts, they copied the clothes of noblewomen, who probably got their fashion ideas from the French court or something. So unless go around naked I’ll be appropriating French culture. Food is another big issue. Am I appropriating Indian culture if I use chili sauce? What about black pepper, it certainly doesn’t grow up here. And of course potatoes have long been a staple of diet here, but they’re originally American. So are tomatoes, coffee and chocolate. Rise and sugarbeet are Asian and pasta and olive oil are Mediterranean. And of course, agriculture was invented by Egyptians and Mesopotamians, so I would have to become a hunter gatherer to not to appropriate any cultures. And even hunter gatherers didn’t live in a vaccuum, isolated from other cultures. The concept of cultural appropriation is based on the idea, that there was a time, sometime before globalization, when different cultures were “pure” and free from outside influence. But even back in the stone age different tribes were communicating and adopting different cultural practises from each other. Cultural appropriation has always been happening and is inevitable. I apologize for any grammar mistakes, English is not my first language._____ > *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_1llsv9

I believe that terminally ill lung cancer patients should be allowed (by society) to continue smoking if they want to CMV.

This applies to every comparable situation just taking smoking as example. I believe that terminally ill lung cancer patients should be allowed (by society) to continue smoking if they want to. I'm not a smoker and I really dislike smoking in general, however I believe that people should should be able to decide for themselve since their is no defined way to live someones life every life is individual. And if someone enjoys to continue smoking because he enjoys it then said person should be able to do so without being criticized. Also why should a person suffer from withdrawal symptoms for something they don't want to get rid off in the first place. If someone decides to die some years ealier for something he enjoys then it's the person's decision which should be completely fine.

I believe that terminally ill lung cancer patients should be allowed (by society) to continue smoking if they want to CMV. This applies to every comparable situation just taking smoking as example. I believe that terminally ill lung cancer patients should be allowed (by society) to continue smoking if they want to. I'm not a smoker and I really dislike smoking in general, however I believe that people should should be able to decide for themselve since their is no defined way to live someones life every life is individual. And if someone enjoys to continue smoking because he enjoys it then said person should be able to do so without being criticized. Also why should a person suffer from withdrawal symptoms for something they don't want to get rid off in the first place. If someone decides to die some years ealier for something he enjoys then it's the person's decision which should be completely fine.

t3_1i6274

I believe that socialized healthcare will be terrible for the US. CMV

People should not be forced to pay for healthcare unless they want to. It is their freedom to choose not to buy healthcare. Similarly, I have witnessed how slow and inefficient hospitals are in the UK. Even the nurses are slower in the UK. The US emergency room is superior. One may get stuck waiting all night in the UK for an injury/illness. Private hospitals allow for competition, which will decrease the amount of money people will have to pay when they have to go anyway. The government should not be trusted to control the hospitals because it is slow and incapable of taking care of anything else. CMV please.

I believe that socialized healthcare will be terrible for the US. CMV. People should not be forced to pay for healthcare unless they want to. It is their freedom to choose not to buy healthcare. Similarly, I have witnessed how slow and inefficient hospitals are in the UK. Even the nurses are slower in the UK. The US emergency room is superior. One may get stuck waiting all night in the UK for an injury/illness. Private hospitals allow for competition, which will decrease the amount of money people will have to pay when they have to go anyway. The government should not be trusted to control the hospitals because it is slow and incapable of taking care of anything else. CMV please.

t3_1cmb75

I believe that furry porn contains such strong ties to zoophilia, that the anthropomorphism becomes irrelevant. CMV.

I sort of understand furries. I get that there's been a strong culture, especially in american cartoons, for creating anthropomorphic talking animals. I get that the human features are added to make them seem more relatable to humans. On the otherhand, I was never confused as a child about what made me admire any character from a Disney cartoon featuring a talking fox or a squirrel or a dog. It was the human side of things that made them interesting. Because of this, I appreciated human things more. I appreciate human culture. I prefer humans over animals. I don't pine for a talking human-animal hybrid that doesn't exist in real life. That said, I just don't get furry porn at all. I've heard furries defend furryporn by saying that they're more into the "human" aspects of furries, but if that were the case, why are they not simply interested in humans? Why do they *have* to mix in the animal element? That's where I start thinking that furries are really in it for the zoophilia part of things. If you're a furry and humans alone don't turn you on, then doesn't it make sense to say that it's the animals that turn you on? How is that not zoophilia?

I believe that furry porn contains such strong ties to zoophilia, that the anthropomorphism becomes irrelevant. CMV. I sort of understand furries. I get that there's been a strong culture, especially in american cartoons, for creating anthropomorphic talking animals. I get that the human features are added to make them seem more relatable to humans. On the otherhand, I was never confused as a child about what made me admire any character from a Disney cartoon featuring a talking fox or a squirrel or a dog. It was the human side of things that made them interesting. Because of this, I appreciated human things more. I appreciate human culture. I prefer humans over animals. I don't pine for a talking human-animal hybrid that doesn't exist in real life. That said, I just don't get furry porn at all. I've heard furries defend furryporn by saying that they're more into the "human" aspects of furries, but if that were the case, why are they not simply interested in humans? Why do they *have* to mix in the animal element? That's where I start thinking that furries are really in it for the zoophilia part of things. If you're a furry and humans alone don't turn you on, then doesn't it make sense to say that it's the animals that turn you on? How is that not zoophilia?

t3_26t1j6

CMV: I believe that the reasons Men and Women are separated for sports are due to more than just hormonal differences, and that trans women athletes have an unfair advantage.

There was one post on this topic which I found by searching, but it was unfortunately flavored by the OP expressing a desire to present transgender people from even **identifying** as their gender. For full-disclosure, I am a transgender woman who plays the team sport of Ultimate Frisbee. I have been on HRT for over a year, and meet the policy laid down by the sport's governing body (Transgender women are eligible to compete with their gender after 1 year of HRT). Before you complain that Ultimate frisbee isn't serious, and that it shouldn't matter because it's so casual, please watch this [Men's highlight video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq3pg0JcJSI&feature=kp) and this [Women's highlight video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguRqolq9-I). This doesn't really illustrate much strategy, but it should show you that this sport is anything but casual. I find that I have lost considerable upper body strength. The number of pushups I am able to do has decreased from about 30 to less than 10. I can't do more than 3 pullups. On the other hand, I find that my quickness and agility has not decreased to the same degree. I don't necessarily think that this means that it is unfair for me to compete, because I think that the average difference in upper body strength between men and women is much larger than the average difference in quickness and agility. On the other hand, I find that my top speed has decreased similarly in line with my quickness and agility, but in my experience, I am faster than a larger percentage of women than I was compared to most men. (If I was in the 80 percentile compared to male frisbee players, I am easily in the 95 percentile as a female frisbee player. And this is a large advantage in the sport of ultimate. Above that, I think that there are cultural/societal reasons that Trans women have advantages. Given that I was raised and treated as a male growing up, I was disproportionately encouraged to partake in sports. I was disproportionately encouraged to give up my body for the sake of an athletic play, rather than encouraged to save my skin from being scarred and "ugly." I think that my female peers have managed to succeed in sports somewhat in spite of the cultural and societal forces against them, while my experiences in my upbringing were the exact opposite. All said, why do I want someone to change my view? I worry that I'm throwing my transgender peers under the bus. I don't think that everyone's situation is the same. My transgender roommate plays hockey, and I don't think she should have to play against men; in hockey, to me, it seems that strength and mass are huge parts of one's ability to play. Forcing her to compete against men seems unfair. Additionally, some not insignificant part of me strongly desires to play alongside the gender I identify with. It's hard to explain the desire, but suffice it to say that Ultimate is a large part of my life, and counting as a dude for something so important to me is not something I find appealing. _____ > *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 the reasons Men and Women are separated for sports are due to more than just hormonal differences, and that trans women athletes have an unfair advantage. There was one post on this topic which I found by searching, but it was unfortunately flavored by the OP expressing a desire to present transgender people from even **identifying** as their gender. For full-disclosure, I am a transgender woman who plays the team sport of Ultimate Frisbee. I have been on HRT for over a year, and meet the policy laid down by the sport's governing body (Transgender women are eligible to compete with their gender after 1 year of HRT). Before you complain that Ultimate frisbee isn't serious, and that it shouldn't matter because it's so casual, please watch this [Men's highlight video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq3pg0JcJSI&feature=kp) and this [Women's highlight video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fguRqolq9-I). This doesn't really illustrate much strategy, but it should show you that this sport is anything but casual. I find that I have lost considerable upper body strength. The number of pushups I am able to do has decreased from about 30 to less than 10. I can't do more than 3 pullups. On the other hand, I find that my quickness and agility has not decreased to the same degree. I don't necessarily think that this means that it is unfair for me to compete, because I think that the average difference in upper body strength between men and women is much larger than the average difference in quickness and agility. On the other hand, I find that my top speed has decreased similarly in line with my quickness and agility, but in my experience, I am faster than a larger percentage of women than I was compared to most men. (If I was in the 80 percentile compared to male frisbee players, I am easily in the 95 percentile as a female frisbee player. And this is a large advantage in the sport of ultimate. Above that, I think that there are cultural/societal reasons that Trans women have advantages. Given that I was raised and treated as a male growing up, I was disproportionately encouraged to partake in sports. I was disproportionately encouraged to give up my body for the sake of an athletic play, rather than encouraged to save my skin from being scarred and "ugly." I think that my female peers have managed to succeed in sports somewhat in spite of the cultural and societal forces against them, while my experiences in my upbringing were the exact opposite. All said, why do I want someone to change my view? I worry that I'm throwing my transgender peers under the bus. I don't think that everyone's situation is the same. My transgender roommate plays hockey, and I don't think she should have to play against men; in hockey, to me, it seems that strength and mass are huge parts of one's ability to play. Forcing her to compete against men seems unfair. Additionally, some not insignificant part of me strongly desires to play alongside the gender I identify with. It's hard to explain the desire, but suffice it to say that Ultimate is a large part of my life, and counting as a dude for something so important to me is not something I find appealing.

t3_1p0vs7

I don't think feelings are all that important and emotions should be restrained in public. My own and others. CMV?

I am kind of stoic. Usually in a group or with friends I will match them as best I can but I don't think it's important what I feel or what others feel. I just think people could deal with those things privately and internally instead of causing a disruption as many do when they get emotional. It seems childish to disrupt other people, especially ones you don't know, because you have an emotion. A person should strive to be self-sufficient and self-contained. I don't know exactly why I think this. I've sort of raised myself into that mindset as I've grown. My parents and others around me are definitely not this way. I still have opinions and things, but they aren't important. They never have been. There are few times I will be angry. I don't like bigots, people who are ignorant or those unable to be in some way productive. They just seem like a waste of space and resources to me. Similarly, I don't think pain is important. I've been in a great deal of pain before but I don't know why people get so distressed by it. I recognize that I am in pain but it's never "bad." It's just a thing that happens. I don't know why others allow themselves to get worked up by it. I think if people just didn't get emotional about things they could deal with them much more easily.

I don't think feelings are all that important and emotions should be restrained in public. My own and others. CMV?. I am kind of stoic. Usually in a group or with friends I will match them as best I can but I don't think it's important what I feel or what others feel. I just think people could deal with those things privately and internally instead of causing a disruption as many do when they get emotional. It seems childish to disrupt other people, especially ones you don't know, because you have an emotion. A person should strive to be self-sufficient and self-contained. I don't know exactly why I think this. I've sort of raised myself into that mindset as I've grown. My parents and others around me are definitely not this way. I still have opinions and things, but they aren't important. They never have been. There are few times I will be angry. I don't like bigots, people who are ignorant or those unable to be in some way productive. They just seem like a waste of space and resources to me. Similarly, I don't think pain is important. I've been in a great deal of pain before but I don't know why people get so distressed by it. I recognize that I am in pain but it's never "bad." It's just a thing that happens. I don't know why others allow themselves to get worked up by it. I think if people just didn't get emotional about things they could deal with them much more easily.

t3_6jgnbe

CMV: Universal Basic Income makes much less sense than simply expanding the Welfare System

I think that for redistributing wealth to deal with increased automation, expanding the welfare system makes way more sense than UBI. I want to begin this by defining UBI and the welfare system as I understand them. - UBI - "to provide all legal residents of a country a standard sum of cash unconnected to work" - The Welfare System - Providing income to society's lowest earning citizens on a sliding scale so that the lower your income, the more assistence you get. Expanding this would mean that we redefine where we draw the line on who should deserve assistence. If we want to redistribute wealth to deal with automation, we could decide that the income limit for who recieves welfare could be much higher than it is today, but it still could be distributed on a sliding scale based on income. The reasons I believe an expanded welfare system is better will be broken into 2 parts: 1. UBI would waste huge resources providing basic income to the upper middle class and rich members of society. I think it makes no sense to indiscriminately give money to the rich and upper middle class. This would not increase their buying power in any significant way, but would cost the state billions of dollars every year. Using the US as an example, I've seen estimates that UBI would cost $539 billion per year, meaning that they would be spending $107.3 billion (ie. 20% of $539billion) giving money to the upper class and rich for no logical reason. 2. UBI would be a much greater driving force of inflation than a sliding scale welfare system. If everyone in a society has $30,000 more per year in buying power, demand will quickly drive up prices to make that $30,000 per year worth much less than it originally was. Simply due to supply of goods remaining consistent and the buying power of every single citizen being increased by a static amount. If I suddenly had an extra $30,000 per year to spend on the same goods I am buying now, I will buy more of those goods, and suppliers will do the logical thing and increase prices to account for the increased demand. This will render UBI to be a much less effective way of redistributing wealth, because inflation will make it redundant. - In a welfare system, the buying power of each individual citizen will not be raised by a static amount, meaning that demand will not increase by a static amount either. This means that the driving forces of inflation will be more diluted, and inflation will increase at a slower rate, making the wealth distribution more meaningful and effective. For the above reasons, I feel like UBI just seems like a less effective welfare system. I feel like UBI has become a rallying point for alot of people who have grown up in a generation that has demonized welfare, but want something that does virtually the same thing. Namely, to redistribute wealth so that everyone can maintain a basic standard of first world living. Since Welfare has become so demonized, it's simple to rally behind a brute-force method of just giving everyone money, which isn't the most logical idea but is simplest to agree on. _____ > *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: Universal Basic Income makes much less sense than simply expanding the Welfare System. I think that for redistributing wealth to deal with increased automation, expanding the welfare system makes way more sense than UBI. I want to begin this by defining UBI and the welfare system as I understand them. - UBI - "to provide all legal residents of a country a standard sum of cash unconnected to work" - The Welfare System - Providing income to society's lowest earning citizens on a sliding scale so that the lower your income, the more assistence you get. Expanding this would mean that we redefine where we draw the line on who should deserve assistence. If we want to redistribute wealth to deal with automation, we could decide that the income limit for who recieves welfare could be much higher than it is today, but it still could be distributed on a sliding scale based on income. The reasons I believe an expanded welfare system is better will be broken into 2 parts: 1. UBI would waste huge resources providing basic income to the upper middle class and rich members of society. I think it makes no sense to indiscriminately give money to the rich and upper middle class. This would not increase their buying power in any significant way, but would cost the state billions of dollars every year. Using the US as an example, I've seen estimates that UBI would cost $539 billion per year, meaning that they would be spending $107.3 billion (ie. 20% of $539billion) giving money to the upper class and rich for no logical reason. 2. UBI would be a much greater driving force of inflation than a sliding scale welfare system. If everyone in a society has $30,000 more per year in buying power, demand will quickly drive up prices to make that $30,000 per year worth much less than it originally was. Simply due to supply of goods remaining consistent and the buying power of every single citizen being increased by a static amount. If I suddenly had an extra $30,000 per year to spend on the same goods I am buying now, I will buy more of those goods, and suppliers will do the logical thing and increase prices to account for the increased demand. This will render UBI to be a much less effective way of redistributing wealth, because inflation will make it redundant. - In a welfare system, the buying power of each individual citizen will not be raised by a static amount, meaning that demand will not increase by a static amount either. This means that the driving forces of inflation will be more diluted, and inflation will increase at a slower rate, making the wealth distribution more meaningful and effective. For the above reasons, I feel like UBI just seems like a less effective welfare system. I feel like UBI has become a rallying point for alot of people who have grown up in a generation that has demonized welfare, but want something that does virtually the same thing. Namely, to redistribute wealth so that everyone can maintain a basic standard of first world living. Since Welfare has become so demonized, it's simple to rally behind a brute-force method of just giving everyone money, which isn't the most logical idea but is simplest to agree on.

t3_1rr4go

I think it's wrong that people get special treatment under the law for being a member of an "oppressed" group. CMV

I'm from the US and I believe it is wrong that members of certain demographic groups get special treatment under the law because their group has a history of being oppressed. I believe that the government should treat all individuals equally-regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, or sex. For example, I think that admission standards to the military should be the same for men and women. I don't think there should be government funded scholarships for people of a specific race or gender or religion. I think it's wrong to grant a government contract to a company because of the race of that company's owner. In the US, discrimination based on group membership seems to be acceptable as long as that group has a history of being oppressed. For example, a government benefit for men only would be unacceptable, as men don't have that history of oppression, but a benefit for women only is more acceptable, because they do have that history of oppression. This leads to a peculiar phenomenon, where a group wants special rights or privileges, and proceeds to try and convince others of how oppressed they are in order to get them. I think that the only way to have a fair and equal society, is to stop giving people special treatment for the group memberships, not to try and balance it out by giving special rights to those whose ancestors were oppressed. A person should be treated as an individual, and not as a representative of race, gender, region, or whatever other grouping the person belongs to. I know there are whole branches of philosophy devoted to a different perspective, so please, change my view EDIT: From the discussion, it seems that my main argument is that discriminating against an individual because of their gender, race or ethnicity, is wrong regardless of the relative power dynamics of between groups. To change my view, I'd need to be convinced either: -That racial, ethnic, and gendered discrimination is morally okay or -That inequality between groups itself justifies discrimination against an individual based on their gender, race, or ethnicity. EDIT: Putting boring parts back: Really guys, why am I getting downvoted? Like I said I want to be a good member of this community, If I'm breaking community rules or norms let me know. I can't even tell which comments you guys are downvoting, so how can I correct?

I think it's wrong that people get special treatment under the law for being a member of an "oppressed" group. CMV. I'm from the US and I believe it is wrong that members of certain demographic groups get special treatment under the law because their group has a history of being oppressed. I believe that the government should treat all individuals equally-regardless of religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, or sex. For example, I think that admission standards to the military should be the same for men and women. I don't think there should be government funded scholarships for people of a specific race or gender or religion. I think it's wrong to grant a government contract to a company because of the race of that company's owner. In the US, discrimination based on group membership seems to be acceptable as long as that group has a history of being oppressed. For example, a government benefit for men only would be unacceptable, as men don't have that history of oppression, but a benefit for women only is more acceptable, because they do have that history of oppression. This leads to a peculiar phenomenon, where a group wants special rights or privileges, and proceeds to try and convince others of how oppressed they are in order to get them. I think that the only way to have a fair and equal society, is to stop giving people special treatment for the group memberships, not to try and balance it out by giving special rights to those whose ancestors were oppressed. A person should be treated as an individual, and not as a representative of race, gender, region, or whatever other grouping the person belongs to. I know there are whole branches of philosophy devoted to a different perspective, so please, change my view EDIT: From the discussion, it seems that my main argument is that discriminating against an individual because of their gender, race or ethnicity, is wrong regardless of the relative power dynamics of between groups. To change my view, I'd need to be convinced either: -That racial, ethnic, and gendered discrimination is morally okay or -That inequality between groups itself justifies discrimination against an individual based on their gender, race, or ethnicity. EDIT: Putting boring parts back: Really guys, why am I getting downvoted? Like I said I want to be a good member of this community, If I'm breaking community rules or norms let me know. I can't even tell which comments you guys are downvoting, so how can I correct?

t3_20ryub

I don't want kids, please CMV.

I don't see any reason to want children, ever. They are sticky, they poop, they are expensive! You give up everything for your child you can't have the freedom you want, your life isn't about you anymore, it is about the child, I don't understand how anyone could want that. It means if you don't like your job, you can't just quit because you have to care for the child. There are so many variables too, what if the kid is a screw up? What if the kid is a failure? or a burden? I honestly don't understand why people want kids. CMV and make me want to be a dad one day.

I don't want kids, please CMV. I don't see any reason to want children, ever. They are sticky, they poop, they are expensive! You give up everything for your child you can't have the freedom you want, your life isn't about you anymore, it is about the child, I don't understand how anyone could want that. It means if you don't like your job, you can't just quit because you have to care for the child. There are so many variables too, what if the kid is a screw up? What if the kid is a failure? or a burden? I honestly don't understand why people want kids. CMV and make me want to be a dad one day.

t3_1dptht

I think that porn should be regulated a lot more because it is destructive to families and relationships. CMV

I think a lot more people are addicted to porn than will care to admit. I think this because I see a lot of threads around the internet where people are trying to stop using porn for the longest time possible, and most do not last more than a couple weeks. I think that porn has a negative effect on your sexual life, since it teaches you unrealistic expectations for sex with your partner.

I think that porn should be regulated a lot more because it is destructive to families and relationships. CMV. I think a lot more people are addicted to porn than will care to admit. I think this because I see a lot of threads around the internet where people are trying to stop using porn for the longest time possible, and most do not last more than a couple weeks. I think that porn has a negative effect on your sexual life, since it teaches you unrealistic expectations for sex with your partner.

t3_4zp6qt

CMV: Tom Brady is an overrated QB

The general consensus is that Tom Brady is one of, if not the, best QB's in NFL history. He holds numerous records and has won just as many awards. But football is a team game and he's spent his entire career on very arguably the best team in football. They're so good they hardly miss him when he's gone. Losing your starting QB in Week 1 is usually a recipe for disaster - just ask last year's Cowboys. However losing Tom Brady for the season barely registered for the Patriots as Matt Cassel, who hadn't taken a snap since high school, stepped in and led the Pats to an 11-5 record. He's been suspended 4 games to start the season but his team will almost certainly go 4-0 in his absence, 3-1 in their absolutely worst, led by a QB who has never started an NFL game. Tom Brady is flat out surrounded with talent. For a guy who has almost no mobility at all he is never touched. His o-line is consistently very good. Rob Gronkowski is very arguably the most dominating player in football history. He easily plays for the best head coach currently in football and arguably a top 5 coach of all time. He leads his team to the playoffs just about every season but that's not really saying much seeing how he plays in the AFC East. Someone has to win the division and it's obviously not going to be the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets who each give the Browns a run for their money as the worst NFL franchise. He wasn't even an especially good college player which led to a sixth round selection for him. I don't think he's a bad QB but I think he's overrated and more a product of a great system. Anyone, including Matt Cassel and Jimmy Garappolo, can succeed in that system. 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: Tom Brady is an overrated QB. The general consensus is that Tom Brady is one of, if not the, best QB's in NFL history. He holds numerous records and has won just as many awards. But football is a team game and he's spent his entire career on very arguably the best team in football. They're so good they hardly miss him when he's gone. Losing your starting QB in Week 1 is usually a recipe for disaster - just ask last year's Cowboys. However losing Tom Brady for the season barely registered for the Patriots as Matt Cassel, who hadn't taken a snap since high school, stepped in and led the Pats to an 11-5 record. He's been suspended 4 games to start the season but his team will almost certainly go 4-0 in his absence, 3-1 in their absolutely worst, led by a QB who has never started an NFL game. Tom Brady is flat out surrounded with talent. For a guy who has almost no mobility at all he is never touched. His o-line is consistently very good. Rob Gronkowski is very arguably the most dominating player in football history. He easily plays for the best head coach currently in football and arguably a top 5 coach of all time. He leads his team to the playoffs just about every season but that's not really saying much seeing how he plays in the AFC East. Someone has to win the division and it's obviously not going to be the Bills, Dolphins, and Jets who each give the Browns a run for their money as the worst NFL franchise. He wasn't even an especially good college player which led to a sixth round selection for him. I don't think he's a bad QB but I think he's overrated and more a product of a great system. Anyone, including Matt Cassel and Jimmy Garappolo, can succeed in that system. CMV

t3_2dileo

CMV: In the tv show Wilfred, Ryan is not insane.

I've seen the finale, and spoilers for it will follow. I know the show implies that he's insane, but a few things wouldn't add up. •Why does Wilfred look exactly like (and even has a similar personality) to the guy who would play Mademon in the rituals? That can't be a coincidence. •Bruce is shown in the pictures, even if under a different name. •The first episode of the third season showed that Wilfred can't be entirely a fiction of his mind. For Wilfred knew something Ryan couldn't have known. •His father dying, the blue barn, etc. Were all predicted in a dream • Wilfred ultimately made him happy in the end.

CMV: In the tv show Wilfred, Ryan is not insane. I've seen the finale, and spoilers for it will follow. I know the show implies that he's insane, but a few things wouldn't add up. •Why does Wilfred look exactly like (and even has a similar personality) to the guy who would play Mademon in the rituals? That can't be a coincidence. •Bruce is shown in the pictures, even if under a different name. •The first episode of the third season showed that Wilfred can't be entirely a fiction of his mind. For Wilfred knew something Ryan couldn't have known. •His father dying, the blue barn, etc. Were all predicted in a dream • Wilfred ultimately made him happy in the end.

t3_29rapw

CMV: There's nothing admirable about reading.

What did you do this weekend? Say "I watched stuff on Netflix the whole time" and you're a zero. But say "I got wrapped up in a novel and spent the whole time reading it," and you're a hero. But I don't see it that way. I don't see reading, in and of itself, as any more admirable than consuming any other kind of media, like video. There's just no reason to. As the internet evolves, it's becoming easier and easier to replace text with audio and video, so that people can, for instance, watch interviews with journalists on youtube rather than read those journalists' articles. This, to me, is tremendous progress! Hurray! No more having to squint at print! I can hear what people have to say by *hearing* what they have to *say,* which is what the human brain has spent millions of years evolving to do: Language evolved as speech. Babies brains naturally acquire the ability to effortlessly decode the meaning in the way people's vocal chords vibrate the air. It's a pretty incredible talent: let's embrace it, right? Yet, there's this continued nastalgia for newspapers. Boo-hoo, people don't sit and *read* like they used to. Who cares? Seriously, who cares? And I don't just mean about newspapers. I mean about reading in general. I'm especially interested to see if anyone can explain why reading is "admirable." Caveat: I'm not suggesting that literacy - being able to read - is unimportant. I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with replacing reading where it isn't needed anymore. _____ > *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's nothing admirable about reading. What did you do this weekend? Say "I watched stuff on Netflix the whole time" and you're a zero. But say "I got wrapped up in a novel and spent the whole time reading it," and you're a hero. But I don't see it that way. I don't see reading, in and of itself, as any more admirable than consuming any other kind of media, like video. There's just no reason to. As the internet evolves, it's becoming easier and easier to replace text with audio and video, so that people can, for instance, watch interviews with journalists on youtube rather than read those journalists' articles. This, to me, is tremendous progress! Hurray! No more having to squint at print! I can hear what people have to say by *hearing* what they have to *say,* which is what the human brain has spent millions of years evolving to do: Language evolved as speech. Babies brains naturally acquire the ability to effortlessly decode the meaning in the way people's vocal chords vibrate the air. It's a pretty incredible talent: let's embrace it, right? Yet, there's this continued nastalgia for newspapers. Boo-hoo, people don't sit and *read* like they used to. Who cares? Seriously, who cares? And I don't just mean about newspapers. I mean about reading in general. I'm especially interested to see if anyone can explain why reading is "admirable." Caveat: I'm not suggesting that literacy - being able to read - is unimportant. I'm just saying that there's nothing wrong with replacing reading where it isn't needed anymore.

t3_3syrj0

CMV: Latin America and the Caribbean is the most interesting region in the world to visit.

As much as I like Europe, I'll say Latin America for the diversity and beauty. I've copied and pasted this in a couple of other places and would like your input. I love the geographical diversity (glaciers in Chile and Argentina, jungles in Colombia and Peru, Mediterranean climate in Baja California, etc), the cultural diversity (African, almost every flavor of European, Native American, and depending on country various Asian and Middle Eastern groups) and the fact that while it may not have the antiquity, the affluence, or the unspoiled islands of some of the other regions, it is second-best at all of those with incredible beauty and diversity. None of these are my pics and not all of them are places I've been to yet, but it's crazy that there are places that actually look like this and aren't thronged with tourists like they'd be in Europe: Deleting a ton of links. Delta awarded. _____ > *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: Latin America and the Caribbean is the most interesting region in the world to visit. As much as I like Europe, I'll say Latin America for the diversity and beauty. I've copied and pasted this in a couple of other places and would like your input. I love the geographical diversity (glaciers in Chile and Argentina, jungles in Colombia and Peru, Mediterranean climate in Baja California, etc), the cultural diversity (African, almost every flavor of European, Native American, and depending on country various Asian and Middle Eastern groups) and the fact that while it may not have the antiquity, the affluence, or the unspoiled islands of some of the other regions, it is second-best at all of those with incredible beauty and diversity. None of these are my pics and not all of them are places I've been to yet, but it's crazy that there are places that actually look like this and aren't thronged with tourists like they'd be in Europe: Deleting a ton of links. Delta awarded.

t3_1rkfj6

CMV: I Love the NSA!

"Privacy is dead, get over it." -Steven Rambam None of the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on in the public media or on Capitol Hill will ever be fruitful. Even if powerful people genuinely wanted to blind the surveillance state, it is too late. We have crossed the Rubicon and there is no going back. No law, no regulation and no oversight can ever improve this situation. If fact, the situation is going to get worse, a lot worse. Computers and surveillance systems will be de-facto reading our very thoughts within 5 years. Can't beat 'em, so join 'em, that's my plan. Go NSA!

CMV: I Love the NSA!. "Privacy is dead, get over it." -Steven Rambam None of the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on in the public media or on Capitol Hill will ever be fruitful. Even if powerful people genuinely wanted to blind the surveillance state, it is too late. We have crossed the Rubicon and there is no going back. No law, no regulation and no oversight can ever improve this situation. If fact, the situation is going to get worse, a lot worse. Computers and surveillance systems will be de-facto reading our very thoughts within 5 years. Can't beat 'em, so join 'em, that's my plan. Go NSA!

t3_3higrn

CMV: The way developing countries treat asylum seekers is despicable. Western countries have a responsibility to ensure that legit refugees can find safety without having to go to Germany or Scandinavia.

Why do I single out Germany and Scandinavia? They are currently flooded with poor, Muslim refugees who are a) not assimilating b) not working and c) raising the cost of everything, mostly housing. Why can't the West just send refugees back? Where? To Syria? Yes, they pass through lots and lots of poor, relatively stable countries, but they don't want poor PTSD sufferers either. Just some examples of how poor countries treat people who are either a) stateless or b) fleeing legit warzones. **Bangladesh**: [Shove them all on an island.](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/14/un-concern-at-bangladesh-plan-to-move-thousands-of-rohingya-to-flooded-island) **Somalia**: Racism. Arab refugees are granted aid but Somali returnees are not unless they return to their [specific region of origin](http://horseedmedia.net/2015/05/29/somalia-somalilands-racial-discriminatory-policies-on-somali-refugees/). **Turkey**: Lock them in a [stadium](http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=12395&ArticleId=2394333) or leave them on the streets. **Thailand**: Enslavement and [burial in mass graves](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/12/fears-up-to-6000-south-east-asian-boat-people-are-abandoned-at-sea) if loved ones don't pay ransom. **Morocco**: Deportation to [Turkey](http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/morocco-deports-syrian-refugee-and-son-1750676508). See above for the next chapter. **Philippines**: We'll take them. Oh wait, [there was a typhoon and we don't have any money. Scratch that.](http://www.rappler.com/nation/94934-philippines-rohingya-refugees-bangkok-meeting) Until peaceful but poor countries agree to take refugees, they have no choice but to move towards the first world. While it is not the West's responsibility to *house* them, it is the West's responsibility to make sure they are not enslaved or worse. _____ > *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 way developing countries treat asylum seekers is despicable. Western countries have a responsibility to ensure that legit refugees can find safety without having to go to Germany or Scandinavia. Why do I single out Germany and Scandinavia? They are currently flooded with poor, Muslim refugees who are a) not assimilating b) not working and c) raising the cost of everything, mostly housing. Why can't the West just send refugees back? Where? To Syria? Yes, they pass through lots and lots of poor, relatively stable countries, but they don't want poor PTSD sufferers either. Just some examples of how poor countries treat people who are either a) stateless or b) fleeing legit warzones. **Bangladesh**: [Shove them all on an island.](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/14/un-concern-at-bangladesh-plan-to-move-thousands-of-rohingya-to-flooded-island) **Somalia**: Racism. Arab refugees are granted aid but Somali returnees are not unless they return to their [specific region of origin](http://horseedmedia.net/2015/05/29/somalia-somalilands-racial-discriminatory-policies-on-somali-refugees/). **Turkey**: Lock them in a [stadium](http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=12395&ArticleId=2394333) or leave them on the streets. **Thailand**: Enslavement and [burial in mass graves](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/12/fears-up-to-6000-south-east-asian-boat-people-are-abandoned-at-sea) if loved ones don't pay ransom. **Morocco**: Deportation to [Turkey](http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/morocco-deports-syrian-refugee-and-son-1750676508). See above for the next chapter. **Philippines**: We'll take them. Oh wait, [there was a typhoon and we don't have any money. Scratch that.](http://www.rappler.com/nation/94934-philippines-rohingya-refugees-bangkok-meeting) Until peaceful but poor countries agree to take refugees, they have no choice but to move towards the first world. While it is not the West's responsibility to *house* them, it is the West's responsibility to make sure they are not enslaved or worse.

t3_36j8wx

CMV: Primates are non-human persons, and we should no sooner perform invasive experiments on them than we would a human who cannot give their informed assent.

Basically what it says in the title. I've spent enough time around primates--specifically bonobo apes--to believe that, while they might not have all the capabilities of a human, they are "nearly human," i.e. they have brains that are ballpark like ours, and I can't say for sure their lives lack the kind of meaning I find in my own--the meaning that makes life worth preserving. If we agree that it's unethical to experiment on incapacitated humans (mentally handicapped, comatose, etc.), then we shouldn't be allowed to experiment on primates. I'm not a vegetarian, nor am I an animal-rights activist. I'm agnostic about the degree to which many animals can think, feel, imagine, and suffer, but the capacity for primates to do all of the above is--to me, obviously--uncomfortably close to our own, and, as such, they deserve the same sort of autonomy we consider to be among the "inalienable rights of man". Here is a mild, but more informed, [take](http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/report/the-case-for-phasing-out-experiments-on-primates/) on this issue. (You can also google "non-human personhood" for more.) It's not without repercussions for many areas of medicine such as HIV research, but I think that infecting an ape with HIV is not much different from infecting a person who cannot speak or think at an adult level. It's a case of protecting "the least of us," even as it makes important work like [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/36hq9i/potential_new_vaccine_blocks_every_strain_of_hiv/) more difficult. _____ > *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: Primates are non-human persons, and we should no sooner perform invasive experiments on them than we would a human who cannot give their informed assent. Basically what it says in the title. I've spent enough time around primates--specifically bonobo apes--to believe that, while they might not have all the capabilities of a human, they are "nearly human," i.e. they have brains that are ballpark like ours, and I can't say for sure their lives lack the kind of meaning I find in my own--the meaning that makes life worth preserving. If we agree that it's unethical to experiment on incapacitated humans (mentally handicapped, comatose, etc.), then we shouldn't be allowed to experiment on primates. I'm not a vegetarian, nor am I an animal-rights activist. I'm agnostic about the degree to which many animals can think, feel, imagine, and suffer, but the capacity for primates to do all of the above is--to me, obviously--uncomfortably close to our own, and, as such, they deserve the same sort of autonomy we consider to be among the "inalienable rights of man". Here is a mild, but more informed, [take](http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/report/the-case-for-phasing-out-experiments-on-primates/) on this issue. (You can also google "non-human personhood" for more.) It's not without repercussions for many areas of medicine such as HIV research, but I think that infecting an ape with HIV is not much different from infecting a person who cannot speak or think at an adult level. It's a case of protecting "the least of us," even as it makes important work like [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/36hq9i/potential_new_vaccine_blocks_every_strain_of_hiv/) more difficult.

t3_6agb54

CMV: I think Europeans should be more grateful to the USA for subsidizing their quality of life

Just going to keep this rather quick, because I expect my view to be blown apart here :) Some examples of "European Countries": Norway, Denmark, Switzerland (IE - I'm not talking about war torn countries stricken with poverty) - Because the USA 'polices the world', they don't have to spend nearly as much on their standing military or military research. EG - Any country in NATO not spending 2% of GDP on their military like they agreed to upon joining. - The USA is ahead of every other country in the world in charitable spending (in % of GDP), except for Myanmar. These countries give less effort towards helping other countries around the world than the USA does. Instead, they spend it on themselves. - The USA absolutely dwarfs every other country in medical research. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/#5e7c22481a71 This contributes to the USA having extremely high cost of medical coverage (making "free" healthcare here impossible), while they get to enjoy "free" healthcare. Essentially the USA subsidizes the rest of the world by doing the front-end medical research for them. _____ > *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: I think Europeans should be more grateful to the USA for subsidizing their quality of life. Just going to keep this rather quick, because I expect my view to be blown apart here :) Some examples of "European Countries": Norway, Denmark, Switzerland (IE - I'm not talking about war torn countries stricken with poverty) - Because the USA 'polices the world', they don't have to spend nearly as much on their standing military or military research. EG - Any country in NATO not spending 2% of GDP on their military like they agreed to upon joining. - The USA is ahead of every other country in the world in charitable spending (in % of GDP), except for Myanmar. These countries give less effort towards helping other countries around the world than the USA does. Instead, they spend it on themselves. - The USA absolutely dwarfs every other country in medical research. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/03/23/the-most-innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/#5e7c22481a71 This contributes to the USA having extremely high cost of medical coverage (making "free" healthcare here impossible), while they get to enjoy "free" healthcare. Essentially the USA subsidizes the rest of the world by doing the front-end medical research for them.

t3_418nur

CMV: We need to have another world war or become Amish

There's far too many people in the world as is; at current consumption rates, farmers will have to produce more food in the next 30 years than the past 10,000 years altogether just for everyone to eat. We're going to deplete the earth of copper within a similar time span, too, without which we can't make any more computers, electric lines or even solar panels. There is no feasible replacement for copper right now. If everyone has the same standard of living, no matter how low it is, we're going to run out of these even quicker. If we want to continue the way we're living now, the only solution is to somehow eliminate most of humanity, and the most probable way of this happening is a world war over these resources. Otherwise, we're all gonna have to get used to living like the Amish, since computers and electricity are going to just become more rare and without solar energy we're not going to have a replacement for fossil fuel. _____ > *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 need to have another world war or become Amish. There's far too many people in the world as is; at current consumption rates, farmers will have to produce more food in the next 30 years than the past 10,000 years altogether just for everyone to eat. We're going to deplete the earth of copper within a similar time span, too, without which we can't make any more computers, electric lines or even solar panels. There is no feasible replacement for copper right now. If everyone has the same standard of living, no matter how low it is, we're going to run out of these even quicker. If we want to continue the way we're living now, the only solution is to somehow eliminate most of humanity, and the most probable way of this happening is a world war over these resources. Otherwise, we're all gonna have to get used to living like the Amish, since computers and electricity are going to just become more rare and without solar energy we're not going to have a replacement for fossil fuel.

t3_4bxwyd

CMV: The less diverse a society the more advanced it becomes.

I mean just look at Rome, not racially diverse but rather culturally. It fell apart and a huge reason was culture. Nazi Germany was pretty advanced. America in the 50's was to. the Renaissance was not diverse. I mean, I don't mean the more racist a society, but just the less diverse. America currently is 72% white, not a diverse society. I just believe historically speaking that the less diverse a society the more advanced it becomes. I mean just look at china. Look at the middle east (old middle east). I mean, can you change my view? Can you make me not believe that the less diverse a society the more advanced/stable it becomes?

CMV: The less diverse a society the more advanced it becomes. I mean just look at Rome, not racially diverse but rather culturally. It fell apart and a huge reason was culture. Nazi Germany was pretty advanced. America in the 50's was to. the Renaissance was not diverse. I mean, I don't mean the more racist a society, but just the less diverse. America currently is 72% white, not a diverse society. I just believe historically speaking that the less diverse a society the more advanced it becomes. I mean just look at china. Look at the middle east (old middle east). I mean, can you change my view? Can you make me not believe that the less diverse a society the more advanced/stable it becomes?

t3_3yebul

CMV: Kylo Ren is not an effective villain in Star Wars: Episode VII. (Warning - Spoilers)

(Just to be clear, I did enjoy the Force Awakens, but I do have a bit of healthy criticism for the villain.) In my opinion, Kylo Ren is the weakest major villain of any Star Wars movie so far, and many characters from the original trilogy/prequel trilogy/expanded universe would easily surpass his power. For all of the reasons listed below, I don't really view Ren as an effective character: 1. He's extremely incompetent. During the very start of Episode VII, Ren notices Finn's erratic behavior following the invasion - when Captain Phasma tells him that a Stormtrooper has defected, he immediately asks "Was it FN-2187?" Now, frankly, this scene is quite absurd - if he recognized that one of his troops was on the brink of rebelling, then why didn't he simply have him imprisoned or subjected to interrogation after returning to base? Another key illustration of Kylo Ren's incompetence would be noted by his constant temper tantrums/flashy displays of power whenever things don't go his way - contrast this childish behavior with how Vader calmly force chokes individuals who've betrayed him/failed to accomplish their missions. Kylo Ren isn't a teenager - he's actually around 30 years old, but he doesn't really act his age. 2. He's powerful, but only on paper. Seriously, are we supposed to really believe that Kylo Ren killed all of Luke's students and somehow escaped from him? That's laughable - he lost a lightsaber duel to a character with no training and no knowledge of the Force (Rey) despite being instructed by Luke and Snoke (who appears to be an exceptionally powerful dark side practitioner even if he isn't a true Sith). Non-Force Sensitive individuals like Finn and Chewbacca seem to be capable of injuring him, which is pretty pathetic if you think about it. 3. His personality/the reveal of his identity. As I mentioned earlier, Kylo Ren acts more like a teenager than a 30-year-old - he's so unsure of himself/his potential, and his idolization of Vader isn't necessarily logical or sensible (Vader wasn't even the most powerful Sith - his potential with the Force was always limited by the cybernetics sustaining his life, and plus, he famously betrayed Palpatine to save Luke by the very end). Being motivated by rage and hate are good qualities for a dark side user - however, his lack of confidence in his own power and his pull towards the light aren't appropriate. Overall, I also feel that the big reveal of Kylo being Han Solo/Leia's child was made too soon in the plot's development - it would have been far more effective if this plot twist (and the unmasking) had been saved for the final confrontation where he kills his father. _____ > *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: Kylo Ren is not an effective villain in Star Wars: Episode VII. (Warning - Spoilers). (Just to be clear, I did enjoy the Force Awakens, but I do have a bit of healthy criticism for the villain.) In my opinion, Kylo Ren is the weakest major villain of any Star Wars movie so far, and many characters from the original trilogy/prequel trilogy/expanded universe would easily surpass his power. For all of the reasons listed below, I don't really view Ren as an effective character: 1. He's extremely incompetent. During the very start of Episode VII, Ren notices Finn's erratic behavior following the invasion - when Captain Phasma tells him that a Stormtrooper has defected, he immediately asks "Was it FN-2187?" Now, frankly, this scene is quite absurd - if he recognized that one of his troops was on the brink of rebelling, then why didn't he simply have him imprisoned or subjected to interrogation after returning to base? Another key illustration of Kylo Ren's incompetence would be noted by his constant temper tantrums/flashy displays of power whenever things don't go his way - contrast this childish behavior with how Vader calmly force chokes individuals who've betrayed him/failed to accomplish their missions. Kylo Ren isn't a teenager - he's actually around 30 years old, but he doesn't really act his age. 2. He's powerful, but only on paper. Seriously, are we supposed to really believe that Kylo Ren killed all of Luke's students and somehow escaped from him? That's laughable - he lost a lightsaber duel to a character with no training and no knowledge of the Force (Rey) despite being instructed by Luke and Snoke (who appears to be an exceptionally powerful dark side practitioner even if he isn't a true Sith). Non-Force Sensitive individuals like Finn and Chewbacca seem to be capable of injuring him, which is pretty pathetic if you think about it. 3. His personality/the reveal of his identity. As I mentioned earlier, Kylo Ren acts more like a teenager than a 30-year-old - he's so unsure of himself/his potential, and his idolization of Vader isn't necessarily logical or sensible (Vader wasn't even the most powerful Sith - his potential with the Force was always limited by the cybernetics sustaining his life, and plus, he famously betrayed Palpatine to save Luke by the very end). Being motivated by rage and hate are good qualities for a dark side user - however, his lack of confidence in his own power and his pull towards the light aren't appropriate. Overall, I also feel that the big reveal of Kylo being Han Solo/Leia's child was made too soon in the plot's development - it would have been far more effective if this plot twist (and the unmasking) had been saved for the final confrontation where he kills his father.

t3_5bcu9s

CMV:Intent should not be a component in deciding whether or not something is a crime

**What do i mean by this:** I do not believe that intent should be a component in deciding whether or not something is a crime. This does not mean intent should be ignored completely, it is an important part that should be taken into account when deciding the punishment. This essentially means that during a trial there should be 2 parts. The first one would be to look at the provable facts and decide whether or not there is a chance that someone committed some crime beyond a reasonable doubt, this should "output" a binary Guilty or not guilty verdict. If that verdict is guilty, then an analysis should be done in order to evaluate the appropriate penalty (if any) to the criminal, it is in this stage where the intent would be taken into account. **Example:** Person X a loaf of bread without paying from the grocery store in order to feed their starving child. He is caught and brought to trial. Stage 1: The evidence is evaluated and the evidence is strong enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person X did take the loaf of bread without paying. A verdict of Guilty is provided. Stage 2: having had the guilty verdict from stage one, the judge evaluates the likelihood of recidivism, the severity of the crime in question, and the motivations behind the crime. He judges that the motivation for the crime (feeding a starving child) was a reasonable one, and that it matched the severity of the crime and there was a low likelihood of recidivism, and that therefore the appropriate punishment would be to let person X go about their daily life. At the end of it, person X is found guilty of the crime, and is let go with no punishment. **Why do i believe this:** I think motivations are extremely hard to access and prove beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore to make intent a key component of the legal process ends up making it overly complicated, confusing, ambiguous and subjective. None of those are desirable characteristics in law, since making law predictable is (or should be) one of the key goals and landmarks of a well designed legal system. **What does this mean to current laws and crimes that rely on intent?** They would have to be changed. There would be a simplification of the legal system, since lots of currently different crimes would be lumped up into a single "illegal action", this would likely be a big job, but one that i believe is possible. _____ > *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:Intent should not be a component in deciding whether or not something is a crime. **What do i mean by this:** I do not believe that intent should be a component in deciding whether or not something is a crime. This does not mean intent should be ignored completely, it is an important part that should be taken into account when deciding the punishment. This essentially means that during a trial there should be 2 parts. The first one would be to look at the provable facts and decide whether or not there is a chance that someone committed some crime beyond a reasonable doubt, this should "output" a binary Guilty or not guilty verdict. If that verdict is guilty, then an analysis should be done in order to evaluate the appropriate penalty (if any) to the criminal, it is in this stage where the intent would be taken into account. **Example:** Person X a loaf of bread without paying from the grocery store in order to feed their starving child. He is caught and brought to trial. Stage 1: The evidence is evaluated and the evidence is strong enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that person X did take the loaf of bread without paying. A verdict of Guilty is provided. Stage 2: having had the guilty verdict from stage one, the judge evaluates the likelihood of recidivism, the severity of the crime in question, and the motivations behind the crime. He judges that the motivation for the crime (feeding a starving child) was a reasonable one, and that it matched the severity of the crime and there was a low likelihood of recidivism, and that therefore the appropriate punishment would be to let person X go about their daily life. At the end of it, person X is found guilty of the crime, and is let go with no punishment. **Why do i believe this:** I think motivations are extremely hard to access and prove beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore to make intent a key component of the legal process ends up making it overly complicated, confusing, ambiguous and subjective. None of those are desirable characteristics in law, since making law predictable is (or should be) one of the key goals and landmarks of a well designed legal system. **What does this mean to current laws and crimes that rely on intent?** They would have to be changed. There would be a simplification of the legal system, since lots of currently different crimes would be lumped up into a single "illegal action", this would likely be a big job, but one that i believe is possible.

t3_416foo

CMV: We need a Sanders/Trump Election

We need Sanders to win the nomination because it is a net-good long term to send the message that "being the Corporate" candidate will be rejected. Money in politics is a problem. We need Trump to win the nomination because we need to send the message that being politically correct is intellectually dishonest, and will be rejected. I'm not endorsing either, nor do I care to discuss the policies of either. My **View** is that both messages need to be sent (to both parties) and the only way to actually get that done is to completely upset the apple cart of the political elite and media. There is a part of me that is scared of this because either candidate could be trouble in different ways. To CMV you'd have to convince me that one or the other would be so destructive as to overwhelm the long term benefits of addressing money in politics and political correctness, or that such an outcome would not have the effects that I seek. _____ > *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 need a Sanders/Trump Election. We need Sanders to win the nomination because it is a net-good long term to send the message that "being the Corporate" candidate will be rejected. Money in politics is a problem. We need Trump to win the nomination because we need to send the message that being politically correct is intellectually dishonest, and will be rejected. I'm not endorsing either, nor do I care to discuss the policies of either. My **View** is that both messages need to be sent (to both parties) and the only way to actually get that done is to completely upset the apple cart of the political elite and media. There is a part of me that is scared of this because either candidate could be trouble in different ways. To CMV you'd have to convince me that one or the other would be so destructive as to overwhelm the long term benefits of addressing money in politics and political correctness, or that such an outcome would not have the effects that I seek.

t3_327ir6

CMV: Property Taxes are Inherently Unjust and Should be Abolished

So let's say that I save up to put a down payment on a house on a little plot of land. To make things easy, let's just ignore the cost and the amount down, since this is mostly about principles and general concepts. Now, the place is pretty crappy. I decide to invest a good amount of my own cash to completely overhaul the place. Hardwood floors, granite counters, etc. I put some more money into landscaping the area around me because I want my property to look nice. At this point, let's take a look at what I'm paying: 1) Money down on the house. 2) Interest on a 30 year loan. 3) Sales tax for all the raw materials I paid for during the renovation. 4) Labor costs if I hire a contractor to do the work, or time from my day if I do it myself. BUT! I also now have to pay PROPERTY TAXES! In other words--in the most very basic sense--not only do I have to pay for the actual place that I live, but I have to pay for the RIGHT to HAVE a place to live. And even though I've thrown out my own money into making it a nicer place, I'm now inflating the property's value, and will therefore have to pay even greater property taxes as a result. At the start of the venture, I owed a nominal amount to the State in property taxes. After renovating (which, by the way, means that the State gained both sales tax from materials purchased as well as the State's share of income tax if I hired someone else to do it), I have increased the value, which means I have to pay even MORE money for the privilege of having a place to sleep. I really do not understand this. How in the fuck is this legal? How is this even remotely fucking fair? Please change my view--I want to get it. EDIT: If the issue concerns needed State revenue, I would happily pay substantially higher taxes in other areas of my life if it didn't mean that I could literally improve my residence to the point of not being able to afford it. I understand that things like roads and all the other happy fun things that make day-to-day life possible need money to happen, and I don't have a problem paying for that. What I DO have a problem with is paying money for something that is (ostensibly, it would seem) MINE. In other words--if the founding fathers based the whole "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" shtick off of "Life, Liberty and the Ownership of Property" idea, then why the fuck does OWNING something make me essentially a serf, having to PAY for the right to own it? EDIT 2: And let us not forget that I also have to pay property taxes on my car. Thus, not only do I have to pay for the right to have my own place to live, but I also have to pay for the right to ferry myself to and from work (and god forbid, other places as well) in order to pay for the right to have a place to live. ---------------------- EDIT 3: Many of you have brought up some great points, and you've made me understand the reasoning behind property taxes. Thanks to everyone for your input!

CMV: Property Taxes are Inherently Unjust and Should be Abolished. So let's say that I save up to put a down payment on a house on a little plot of land. To make things easy, let's just ignore the cost and the amount down, since this is mostly about principles and general concepts. Now, the place is pretty crappy. I decide to invest a good amount of my own cash to completely overhaul the place. Hardwood floors, granite counters, etc. I put some more money into landscaping the area around me because I want my property to look nice. At this point, let's take a look at what I'm paying: 1) Money down on the house. 2) Interest on a 30 year loan. 3) Sales tax for all the raw materials I paid for during the renovation. 4) Labor costs if I hire a contractor to do the work, or time from my day if I do it myself. BUT! I also now have to pay PROPERTY TAXES! In other words--in the most very basic sense--not only do I have to pay for the actual place that I live, but I have to pay for the RIGHT to HAVE a place to live. And even though I've thrown out my own money into making it a nicer place, I'm now inflating the property's value, and will therefore have to pay even greater property taxes as a result. At the start of the venture, I owed a nominal amount to the State in property taxes. After renovating (which, by the way, means that the State gained both sales tax from materials purchased as well as the State's share of income tax if I hired someone else to do it), I have increased the value, which means I have to pay even MORE money for the privilege of having a place to sleep. I really do not understand this. How in the fuck is this legal? How is this even remotely fucking fair? Please change my view--I want to get it. EDIT: If the issue concerns needed State revenue, I would happily pay substantially higher taxes in other areas of my life if it didn't mean that I could literally improve my residence to the point of not being able to afford it. I understand that things like roads and all the other happy fun things that make day-to-day life possible need money to happen, and I don't have a problem paying for that. What I DO have a problem with is paying money for something that is (ostensibly, it would seem) MINE. In other words--if the founding fathers based the whole "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" shtick off of "Life, Liberty and the Ownership of Property" idea, then why the fuck does OWNING something make me essentially a serf, having to PAY for the right to own it? EDIT 2: And let us not forget that I also have to pay property taxes on my car. Thus, not only do I have to pay for the right to have my own place to live, but I also have to pay for the right to ferry myself to and from work (and god forbid, other places as well) in order to pay for the right to have a place to live. ---------------------- EDIT 3: Many of you have brought up some great points, and you've made me understand the reasoning behind property taxes. Thanks to everyone for your input!

t3_3mrfxp

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature.

Business currently has vast sway over lawmaking. I hope my proposal would help reduce this, but I'm no expert, so I'd love to learn what flaws this idea has that I'm missing. I know how difficult it will be to determine these numbers, but if our society spends 10% of the time and effort it currently does on entertainment, I think it's possible. Correcting business dominance over policy is far more important than entertainment. The people and their representatives should have the loudest voice. Business influence over government is often harmful. Just look how private prisons lobby for harsher sentences. This is the kind of problem that could be reversed by such a constitutional amendment, because all corporations benefiting from the lobbying would pay higher taxes that negate the benefit. I know how hard it would be to determine the numbers and get the amendment passed, but this CMV is about whether it *should* be done. Gridlock is no argument against the principle of the idea. A potential way to do it: after a law is passed, collect data on its financial effects and tax benefiting industries the amount they gain (retroactively as well). I think that would reduce the incentive for industry to lobby, because they would pay a cost equal to the benefit they gain by doing things like increasing competitors' barriers to entry, getting no-bid contracts, and mangling the tax rules to their benefit. Exceptions should be made for pro-social legislation. Businesses that lobby for aids meds or mosquito nets to be given to Africa, or basic research, should exempt from this amendment because they are doing good. My main concern is the greed-is-good style corporations that spend vast amounts to sway lawmaking.

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. Business currently has vast sway over lawmaking. I hope my proposal would help reduce this, but I'm no expert, so I'd love to learn what flaws this idea has that I'm missing. I know how difficult it will be to determine these numbers, but if our society spends 10% of the time and effort it currently does on entertainment, I think it's possible. Correcting business dominance over policy is far more important than entertainment. The people and their representatives should have the loudest voice. Business influence over government is often harmful. Just look how private prisons lobby for harsher sentences. This is the kind of problem that could be reversed by such a constitutional amendment, because all corporations benefiting from the lobbying would pay higher taxes that negate the benefit. I know how hard it would be to determine the numbers and get the amendment passed, but this CMV is about whether it *should* be done. Gridlock is no argument against the principle of the idea. A potential way to do it: after a law is passed, collect data on its financial effects and tax benefiting industries the amount they gain (retroactively as well). I think that would reduce the incentive for industry to lobby, because they would pay a cost equal to the benefit they gain by doing things like increasing competitors' barriers to entry, getting no-bid contracts, and mangling the tax rules to their benefit. Exceptions should be made for pro-social legislation. Businesses that lobby for aids meds or mosquito nets to be given to Africa, or basic research, should exempt from this amendment because they are doing good. My main concern is the greed-is-good style corporations that spend vast amounts to sway lawmaking.

t3_1byu28

A filibuster has no place in Parliament and should be heavily penalised, if not illegal. CMV.

In the context of the new threat to filibuster a gun control bill - I am wondering what the point of a filibuster was. As in - I recognise its utility, but why is it rather common and why is it even allowed?

A filibuster has no place in Parliament and should be heavily penalised, if not illegal. CMV. In the context of the new threat to filibuster a gun control bill - I am wondering what the point of a filibuster was. As in - I recognise its utility, but why is it rather common and why is it even allowed?

t3_29xb4t

CMV: I see no reason a passenger in a vehicle can't have an open beer.

So drinking and driving is bad. We can agree on that. But there isn't anything wrong with the passenger being hammered. So why can't the passenger have an open container? The first thought is that the driver could be drinking and just hand his beer to his buddy if he gets pulled over. Which is why they should be able to breathalyzer test the driver if anyone has an open container. Another thought is that it might influence the driver to drink. If the guy has been sitting there being the DD all night anyways, there isn't any change in influence. He was going to drink or stay sober anyways. Tl; Dr: riding shotgun with a jack and coke ain't hurting anyone _____ > *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 see no reason a passenger in a vehicle can't have an open beer. So drinking and driving is bad. We can agree on that. But there isn't anything wrong with the passenger being hammered. So why can't the passenger have an open container? The first thought is that the driver could be drinking and just hand his beer to his buddy if he gets pulled over. Which is why they should be able to breathalyzer test the driver if anyone has an open container. Another thought is that it might influence the driver to drink. If the guy has been sitting there being the DD all night anyways, there isn't any change in influence. He was going to drink or stay sober anyways. Tl; Dr: riding shotgun with a jack and coke ain't hurting anyone

t3_2kubj3

CMV: Dogs should only be let outside alone if they are secured to something or surrounded by a fence too tall to jump

I would think this is common sense, but judging by how often I see big dogs barking at me from behind a three or four foot fence, or even a yard with no fence, I guess it is not common sense. The reason I want my view changed is so that I don't get mad every time I walk past a yard with a territorial dog in it. Dogs should be kept in a yard with a fence too tall to jump. It doesn't matter if *you* are 100% sure your dog is not violent/territorial, people walking by do not know that. It's particularly annoying/scary when the dog is right at the edge of the yard barking at you, and could relatively easily jump the fence if it wanted to. Of course this is a bigger deal with larger dogs, but I think it should apply even to small dogs. A bite from a small dog still hurts. And you risk that the person your dog is biting/charging at might kick or otherwise hurt your dog in defense. The two exceptions to this are 1.) If someone capable is around to attend to the dog and 2.) In rural areas where it's very unlikely that your dog is going to be bothering an innocent stranger. 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: Dogs should only be let outside alone if they are secured to something or surrounded by a fence too tall to jump. I would think this is common sense, but judging by how often I see big dogs barking at me from behind a three or four foot fence, or even a yard with no fence, I guess it is not common sense. The reason I want my view changed is so that I don't get mad every time I walk past a yard with a territorial dog in it. Dogs should be kept in a yard with a fence too tall to jump. It doesn't matter if *you* are 100% sure your dog is not violent/territorial, people walking by do not know that. It's particularly annoying/scary when the dog is right at the edge of the yard barking at you, and could relatively easily jump the fence if it wanted to. Of course this is a bigger deal with larger dogs, but I think it should apply even to small dogs. A bite from a small dog still hurts. And you risk that the person your dog is biting/charging at might kick or otherwise hurt your dog in defense. The two exceptions to this are 1.) If someone capable is around to attend to the dog and 2.) In rural areas where it's very unlikely that your dog is going to be bothering an innocent stranger. CMV