Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_46b8oi

CMV:I don't think OJ Simpson killed those two people

... but for most of my life I've been absolutely convinced that he did. That's because countless people I trust and respect have talked about OJ's guilt as if it were a sure thing. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and there appears to be very solid physical evidence as well. However, after taking a closer look, there is plenty of reason to acquit. For one thing, nearly all of the physical evidence is highly questionable. The single most damning piece of evidence, the bloody glove found on OJ's property, was found by Det. Mark Fuhrman, the ONLY PERSON to be convicted of a crime in association with this case. Not only did he perjure himself on the witness stand (by denying that he had used the word "nigger"), he took the fifth when asked point-blank whether he had planted any evidence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman#Role_in_O.J._Simpson_murder_trial) The other crucial piece of evidence, OJ's bloody socks, were shown to have been contaminated with EDTA, a substance used to preserve blood for lab tests - meaning that the blood on the sock had been collected previously, then planted on the sock. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Evidence_presented_to_the_jury) The only other strong piece of physical evidence are the shoe prints left at the murder scene that apparently go with some very rare expensive shoes that O.J. may have owned in 1993, but hasn't been shown to have worn since then. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Evidence_presented_to_the_jury) All other evidence is circumstantial or hearsay. Probably the most compelling piece of circumstantial evidence was the White Bronco chase. OJ had about ten grand in cash, a passport and some disguises. This reeks of guilt, but doesn't "prove" anything. My theory? The planted evidence combined with OJ's erratic behavior leading up to his arrest led the American public to make up its mind as to his guilt quickly and decisively. This case was one of the most highly publicized crimes in the history of the world before it even went to trial, leading to intense pressure on the LAPD and prosecutor's office for a conviction. They may have realized after the arrest that the legitimate evidence was not substantial enough to convict, and as a result bolstered the case against him with fabricated evidence. And for anyone who doubts that a conspiracy this vast could have been carried out... you clearly don't know the history of the LAPD in the 1980's and 90's. Now tell me... why am I wrong? _____

CMV:I don't think OJ Simpson killed those two people. ... but for most of my life I've been absolutely convinced that he did. That's because countless people I trust and respect have talked about OJ's guilt as if it were a sure thing. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and there appears to be very solid physical evidence as well. However, after taking a closer look, there is plenty of reason to acquit. For one thing, nearly all of the physical evidence is highly questionable. The single most damning piece of evidence, the bloody glove found on OJ's property, was found by Det. Mark Fuhrman, the ONLY PERSON to be convicted of a crime in association with this case. Not only did he perjure himself on the witness stand (by denying that he had used the word "nigger"), he took the fifth when asked point-blank whether he had planted any evidence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman#Role_in_O.J._Simpson_murder_trial) The other crucial piece of evidence, OJ's bloody socks, were shown to have been contaminated with EDTA, a substance used to preserve blood for lab tests - meaning that the blood on the sock had been collected previously, then planted on the sock. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Evidence_presented_to_the_jury) The only other strong piece of physical evidence are the shoe prints left at the murder scene that apparently go with some very rare expensive shoes that O.J. may have owned in 1993, but hasn't been shown to have worn since then. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Evidence_presented_to_the_jury) All other evidence is circumstantial or hearsay. Probably the most compelling piece of circumstantial evidence was the White Bronco chase. OJ had about ten grand in cash, a passport and some disguises. This reeks of guilt, but doesn't "prove" anything. My theory? The planted evidence combined with OJ's erratic behavior leading up to his arrest led the American public to make up its mind as to his guilt quickly and decisively. This case was one of the most highly publicized crimes in the history of the world before it even went to trial, leading to intense pressure on the LAPD and prosecutor's office for a conviction. They may have realized after the arrest that the legitimate evidence was not substantial enough to convict, and as a result bolstered the case against him with fabricated evidence. And for anyone who doubts that a conspiracy this vast could have been carried out... you clearly don't know the history of the LAPD in the 1980's and 90's. Now tell me... why am I wrong?

t3_2qhcwm

CMV: The acts of violence that occurred in Ottawa, Canada and Sydney, Australia had nothing to do with Islam but mental illness.

These individuals had a history of erratic behavior. In fact, the shooter in Ottawa was rejected stay in a Mosque due to this condition. The body of the Australian shooter was rejected by Islamic morgues and many Imams rejected that he was acting against the tenants of Islam which specifically state the condemnation of violence("“If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”) Some may argue that they were religiously inspired. but the fact of the matter is, they were not. There actions were completely contradictory to Islam. They did what they did because they were brainwashed by a group(ISIS), who themselves are not Muslims, into wanting to be part of something. They wanted attention, a sense of purpose. Unfortunately, they did so by harming people. I go on Reddit and see posts of commentators being down-voted to oblivion for stating these attacks were a result of mental sicknesses. Why can't we admit that they were cases of mental illnesses? Is it because we don't want to offend the people who suffer from depression,anxiety, and ADD? Change my view Reddit! _____ > *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 acts of violence that occurred in Ottawa, Canada and Sydney, Australia had nothing to do with Islam but mental illness. These individuals had a history of erratic behavior. In fact, the shooter in Ottawa was rejected stay in a Mosque due to this condition. The body of the Australian shooter was rejected by Islamic morgues and many Imams rejected that he was acting against the tenants of Islam which specifically state the condemnation of violence("“If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”) Some may argue that they were religiously inspired. but the fact of the matter is, they were not. There actions were completely contradictory to Islam. They did what they did because they were brainwashed by a group(ISIS), who themselves are not Muslims, into wanting to be part of something. They wanted attention, a sense of purpose. Unfortunately, they did so by harming people. I go on Reddit and see posts of commentators being down-voted to oblivion for stating these attacks were a result of mental sicknesses. Why can't we admit that they were cases of mental illnesses? Is it because we don't want to offend the people who suffer from depression,anxiety, and ADD? Change my view Reddit!

t3_1i6w8a

The Reddit pro-choice crowd is completely disrespectful and rude, and this stifles any meaningful debate on the fundamentals of abortion legality. CMV.

Disclaimer: I'm aware that outliers exist, I'm not claiming that all pro-choicers are like this. But I've noticed that whenever the topic of abortion comes up and pro-lifers try to speak up, they're drowned out by a locust swarm of logical-fallacies, blatant insults, and mob mentality delivered by the pro-choice crowd. I was reading this bestof thread http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/1i5ktm/isstronglikebulls_sincere_account_of_an_encounter/ and >75% of the comments treat pro-life people as Nazis incarnate. - "I'm willing to bet 90% of the 'just HAVE the baby and give it up!' whiners have never given birth." - "anti-choice folks" - "ITT: Entitled, misogynistic men who will never be pregnant but have an opinion about a woman should do with her uterus anyway!" - "Her body, her choice. We're not living in the 1930s anymore, get the fuck over yourselves." - "pro-lifers oppose the entire concept of a minimum wage, as well as things like progressive taxation, union membership, universal healthcare, and public education" - "You don't like abortion? Don't get one. What anybody else may choose to do or not do is none of their god damned business. " - "Anti-choice men come off as very predatory, self-entitled, and unempathetic to anything that hasn't got a penis" - "Wow, I had no idea there were so many anti-choice neanderthals skulking around Reddit." These are all top-level comments as of now. I've noticed this exact trend whenever abortion is brought up. It stifles any meaningful debate and scares away pro-lifers, who know that if they voice their opinion they will be crucified and downvote-hammered into oblivion. I admit that I'm pro-life, so I may be biased. To get a better understanding of the other side, I have posted here. Change my view of what I see as the extremely uncivilized behavior by pro-choice people on this site. **TL;DR: Not only is the attitude of most pro-choicers on Reddit extremely rude, it stifles any meaningful debate on core premises of the abortion issue.**

The Reddit pro-choice crowd is completely disrespectful and rude, and this stifles any meaningful debate on the fundamentals of abortion legality. CMV. Disclaimer: I'm aware that outliers exist, I'm not claiming that all pro-choicers are like this. But I've noticed that whenever the topic of abortion comes up and pro-lifers try to speak up, they're drowned out by a locust swarm of logical-fallacies, blatant insults, and mob mentality delivered by the pro-choice crowd. I was reading this bestof thread http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/1i5ktm/isstronglikebulls_sincere_account_of_an_encounter/ and >75% of the comments treat pro-life people as Nazis incarnate. - "I'm willing to bet 90% of the 'just HAVE the baby and give it up!' whiners have never given birth." - "anti-choice folks" - "ITT: Entitled, misogynistic men who will never be pregnant but have an opinion about a woman should do with her uterus anyway!" - "Her body, her choice. We're not living in the 1930s anymore, get the fuck over yourselves." - "pro-lifers oppose the entire concept of a minimum wage, as well as things like progressive taxation, union membership, universal healthcare, and public education" - "You don't like abortion? Don't get one. What anybody else may choose to do or not do is none of their god damned business. " - "Anti-choice men come off as very predatory, self-entitled, and unempathetic to anything that hasn't got a penis" - "Wow, I had no idea there were so many anti-choice neanderthals skulking around Reddit." These are all top-level comments as of now. I've noticed this exact trend whenever abortion is brought up. It stifles any meaningful debate and scares away pro-lifers, who know that if they voice their opinion they will be crucified and downvote-hammered into oblivion. I admit that I'm pro-life, so I may be biased. To get a better understanding of the other side, I have posted here. Change my view of what I see as the extremely uncivilized behavior by pro-choice people on this site. **TL;DR: Not only is the attitude of most pro-choicers on Reddit extremely rude, it stifles any meaningful debate on core premises of the abortion issue.**

t3_65r7kl

CMV: Children, especially toddlers, are better off when screen time on iPads and similar devices, and TV is limited to a short amount of time with educational content only.

I believe that it is harmful to children to get used to always having youtube or some animated game at the touch of their fingertips. I think that it stifles imagination, discourages kids from wanting to go outdoors, and makes them hesitant to read books. I know that economic factors are an issue, and that parents can provide a thousand books on an iPad in a large font for their kids whereas purchasing paper books may be difficult, however, I am talking more about kids who have constant access to games and videos. They seem to have a much shorter attention span and are less willing to interact with other children. I'm aware that in an ideal world, parents would have more time and resources to otherwise occupy their little ones, but I think that this shortcut is harmful enough to warrant it being ruled out as an option. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Children, especially toddlers, are better off when screen time on iPads and similar devices, and TV is limited to a short amount of time with educational content only. I believe that it is harmful to children to get used to always having youtube or some animated game at the touch of their fingertips. I think that it stifles imagination, discourages kids from wanting to go outdoors, and makes them hesitant to read books. I know that economic factors are an issue, and that parents can provide a thousand books on an iPad in a large font for their kids whereas purchasing paper books may be difficult, however, I am talking more about kids who have constant access to games and videos. They seem to have a much shorter attention span and are less willing to interact with other children. I'm aware that in an ideal world, parents would have more time and resources to otherwise occupy their little ones, but I think that this shortcut is harmful enough to warrant it being ruled out as an option. CMV.

t3_1vfk2j

I think wildlife preserves should sell permits for hunting, as well as sell rhino horn, Ivory, etc for cash to fund conservation. CMV

In light of the recent conflagration over the selling of a Black Rhino hunting permit to fund conservation, I would like to see what the opposing argument is. I think selectively selling hunting permits would be a great way for wildlife sanctuaries to fund themselves, (of course the animal in question would already need to be killed for some other reason). I would also support governments selling ivory, rhino horn, lion pelt, etc to fund conservation and anti poaching efforts. There is clearly a large demand for such items, and clearly people are willing to pay absurdly high black market prices for them. A wildlife reserve selling rhino horn is going to reduce poachers incentives to kill rhino. This is probably the best solution, many of the African countries lack the funds to set up a strong anti poaching and conservation effort, the money has to come from somewhere. We must kill the Rhino to save the Rhino.

I think wildlife preserves should sell permits for hunting, as well as sell rhino horn, Ivory, etc for cash to fund conservation. CMV. In light of the recent conflagration over the selling of a Black Rhino hunting permit to fund conservation, I would like to see what the opposing argument is. I think selectively selling hunting permits would be a great way for wildlife sanctuaries to fund themselves, (of course the animal in question would already need to be killed for some other reason). I would also support governments selling ivory, rhino horn, lion pelt, etc to fund conservation and anti poaching efforts. There is clearly a large demand for such items, and clearly people are willing to pay absurdly high black market prices for them. A wildlife reserve selling rhino horn is going to reduce poachers incentives to kill rhino. This is probably the best solution, many of the African countries lack the funds to set up a strong anti poaching and conservation effort, the money has to come from somewhere. We must kill the Rhino to save the Rhino.

t3_1x6lp7

CMV: I believe homosexuality is a cancer in society.

They can not reproduce and some I know don't even care for that fact. If they are not contributing to the future why should they have a say on the future. I apologize for the bluntness, it's just even if they are adopting, I feel lacking one of two chemicals, that kid just is not going to be raised right. Summary, if you can't contribute to future generations, why are you allowed to fool around influencing them and destroying morales because you "only live once". That's just stupid. You can live forever through your children. Edit: Alright, I am persuaded, or just don't care, well already was kind of past it. Laid to rest. Thanks. We should focus on actually imortant issues, my apologies.

CMV: I believe homosexuality is a cancer in society. They can not reproduce and some I know don't even care for that fact. If they are not contributing to the future why should they have a say on the future. I apologize for the bluntness, it's just even if they are adopting, I feel lacking one of two chemicals, that kid just is not going to be raised right. Summary, if you can't contribute to future generations, why are you allowed to fool around influencing them and destroying morales because you "only live once". That's just stupid. You can live forever through your children. Edit: Alright, I am persuaded, or just don't care, well already was kind of past it. Laid to rest. Thanks. We should focus on actually imortant issues, my apologies.

t3_36m2jt

CMV: Same sex marriage should not only be legally recognised but as enforced to the same standards as heterosexual marriage.

CMV: Same sex marriage should not only be legally recognised but as enforced to the same standards as heterosexual marriage. There is no proof that same sex couples are worse parents, NONE. Since "no fault" divorce was introduced, the majority of divorces sighted "dissatisfaction" as reason for divorce. Fair enough. People grow apart. It happens. So why not gay marriage? Not everyone likes the opposite sex in a sexual way. Why force them? Why exclude them from Marriage? Now that you no longer need a man in a lesbian couple or a woman in a gay couple in order to have children, since adoption and IV are just some of the options available to same sex couples, why not same sex marriage? What is wrong with allowing two loving people to get married? If your argument is religious, what is it that actually stops homosexual marriage that isn't simply because (insert deity here) said so? How does the institution of marriage "suffer" for allowing same sex marriage? I can't think of a reason not to have legal gay and lesbian marriage. _____ > *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: Same sex marriage should not only be legally recognised but as enforced to the same standards as heterosexual marriage. CMV: Same sex marriage should not only be legally recognised but as enforced to the same standards as heterosexual marriage. There is no proof that same sex couples are worse parents, NONE. Since "no fault" divorce was introduced, the majority of divorces sighted "dissatisfaction" as reason for divorce. Fair enough. People grow apart. It happens. So why not gay marriage? Not everyone likes the opposite sex in a sexual way. Why force them? Why exclude them from Marriage? Now that you no longer need a man in a lesbian couple or a woman in a gay couple in order to have children, since adoption and IV are just some of the options available to same sex couples, why not same sex marriage? What is wrong with allowing two loving people to get married? If your argument is religious, what is it that actually stops homosexual marriage that isn't simply because (insert deity here) said so? How does the institution of marriage "suffer" for allowing same sex marriage? I can't think of a reason not to have legal gay and lesbian marriage.

t3_2u7ku5

CMV: I don't think the PEGIDA movement is harmful to Europe/Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEGIDA TL;DR: PEGIDA organizes demonstrations against the "islamization" of Europe and many equate them with neo nazis. Here's my opinion: Ethnical/cultural diversity is beneficial to European societies. Islam is not. While I do believe that many racist/xenophopic people participate in the demonstrations, the majority of the members are regular citizens that are worried about losing freedom and security to extremist views. Legitimate reasons for worry are the rise of salafism, the [Shariah Police](http://www.vocativ.com/world/germany-world/germanys-sharia-police/) and the Charlie Hebdo attack. There's an [interview](https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152723644955838&set=vb.12084075837&type=2&theater) with a German ISIS warrior who warns Germany of terrorist attacks in the near future. He is also convinced that ISIS will conquer Europe one day. I think islamic extremism is a very real threat to Europe and PEGIDA is the only well known organization opposing it publicly. I do think they take it too far and I would not want them to convince all of Europe of their ideals, but I believe they are a beneficial opposing force to islam and will cause many European countries to find a compromise between where they stand now and PEGIDAs demands. CMV.

CMV: I don't think the PEGIDA movement is harmful to Europe/Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEGIDA TL;DR: PEGIDA organizes demonstrations against the "islamization" of Europe and many equate them with neo nazis. Here's my opinion: Ethnical/cultural diversity is beneficial to European societies. Islam is not. While I do believe that many racist/xenophopic people participate in the demonstrations, the majority of the members are regular citizens that are worried about losing freedom and security to extremist views. Legitimate reasons for worry are the rise of salafism, the [Shariah Police](http://www.vocativ.com/world/germany-world/germanys-sharia-police/) and the Charlie Hebdo attack. There's an [interview](https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152723644955838&set=vb.12084075837&type=2&theater) with a German ISIS warrior who warns Germany of terrorist attacks in the near future. He is also convinced that ISIS will conquer Europe one day. I think islamic extremism is a very real threat to Europe and PEGIDA is the only well known organization opposing it publicly. I do think they take it too far and I would not want them to convince all of Europe of their ideals, but I believe they are a beneficial opposing force to islam and will cause many European countries to find a compromise between where they stand now and PEGIDAs demands. CMV.

t3_2dkk92

CMV: People on welfare should be required to take drug tests, and be placed on birth control.

I'm all for helping those who are down on their luck, and need a little extra assistance, but that doesn't mean my tax money should pay for their drugs, and them to create more mouths they can't afford to feed on their own. if people have money for drugs, they don't need welfare. Same logic, but in reverse for children. If you need to be on welfare because you can't afford food, or housing, then you should not be able to have children you wont be able to afford to feed and care for. Too many people in my area, and I'm sure across the country are living off welfare that was meant to be used as a temporary helping hand to get people on their feet. If you end up pregnant you either abort, give it up for adoption, or get taken off welfare. EDIT: well after reading all your points, I wish to change some of my viewpoint. I am all for the people who get fired, or laid off being able to get assistance, and I wouldn't want to see anyone's kids actually taken away, so for those who asked about working mothers losing there jobs, no, they should definitely be able to keep their children. same goes for if they are pregnant when they apply. my biggest problem with the welfare system is when I see families with 5+ kids, a PS4, putting big stereos in their new cars, still collecting welfare, and living that way for years. things like unemployment, you are suppose to be looking for a job, using the money till you get one. if your testing positive for the harder drugs, chances are your not going to get a job, seeing as most jobs drug check now. EDIT EDIT: Thanks to KevinWestern about 90% of my viewpoint has changed. I still think they should have to pass drug tests occasionally, because if they have money for illegal drugs, they have money for basic living needs, and shouldn't need assistance, but it's not the children's fault, and they shouldn't be punished or denied the chance to live because of their parents.

CMV: People on welfare should be required to take drug tests, and be placed on birth control. I'm all for helping those who are down on their luck, and need a little extra assistance, but that doesn't mean my tax money should pay for their drugs, and them to create more mouths they can't afford to feed on their own. if people have money for drugs, they don't need welfare. Same logic, but in reverse for children. If you need to be on welfare because you can't afford food, or housing, then you should not be able to have children you wont be able to afford to feed and care for. Too many people in my area, and I'm sure across the country are living off welfare that was meant to be used as a temporary helping hand to get people on their feet. If you end up pregnant you either abort, give it up for adoption, or get taken off welfare. EDIT: well after reading all your points, I wish to change some of my viewpoint. I am all for the people who get fired, or laid off being able to get assistance, and I wouldn't want to see anyone's kids actually taken away, so for those who asked about working mothers losing there jobs, no, they should definitely be able to keep their children. same goes for if they are pregnant when they apply. my biggest problem with the welfare system is when I see families with 5+ kids, a PS4, putting big stereos in their new cars, still collecting welfare, and living that way for years. things like unemployment, you are suppose to be looking for a job, using the money till you get one. if your testing positive for the harder drugs, chances are your not going to get a job, seeing as most jobs drug check now. EDIT EDIT: Thanks to KevinWestern about 90% of my viewpoint has changed. I still think they should have to pass drug tests occasionally, because if they have money for illegal drugs, they have money for basic living needs, and shouldn't need assistance, but it's not the children's fault, and they shouldn't be punished or denied the chance to live because of their parents.

t3_26nxut

CMV:I don't understand why American families will their children to their own fate

So I've been reading a few of the responses in this sub these days, and after a lifetime of being curious I finally decided to bring the issue to you: American famillies just don't make sense to me. People seem to think their responsibilities as parents end when the child goes to college/university or even when the child is of working age. And I used to be able to grasp this cultural difference as a tradeoff: "oh well they take care of their children less, but they don't expect to be taken care of when they grow older in return" But I keep seeing those comments as to why "it is bad" to "shelter" their children from their adult responsibilities. How they will not develop character. But this just seems like nonsense to me, because university education (for those who want it) or any kind of apprentinceship for a craft, is important for character development and the future career oportunities your kid may have. If you can help, even a little, and you don't it's a consious choice and not for their own good. In my mind. It just doesn't make sense to me. And you don't even have free tuition in your universities. So what am I missing? Have I got this wrong? Is this only a vocal minority and the majority helps their children through? _____ > *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 understand why American families will their children to their own fate. So I've been reading a few of the responses in this sub these days, and after a lifetime of being curious I finally decided to bring the issue to you: American famillies just don't make sense to me. People seem to think their responsibilities as parents end when the child goes to college/university or even when the child is of working age. And I used to be able to grasp this cultural difference as a tradeoff: "oh well they take care of their children less, but they don't expect to be taken care of when they grow older in return" But I keep seeing those comments as to why "it is bad" to "shelter" their children from their adult responsibilities. How they will not develop character. But this just seems like nonsense to me, because university education (for those who want it) or any kind of apprentinceship for a craft, is important for character development and the future career oportunities your kid may have. If you can help, even a little, and you don't it's a consious choice and not for their own good. In my mind. It just doesn't make sense to me. And you don't even have free tuition in your universities. So what am I missing? Have I got this wrong? Is this only a vocal minority and the majority helps their children through?

t3_2pqdv6

CMV: The residing powers in the U.S. do not want to support their veterans, as veterans, aside from militia, would be the best-trained in military-grade weaponry to support a fomenting revolution.

I trust my title will catch the eye, though IMO it is hardly sensational. The influx of military-grade equipment into the arsenals of our local police forces, who lack proper training to use them (many articles have covered these two clauses in depth and I need not delve further), serve as a means to re-purpose Iraq War (et al.) expenditures, as well as increase police effectiveness. However, we have seen countless examples of the misuse of these instruments as tools of oppression, not protection (see "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" or [other examples](http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/police-militarizationswattechnology.html) of police militarization). All oligarchs, aristocrats, despots, corrupt politicians, and corporate superpowers fear revolution- whether or not one is brewing in the U.S. is irrelevant. However, it *is* a common tactic of revolutionaries to re-purpose any and all resources (including civilian, police, and military-grade weapons and ordnance). See Marighella, Carlos(1969) in his "[Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla](http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/ch25.htm)." Quoting the above referenced text: > The urban guerrilla soldier or officer must desert at the most opportune moment with modern weapons and ammunition, to hand them over to the guerrillas. One of the most opportune moments is when the urban guerrilla soldier is called upon to pursue his guerrilla comrades outside the military base. Instead of following the orders of the "gorillas", the military urban guerrilla must join the ranks of the revolutionaries by handing over the weapons and ammunition he carries, or the military vehicle he operates. The advantage of this method is that the rebels receive weapons and ammunition from the army, navy, air force, military police, civilian guard or the police without any great work, *since it reaches their hands by government transportation.* Our veterans know first-hand how to operate the very war machines which our police have been issued (again, without any training). As the United States has turned their back on our veterans, disenfranchised them, and disillusioned them to the soldier's true worth to their government (read: worse than dirt, dirt may be cultivated), allowing veterans to [eliminate themselves](http://www.vice.com/read/republican-senator-killed-veterans-suicide-prevention-bill-1217) and treating them as undesirables would be the most efficient way to hamstring one of the most potentially powerful assets to a revolution. Please change my view. EDIT 1: See ["The Bonus Army"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army), which marched on Washington demanding their rightful compensation, where police shot and killed two veterans, and other veterans were killed throughout the demonstration. _____ > *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 residing powers in the U.S. do not want to support their veterans, as veterans, aside from militia, would be the best-trained in military-grade weaponry to support a fomenting revolution. I trust my title will catch the eye, though IMO it is hardly sensational. The influx of military-grade equipment into the arsenals of our local police forces, who lack proper training to use them (many articles have covered these two clauses in depth and I need not delve further), serve as a means to re-purpose Iraq War (et al.) expenditures, as well as increase police effectiveness. However, we have seen countless examples of the misuse of these instruments as tools of oppression, not protection (see "The Rise of the Warrior Cop" or [other examples](http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/police-militarizationswattechnology.html) of police militarization). All oligarchs, aristocrats, despots, corrupt politicians, and corporate superpowers fear revolution- whether or not one is brewing in the U.S. is irrelevant. However, it *is* a common tactic of revolutionaries to re-purpose any and all resources (including civilian, police, and military-grade weapons and ordnance). See Marighella, Carlos(1969) in his "[Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla](http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/ch25.htm)." Quoting the above referenced text: > The urban guerrilla soldier or officer must desert at the most opportune moment with modern weapons and ammunition, to hand them over to the guerrillas. One of the most opportune moments is when the urban guerrilla soldier is called upon to pursue his guerrilla comrades outside the military base. Instead of following the orders of the "gorillas", the military urban guerrilla must join the ranks of the revolutionaries by handing over the weapons and ammunition he carries, or the military vehicle he operates. The advantage of this method is that the rebels receive weapons and ammunition from the army, navy, air force, military police, civilian guard or the police without any great work, *since it reaches their hands by government transportation.* Our veterans know first-hand how to operate the very war machines which our police have been issued (again, without any training). As the United States has turned their back on our veterans, disenfranchised them, and disillusioned them to the soldier's true worth to their government (read: worse than dirt, dirt may be cultivated), allowing veterans to [eliminate themselves](http://www.vice.com/read/republican-senator-killed-veterans-suicide-prevention-bill-1217) and treating them as undesirables would be the most efficient way to hamstring one of the most potentially powerful assets to a revolution. Please change my view. EDIT 1: See ["The Bonus Army"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army), which marched on Washington demanding their rightful compensation, where police shot and killed two veterans, and other veterans were killed throughout the demonstration.

t3_1e53de

After false rape allegations, I'm reluctant go have sex before marriage. CMV

[My story here](http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/1e3dw0/update_i_16m_broke_up_with_my_girlfriend_17f/) My school interventionist and I talked about this, and I discovered that having sex with someone if you don't have proof of their explicit consent beforehand can be brought back later as a sexual harassment case. My girlfriend did such a thing after we broke up (we never had sex, however). I had treated sex much less strongly before this, but now my view is changed. I feel like if I don't trust someone enough to marry them, I can't trust them to turn on me afterwards. I have not graduated high school yet, I live in a Liberal, Secular portion of the U.S. Change my view, Reddit!

After false rape allegations, I'm reluctant go have sex before marriage. CMV. [My story here](http://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/1e3dw0/update_i_16m_broke_up_with_my_girlfriend_17f/) My school interventionist and I talked about this, and I discovered that having sex with someone if you don't have proof of their explicit consent beforehand can be brought back later as a sexual harassment case. My girlfriend did such a thing after we broke up (we never had sex, however). I had treated sex much less strongly before this, but now my view is changed. I feel like if I don't trust someone enough to marry them, I can't trust them to turn on me afterwards. I have not graduated high school yet, I live in a Liberal, Secular portion of the U.S. Change my view, Reddit!

t3_1jb7xc

I believe that the quality of a piece of music is subjective, depends only on the listener and therefore doesn't exist. CMV

People qualify music as good or bad but the only criteria on which the judgement is based is personal taste and nothing else, since everyone has different taste in music, i believe that there is no such thing as good or bad music. let's talk about painting. surely la joconde is a higher form of art than my niece's doodles or even mine. but musically speaking this would be comparing a great song to a flat note. but take two paintings made by two different artists and put them next to each other in a museum. most people will surely see their preference go towards one of the two and may qualify the other painting as bad. like painting or any form of art, music finds its quality in people's taste in my opinion and i think telling someone the music they listen to is bad is preposterous. EDIT: awesome debate, my view was changed

I believe that the quality of a piece of music is subjective, depends only on the listener and therefore doesn't exist. CMV. People qualify music as good or bad but the only criteria on which the judgement is based is personal taste and nothing else, since everyone has different taste in music, i believe that there is no such thing as good or bad music. let's talk about painting. surely la joconde is a higher form of art than my niece's doodles or even mine. but musically speaking this would be comparing a great song to a flat note. but take two paintings made by two different artists and put them next to each other in a museum. most people will surely see their preference go towards one of the two and may qualify the other painting as bad. like painting or any form of art, music finds its quality in people's taste in my opinion and i think telling someone the music they listen to is bad is preposterous. EDIT: awesome debate, my view was changed

t3_2umotn

CMV: I don't know why it's a bad thing if the demographics of occupational categories don't match the demographics of the wider population.

Often commentators and activists will point out disparities in the demographic breakdown of a company or industry as compared to the broader population, and act as if the disparity is evidence of wrongdoing or grave social ill. Examples include: * Pleas for more women in STEM, talk of how to get more girls interested in science. * Assertions of a [diversity problem in the tech industry](https://medium.com/message/the-tech-diversity-story-thats-not-being-told-9a36fb40530f) on the basis of the relative proportions of women, hispanics, and asians in the tech industry. * [Expressions of outrage and shock](http://fusion.net/story/30789/hacked-documents-reveal-a-hollywood-studios-stunning-gender-and-race-gap/) over the gender and racial makeup of Sony's executives. To be sure I'm not saying discrimination isn't a problem. Discrimination needs to be identified and stamped out wherever it rears its head -- and there certainly is discrimination accounting for some of these distortions. But discussions of gender/racial/sexuality representations in various fields seem disconnected from any claim of discrimination. Instead the mere fact that occupational category X has a proportion of women/blacks/LGBTQ/etc different from their representation in the population is evidence of some kind of wrongdoing or imperfection. Why? This post is partly inspired by a premise of the book [Race and Culture: A World View](http://www.amazon.com/Race-And-Culture-World-View/dp/0465067972) by Thomas Sowell. I haven't read it in full but Sowell [summarizes some of his arguments here](http://www.hoover.org/research/race-culture-and-equality) (emphasis added): > In the early 1920s, Jews were just 6 percent of the population of Hungary and 11 percent of the population of Poland, but they were more than half of all the physicians in both countries, as well as being vastly over-represented in commerce and other fields. > In the early twentieth century, all of the firms in all of the industries producing the following products in Brazil's state of Rio Grande do Sul were owned by people of German ancestry: trunks, stoves, paper, hats, neckties, leather, soap, glass, watches, beer, confections and carriages. > In the middle of the nineteenth century, just three countries produced most of the manufactured goods in the world--Britain, Germany, and the United States. By the late twentieth century, it was estimated that 17 percent of the people in the world produce four-fifths of the total output on the planet. > Such examples could be multiplied longer than you would have the patience to listen. > Why are there such disparities? In some cases, we can trace the reasons, but in other cases we cannot. **A more fundamental question, however, is: Why should anyone have ever expected equality in the first place?** > ... > During the decade of the 1960s, for example, the Chinese minority in Malaysia earned more than a hundred times as many engineering degrees as the Malay majority. > Halfway around the world at the same time, the majority of the population of Nigeria, living in its northern provinces, were just 9 percent of the students attending that country's University of Ibadan and just 2 percent of the much larger number of Nigerian students studying abroad in foreign institutions of higher learning. > In the Austrian Empire in 1900, the illiteracy rate among Polish adults was 40 percent and among Serbo-Croatians 75 percent--but only 6 percent among the Germans. > **Given similar educational disparities among other groups in other countries--disparities in both the quantity and quality of education, as well as in fields of specialization--why should anyone expect equal outcomes in incomes or occupations?** The same arguments work with gender and sexuality categories: to throw out an invented example, there's no apparent reason to believe the number of LGBTQ carpenters is supposed to match the number of LGBTQ identified people in the wider population, and it's not clear why it's automatically a good or bad thing if LGBTQ people are over- or under-represented in the world of carpentry. **TL;DR -- Why does anyone think equality of demographic groups across occupational categories is natural or even preferred?**

CMV: I don't know why it's a bad thing if the demographics of occupational categories don't match the demographics of the wider population. Often commentators and activists will point out disparities in the demographic breakdown of a company or industry as compared to the broader population, and act as if the disparity is evidence of wrongdoing or grave social ill. Examples include: * Pleas for more women in STEM, talk of how to get more girls interested in science. * Assertions of a [diversity problem in the tech industry](https://medium.com/message/the-tech-diversity-story-thats-not-being-told-9a36fb40530f) on the basis of the relative proportions of women, hispanics, and asians in the tech industry. * [Expressions of outrage and shock](http://fusion.net/story/30789/hacked-documents-reveal-a-hollywood-studios-stunning-gender-and-race-gap/) over the gender and racial makeup of Sony's executives. To be sure I'm not saying discrimination isn't a problem. Discrimination needs to be identified and stamped out wherever it rears its head -- and there certainly is discrimination accounting for some of these distortions. But discussions of gender/racial/sexuality representations in various fields seem disconnected from any claim of discrimination. Instead the mere fact that occupational category X has a proportion of women/blacks/LGBTQ/etc different from their representation in the population is evidence of some kind of wrongdoing or imperfection. Why? This post is partly inspired by a premise of the book [Race and Culture: A World View](http://www.amazon.com/Race-And-Culture-World-View/dp/0465067972) by Thomas Sowell. I haven't read it in full but Sowell [summarizes some of his arguments here](http://www.hoover.org/research/race-culture-and-equality) (emphasis added): > In the early 1920s, Jews were just 6 percent of the population of Hungary and 11 percent of the population of Poland, but they were more than half of all the physicians in both countries, as well as being vastly over-represented in commerce and other fields. > In the early twentieth century, all of the firms in all of the industries producing the following products in Brazil's state of Rio Grande do Sul were owned by people of German ancestry: trunks, stoves, paper, hats, neckties, leather, soap, glass, watches, beer, confections and carriages. > In the middle of the nineteenth century, just three countries produced most of the manufactured goods in the world--Britain, Germany, and the United States. By the late twentieth century, it was estimated that 17 percent of the people in the world produce four-fifths of the total output on the planet. > Such examples could be multiplied longer than you would have the patience to listen. > Why are there such disparities? In some cases, we can trace the reasons, but in other cases we cannot. **A more fundamental question, however, is: Why should anyone have ever expected equality in the first place?** > ... > During the decade of the 1960s, for example, the Chinese minority in Malaysia earned more than a hundred times as many engineering degrees as the Malay majority. > Halfway around the world at the same time, the majority of the population of Nigeria, living in its northern provinces, were just 9 percent of the students attending that country's University of Ibadan and just 2 percent of the much larger number of Nigerian students studying abroad in foreign institutions of higher learning. > In the Austrian Empire in 1900, the illiteracy rate among Polish adults was 40 percent and among Serbo-Croatians 75 percent--but only 6 percent among the Germans. > **Given similar educational disparities among other groups in other countries--disparities in both the quantity and quality of education, as well as in fields of specialization--why should anyone expect equal outcomes in incomes or occupations?** The same arguments work with gender and sexuality categories: to throw out an invented example, there's no apparent reason to believe the number of LGBTQ carpenters is supposed to match the number of LGBTQ identified people in the wider population, and it's not clear why it's automatically a good or bad thing if LGBTQ people are over- or under-represented in the world of carpentry. **TL;DR -- Why does anyone think equality of demographic groups across occupational categories is natural or even preferred?**

t3_6ivisz

CMV: The Danielson Framework for evaluating teachers is ruining the teaching profession.

I am a high school teacher in NYC, where the Danielson framework is used to evaluate teacher performance. Teacher are rated on many categories through 4-6 classroom observations throughout the school year. My opinion is that this system is unsatisfactory for the following reasons: 1. It is statistically insignificant, as our observers are rating literally less than 1% of our classroom instruction time in a given year. 2. It is not objective because administrators are free to interpret categories of Danielson as they see fit. 3. Some of the administrators who rate our teaching have less teaching experience than the teachers themselves do. 4. It creates resentment both among teachers and between teachers and administrators. This resentment effectively shuts down dialogue between staff, creating a toxic work environment. 5. It punishes teachers who work in challenging environments, and rewards those who work in easy environments. For example, it is harder to get 100% student engagement when your class has 34 students, all of whom are ELLs, and many of whom are SIFEs (like my class in NYC). Teachers in the suburbs typically don't have 34 students, have few if any ELLs, and no SIFEs, and therefore face less challenges in this category. 6. The framework is all about what good teaching is supposed to LOOK LIKE, not about what is actually taught. Therefore, it is possible to be highly effective on Danielson, and teach something that is completely useless to students. 7. Students are aware that teachers get stressed out about observations. Stressed out teachers and uncomfortable classrooms are not learning environments. Thoughts? Link to the Danielson Rubric for the curious: http://www.cfn107.org/uploads/6/1/9/2/6192492/danielson_2014-2015_rubric.pdf

CMV: The Danielson Framework for evaluating teachers is ruining the teaching profession. I am a high school teacher in NYC, where the Danielson framework is used to evaluate teacher performance. Teacher are rated on many categories through 4-6 classroom observations throughout the school year. My opinion is that this system is unsatisfactory for the following reasons: 1. It is statistically insignificant, as our observers are rating literally less than 1% of our classroom instruction time in a given year. 2. It is not objective because administrators are free to interpret categories of Danielson as they see fit. 3. Some of the administrators who rate our teaching have less teaching experience than the teachers themselves do. 4. It creates resentment both among teachers and between teachers and administrators. This resentment effectively shuts down dialogue between staff, creating a toxic work environment. 5. It punishes teachers who work in challenging environments, and rewards those who work in easy environments. For example, it is harder to get 100% student engagement when your class has 34 students, all of whom are ELLs, and many of whom are SIFEs (like my class in NYC). Teachers in the suburbs typically don't have 34 students, have few if any ELLs, and no SIFEs, and therefore face less challenges in this category. 6. The framework is all about what good teaching is supposed to LOOK LIKE, not about what is actually taught. Therefore, it is possible to be highly effective on Danielson, and teach something that is completely useless to students. 7. Students are aware that teachers get stressed out about observations. Stressed out teachers and uncomfortable classrooms are not learning environments. Thoughts? Link to the Danielson Rubric for the curious: http://www.cfn107.org/uploads/6/1/9/2/6192492/danielson_2014-2015_rubric.pdf

t3_41jqzt

CMV: There is no excuse for people who leave their shopping carts in the parking lot instead of rolling it to a designated area.

I visit different grocery stores throughout my week and witness an alarming amount of people too lazy to walk their cart an extra 10-15 yards and just leave it in the parking lot. How fucking lazy can you be? You just spent the whole time rolling the cart around and you can't push it another 10-15 yards to a safe area? Stray carts in a parking lot dont generally roll fast enough to ever dent a car, but they often scuff up cara because most carts have plastic shielding for this very reason. Im still not pleased to come outside and see plastic scuff marks. Granted, my car is in supermarket parking lots a LOT more than the average person, so I underdstand this can happen to me more often than the regular person.

CMV: There is no excuse for people who leave their shopping carts in the parking lot instead of rolling it to a designated area. I visit different grocery stores throughout my week and witness an alarming amount of people too lazy to walk their cart an extra 10-15 yards and just leave it in the parking lot. How fucking lazy can you be? You just spent the whole time rolling the cart around and you can't push it another 10-15 yards to a safe area? Stray carts in a parking lot dont generally roll fast enough to ever dent a car, but they often scuff up cara because most carts have plastic shielding for this very reason. Im still not pleased to come outside and see plastic scuff marks. Granted, my car is in supermarket parking lots a LOT more than the average person, so I underdstand this can happen to me more often than the regular person.

t3_6ntko9

CMV: If one is vegan and dining in a group, one should not force veganism upon the group.

Being a vegan is a life choice, and it's certainly okay to be vegan. It's okay to talk about veganism. It's okay to choose what constitutes veganism (i.e. 'Is honey vegan?' debates etc.). Adults, given the capacity to make decisions and give consent for themselves, can choose what-the-hell-ever eating habits they want to. However, when one is in the minority as a vegan, it is not okay to constantly nit-pick about the dietary choices of those who are not. Context: I live and work in a volunteer station ('commune' wouldn't necessarily be too strong a word). There are currently 35 volunteers/full-time staff, of whom 5-6 are vegans. Some of the vegans are not vegan all the time, switching between eating fish and dairy and being plant-based without consistency. We share all our meals. This has led to significant adjustments in terms of cooking for the group. Of course, we can accommodate allergies and dietary choices. However, the minority of vegans have been pushing their views on the others. This has gotten to the point of making judgmental comments about meat-eating or animal-product use while others are in the very act of eating. There are different comments: * Meat is gruesome (insert unnecessary description of meat-processing here) * You are causing climate change right now * Unnecessary discussions involving hypothetical human barbecues and eating house pets (i.e. it's all meat, isn't it?) * Could you kill it and prepare it yourself (if answer is yes, then make an argument about how violent you are as a person) Although it is acceptable to talk about veganism and one's reasons for choosing it, I feel this level of talk is unacceptable. In addition, the vegans in the group constantly interrogate the cooks about each and every meal prepared, sometimes getting quite pushy about it. If the vegan meal prepared alongside the other meal is a tiny bit late, they react very poorly indeed, as if it is some purposeful slight. We prepare the same meals a lot of the time, and the ingredients are always the same (down to the brand). It's not that hard for them to remember that some ingredients are not vegan and never have been, but they pointedly ask in front of everyone at each meal. I suspect it is less to do with remembering and more to do with getting a nice little in-group eye-roll in about how horrible it is to consume butter. In order to accommodate them and stop the constant questions, we've all had to eat a lot more vegan food. This is fine, but on some level seems to be removing the choice from those in the group who are not vegan. Those who have no problem with consuming animal products or who prefer meals made with them have to put aside their preferences (and, I suppose, moral positions) in favour of minority rule. The quality of the baked goods in particular has suffered. Meanwhile, the vegan contingent pats everyone on the back. Let me be clear that this is not a discussion about veganism being somehow wrong in itself. It's more about removing the choice from those who are not vegan, and the attitude of rudeness about the perfectly legitimate dietary choices of others. If a person can choose to be vegan, then a person must also be free to choose not to be. Therefore, if one is vegan and dining in a group, one should not force veganism upon the group. > *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: If one is vegan and dining in a group, one should not force veganism upon the group. Being a vegan is a life choice, and it's certainly okay to be vegan. It's okay to talk about veganism. It's okay to choose what constitutes veganism (i.e. 'Is honey vegan?' debates etc.). Adults, given the capacity to make decisions and give consent for themselves, can choose what-the-hell-ever eating habits they want to. However, when one is in the minority as a vegan, it is not okay to constantly nit-pick about the dietary choices of those who are not. Context: I live and work in a volunteer station ('commune' wouldn't necessarily be too strong a word). There are currently 35 volunteers/full-time staff, of whom 5-6 are vegans. Some of the vegans are not vegan all the time, switching between eating fish and dairy and being plant-based without consistency. We share all our meals. This has led to significant adjustments in terms of cooking for the group. Of course, we can accommodate allergies and dietary choices. However, the minority of vegans have been pushing their views on the others. This has gotten to the point of making judgmental comments about meat-eating or animal-product use while others are in the very act of eating. There are different comments: * Meat is gruesome (insert unnecessary description of meat-processing here) * You are causing climate change right now * Unnecessary discussions involving hypothetical human barbecues and eating house pets (i.e. it's all meat, isn't it?) * Could you kill it and prepare it yourself (if answer is yes, then make an argument about how violent you are as a person) Although it is acceptable to talk about veganism and one's reasons for choosing it, I feel this level of talk is unacceptable. In addition, the vegans in the group constantly interrogate the cooks about each and every meal prepared, sometimes getting quite pushy about it. If the vegan meal prepared alongside the other meal is a tiny bit late, they react very poorly indeed, as if it is some purposeful slight. We prepare the same meals a lot of the time, and the ingredients are always the same (down to the brand). It's not that hard for them to remember that some ingredients are not vegan and never have been, but they pointedly ask in front of everyone at each meal. I suspect it is less to do with remembering and more to do with getting a nice little in-group eye-roll in about how horrible it is to consume butter. In order to accommodate them and stop the constant questions, we've all had to eat a lot more vegan food. This is fine, but on some level seems to be removing the choice from those in the group who are not vegan. Those who have no problem with consuming animal products or who prefer meals made with them have to put aside their preferences (and, I suppose, moral positions) in favour of minority rule. The quality of the baked goods in particular has suffered. Meanwhile, the vegan contingent pats everyone on the back. Let me be clear that this is not a discussion about veganism being somehow wrong in itself. It's more about removing the choice from those who are not vegan, and the attitude of rudeness about the perfectly legitimate dietary choices of others. If a person can choose to be vegan, then a person must also be free to choose not to be. Therefore, if one is vegan and dining in a group, one should not force veganism upon the group. > *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!*

t3_1qidlx

I don't think Google deserves the hate for the new YouTube comment layout. CMV.

First ti[m]e posting guys, fair warning, I'm not as eloquent as most of you lads. Alright, so anyone who has been on the internet in the past few days has noticed that the new YouTube comment section is really messed up, like waaaayyyy unrecognizable. This sudden change obviously solicits some passionate viewpoints, especially amoung the YouTube stars, as has been seen in the past couple days. I'd like to start by saying the new YouTube comment layout does indeed suck. I'm not challenging the status quo here. **However**, I do appreciate what Google attempted to do. Lets be honest with ourselves, the YouTube comment section was never a place of great merit. Most of the people that came on to comment made deep intellectual statements like: "lol" or "omg this guy is 2 funni >.<" The top comments usually consisted of: "upvote if you think [insert idol, norm, youtube star etc.] is awesome! :D" or someone posting a legitamate response to a troll and getting like 60 thumbs up. Then all the subsequent comments would get buried, with some algorithm to make a few good new comments rise to the top everyday. This is fine for the viewer that just wants to watch their YouTube channel primarily and then have a chuckle at the top comments in passing. But for people like me, who enjoy conversation and opinions of the truly intellectual, the old YouTube comment section was awful. So what did Google try to do? I think they essentially attempted to copy Gawker's comment system. I'm not sure exactly how it works but it seems to take the comments with the most replies and upvotes and catapult those comments to the top. The problem with this is that many people who frequent YouTube are not looking for discussion, they just want to say something idiotic and leave, with the truly interesting comments never being realized. And of course, that type of culture will give rise to people who try, or better *want* to piss people off by gaming the system. So what happened? The flaws were instantly recognized and exploited and now everyone is pointing the finger at Google, and though I agree they should have seen this coming, the programmers had a good thing in mind (i'd like to think so at least). On the other hand **GOOGLE PLUS SUCKS ASS PLEASE STOP FORCING US TO SIGN UP** ^I ^love ^Google ^hangouts ^tho ^;) So Reddit, please CMV, i'm not truly familiar with every single change, just the big ones.

I don't think Google deserves the hate for the new YouTube comment layout. CMV. First ti[m]e posting guys, fair warning, I'm not as eloquent as most of you lads. Alright, so anyone who has been on the internet in the past few days has noticed that the new YouTube comment section is really messed up, like waaaayyyy unrecognizable. This sudden change obviously solicits some passionate viewpoints, especially amoung the YouTube stars, as has been seen in the past couple days. I'd like to start by saying the new YouTube comment layout does indeed suck. I'm not challenging the status quo here. **However**, I do appreciate what Google attempted to do. Lets be honest with ourselves, the YouTube comment section was never a place of great merit. Most of the people that came on to comment made deep intellectual statements like: "lol" or "omg this guy is 2 funni >.<" The top comments usually consisted of: "upvote if you think [insert idol, norm, youtube star etc.] is awesome! :D" or someone posting a legitamate response to a troll and getting like 60 thumbs up. Then all the subsequent comments would get buried, with some algorithm to make a few good new comments rise to the top everyday. This is fine for the viewer that just wants to watch their YouTube channel primarily and then have a chuckle at the top comments in passing. But for people like me, who enjoy conversation and opinions of the truly intellectual, the old YouTube comment section was awful. So what did Google try to do? I think they essentially attempted to copy Gawker's comment system. I'm not sure exactly how it works but it seems to take the comments with the most replies and upvotes and catapult those comments to the top. The problem with this is that many people who frequent YouTube are not looking for discussion, they just want to say something idiotic and leave, with the truly interesting comments never being realized. And of course, that type of culture will give rise to people who try, or better *want* to piss people off by gaming the system. So what happened? The flaws were instantly recognized and exploited and now everyone is pointing the finger at Google, and though I agree they should have seen this coming, the programmers had a good thing in mind (i'd like to think so at least). On the other hand **GOOGLE PLUS SUCKS ASS PLEASE STOP FORCING US TO SIGN UP** ^I ^love ^Google ^hangouts ^tho ^;) So Reddit, please CMV, i'm not truly familiar with every single change, just the big ones.

t3_48d3qe

CMV: Time is running out. Only Ted Cruz can stop Donald Trump.

Only Ted Cruz has the power to stop Trump from being the nominee and Hillary clinton will win in a landslide against Trump. If you look at the race now, really the question for Republicans is do you want Trump or don't you? The state of the current race - I don't see anyway Rubio, Carson or Kasich could possibly win. Trumps's momentum is too strong. He's got double digit leads in too many states. Marco Rubio - Senator from Florida - is losing to Trump by double digits in the polls.... in Florida. The Latest polls have trump up by 5-10 points in Ohio (where Kasich is governor). If you can't win at home, you gotta get out of the race. I don't see why Ben Carson is still going. He can't even get a word in edgewise at debates anymore. The anti-trump vote is being split between the other 4 candidates. You might say "If lower candidates drop out, Trump will get some of that vote" That's true to some extent - but there is definitely an anti Trump base in the republican electorate. [Meg Whitman called Trump unfit to be president when she bashed her former ally Chris Christie for endorsing Trump](http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/meg-whitman-assails-chris-christie-for-backing-donald-trump/) I don't know how large the anti-Trump base is - but it's there and it's being divided between other candidates. Up until Trump destroyed them both in Nevada, Rubio and Cruz have been fighting over 2nd place thinking that when Trump inevitably crashes and burns, they will be the new front runner. I've been watching and they're attacking each other as if that matters. Meanwhile trump is running away with the race. But the debate in Texas (after the Nevada results) was just an all out assault on Donald Trump. The strategy of fighting over 2nd place was a bad one - because Trump never crashed. After Nevada, they realized that if Trump ever were going to crash for making an outlandish statement - that would have happened months ago. His loudmouth clown behavior appeals to the angry republican electorate. Ted Cruz is winning decisively in Texas - the largest super Tuesday state. That could give him momentum to beat trump in the future. Also Cruz has some momentum after beating trump in Iowa. Rubio came 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, in the early states. That's not a strong foot hold to go into super Tuesday. Right now it's hard to see a way Trump does not become the republican nominee. But Ted Cruz is really the only one with any semblance of a chance. Other candidates are just too far behind. Time is running out - the longer Rubio, Carson and Kasich stay in the race - the larger Trump's lead is going to get. _____ > *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: Time is running out. Only Ted Cruz can stop Donald Trump. Only Ted Cruz has the power to stop Trump from being the nominee and Hillary clinton will win in a landslide against Trump. If you look at the race now, really the question for Republicans is do you want Trump or don't you? The state of the current race - I don't see anyway Rubio, Carson or Kasich could possibly win. Trumps's momentum is too strong. He's got double digit leads in too many states. Marco Rubio - Senator from Florida - is losing to Trump by double digits in the polls.... in Florida. The Latest polls have trump up by 5-10 points in Ohio (where Kasich is governor). If you can't win at home, you gotta get out of the race. I don't see why Ben Carson is still going. He can't even get a word in edgewise at debates anymore. The anti-trump vote is being split between the other 4 candidates. You might say "If lower candidates drop out, Trump will get some of that vote" That's true to some extent - but there is definitely an anti Trump base in the republican electorate. [Meg Whitman called Trump unfit to be president when she bashed her former ally Chris Christie for endorsing Trump](http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/28/meg-whitman-assails-chris-christie-for-backing-donald-trump/) I don't know how large the anti-Trump base is - but it's there and it's being divided between other candidates. Up until Trump destroyed them both in Nevada, Rubio and Cruz have been fighting over 2nd place thinking that when Trump inevitably crashes and burns, they will be the new front runner. I've been watching and they're attacking each other as if that matters. Meanwhile trump is running away with the race. But the debate in Texas (after the Nevada results) was just an all out assault on Donald Trump. The strategy of fighting over 2nd place was a bad one - because Trump never crashed. After Nevada, they realized that if Trump ever were going to crash for making an outlandish statement - that would have happened months ago. His loudmouth clown behavior appeals to the angry republican electorate. Ted Cruz is winning decisively in Texas - the largest super Tuesday state. That could give him momentum to beat trump in the future. Also Cruz has some momentum after beating trump in Iowa. Rubio came 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, in the early states. That's not a strong foot hold to go into super Tuesday. Right now it's hard to see a way Trump does not become the republican nominee. But Ted Cruz is really the only one with any semblance of a chance. Other candidates are just too far behind. Time is running out - the longer Rubio, Carson and Kasich stay in the race - the larger Trump's lead is going to get.

t3_26vy78

CMV: Fashion glasses (non-prescription or lenseless glasses) are pointless and annoying.

Let me preface by saying that I do love fashion, accessories and peoples' freedom to express themselves and their individuality. I'd also like to clarify that, [even though certain styles are annoying](http://cdn02.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2009/01/kim-kardashian-futuristic-sunglasses.jpg) as well, this view does not apply to sunglasses because they hold value in their functionality regardless of the person. My main beef with fashion glasses is that they take the form of a functional piece of equipment and remove the utility but don't add anything new. Certainly, people can say that the same must be true for accessories like [fashion scarves](http://www.seemashawls.com/img2/9.jpeg) or for things like [leather cuffs](http://thecoolershade.com/store/images/LW350.png). However, even though both of these other examples have roots in utility and function, when the functionality is removed something more ornate is added or possible. In the scarf example, a [utilitarian scarf](https://img1.etsystatic.com/003/0/6104481/il_570xN.377835027_hpgy.jpg) is thick to provide warmth and insulation; a fashion scarf removes the functional thickness but opens the door for [patterned textiles or forms](http://blog.suburbanstylechallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sccfallfashion_scarves-pattern.jpg) that are not possible on thicker scarves. Conversely, glasses forms have been derived from their function; a necessary form to place prescription lenses in front of the eyes. Fashion glasses gain no advantage by removing the function. The second, more obtuse reason for the annoyance is that there is an odd appropriation of an "impaired" image. Wearing fashion glasses is akin to carrying a cane around even though you can walk unhindered with your two legs or, if such a thing were fashionable, wearing a colostomy bag even though you have a fully functioning lower digestive tract. Glasses only exist because there was a need to provide improved function to an impaired organ. If for some reason there was never a need for improving vision, the form of a fashion-only 'face accessory' would probably look much different than glasses. This largely boils down to me being unable to find an answer to the question: Why? **EDIT:** Thanks for the responses, everyone. I still find them very annoying and unnecessary, but have realized it's more due to my own subjective hang-ups and the definitions I've created to support my view. Not everyone lives by the same guidelines to what constitutes necessity and desire; the fake-glasses phenomenon is just a byproduct of different views than mine.

CMV: Fashion glasses (non-prescription or lenseless glasses) are pointless and annoying. Let me preface by saying that I do love fashion, accessories and peoples' freedom to express themselves and their individuality. I'd also like to clarify that, [even though certain styles are annoying](http://cdn02.cdn.justjared.com/wp-content/uploads/headlines/2009/01/kim-kardashian-futuristic-sunglasses.jpg) as well, this view does not apply to sunglasses because they hold value in their functionality regardless of the person. My main beef with fashion glasses is that they take the form of a functional piece of equipment and remove the utility but don't add anything new. Certainly, people can say that the same must be true for accessories like [fashion scarves](http://www.seemashawls.com/img2/9.jpeg) or for things like [leather cuffs](http://thecoolershade.com/store/images/LW350.png). However, even though both of these other examples have roots in utility and function, when the functionality is removed something more ornate is added or possible. In the scarf example, a [utilitarian scarf](https://img1.etsystatic.com/003/0/6104481/il_570xN.377835027_hpgy.jpg) is thick to provide warmth and insulation; a fashion scarf removes the functional thickness but opens the door for [patterned textiles or forms](http://blog.suburbanstylechallenge.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sccfallfashion_scarves-pattern.jpg) that are not possible on thicker scarves. Conversely, glasses forms have been derived from their function; a necessary form to place prescription lenses in front of the eyes. Fashion glasses gain no advantage by removing the function. The second, more obtuse reason for the annoyance is that there is an odd appropriation of an "impaired" image. Wearing fashion glasses is akin to carrying a cane around even though you can walk unhindered with your two legs or, if such a thing were fashionable, wearing a colostomy bag even though you have a fully functioning lower digestive tract. Glasses only exist because there was a need to provide improved function to an impaired organ. If for some reason there was never a need for improving vision, the form of a fashion-only 'face accessory' would probably look much different than glasses. This largely boils down to me being unable to find an answer to the question: Why? **EDIT:** Thanks for the responses, everyone. I still find them very annoying and unnecessary, but have realized it's more due to my own subjective hang-ups and the definitions I've created to support my view. Not everyone lives by the same guidelines to what constitutes necessity and desire; the fake-glasses phenomenon is just a byproduct of different views than mine.

t3_5qev2s

CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith.

Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over. Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change. TIMELINE 1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce. 2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them. To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.

CMV: Because police officers (law enforcement officers) must eventually enforce a law they morally disagree with there is no way to become a police officer in good faith. Police do not get to choose which laws they enforce, they must enforce all laws they are given jurisdiction over. Laws can change and enforcement strategies or enforcement tactics can change. TIMELINE 1) You shouldn't go to police academy if you disagree with any law you could potentially enforce. 2) Once you are a police officer you cannot morally stay a police officer if any laws come on to the books or change and you disagree with them. To keep the moral high ground and not become morally reprehensible you would either have to resign or transfer to a different branch of law enforcement not responsible for enforcing that law.

t3_2ldxdq

CMV: I don't think it would be a good idea to tell my future wife of a certain negative part of my past

I did some pretty negative things in my past. I used to sexually molest women in crowded places and buses. I went to years of therapy and stopped. I changed. I no longer desire to touch or hurt women. Now lets say I get into a relationship. Everything is going great and we get married. Maybe even start a family. Do you really think it would be a good idea to tell my wife that I used to hurt women? I don't think so, because it was in the past. It is over with. I have changed. It is no longer relevant. Why bother bringing up something that will only hurt me and her? In fact, it is a good thing she doesn't know, she doesn't need to know that specific kind of information. Some say it would be lying. Could be, but it is what it is what it is. It isn't hurting anyone and it is information that doesn't need to be said as it is no longer important. I've changed. I'm being the best person I can be. My past sucked, but I don't need that in my life anymore. I don't need to tell anyone this information because all it would do is cause destruction and ruin my life. People dont' need to know that. I get along just fine without people knowing that, why must they know I used to harass women if I've changed? _____ > *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 think it would be a good idea to tell my future wife of a certain negative part of my past. I did some pretty negative things in my past. I used to sexually molest women in crowded places and buses. I went to years of therapy and stopped. I changed. I no longer desire to touch or hurt women. Now lets say I get into a relationship. Everything is going great and we get married. Maybe even start a family. Do you really think it would be a good idea to tell my wife that I used to hurt women? I don't think so, because it was in the past. It is over with. I have changed. It is no longer relevant. Why bother bringing up something that will only hurt me and her? In fact, it is a good thing she doesn't know, she doesn't need to know that specific kind of information. Some say it would be lying. Could be, but it is what it is what it is. It isn't hurting anyone and it is information that doesn't need to be said as it is no longer important. I've changed. I'm being the best person I can be. My past sucked, but I don't need that in my life anymore. I don't need to tell anyone this information because all it would do is cause destruction and ruin my life. People dont' need to know that. I get along just fine without people knowing that, why must they know I used to harass women if I've changed?

t3_36pxnw

CMV: It is annoying when photographers place their logos like "Clearwater Photography" on pictures you pay them to take, because it devalues the picture for you the customer.

My main complaints with this are that: 1. To be branding all your pictures make you seem amateur and unprofessional. 2. It makes the picture less personal for the customer at their expense when you have your logo so large on their picture. 3. With all the publicity, you won't be known anyway since for every square mile of land, there are at least 5 amateur photographers or people with high-tech digital cameras. 4. It looks ugly in general, and does not belong in the picture, I can clearly where you put it even when you try to hide it by camouflaging it to the background. 5. And usually quite noticeable, especially when near the centre, beside the main object or person of the picture. _____ > *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 annoying when photographers place their logos like "Clearwater Photography" on pictures you pay them to take, because it devalues the picture for you the customer. My main complaints with this are that: 1. To be branding all your pictures make you seem amateur and unprofessional. 2. It makes the picture less personal for the customer at their expense when you have your logo so large on their picture. 3. With all the publicity, you won't be known anyway since for every square mile of land, there are at least 5 amateur photographers or people with high-tech digital cameras. 4. It looks ugly in general, and does not belong in the picture, I can clearly where you put it even when you try to hide it by camouflaging it to the background. 5. And usually quite noticeable, especially when near the centre, beside the main object or person of the picture.

t3_62guy1

CMV: The Great Gatsby is not a good book

Now, I am reading the book for a class, and I will confess that I have not finished the book. I do however, believe that I have read enough of the book to form an opinion on the quality of it. I have a few main gripes with the story, as well as the writing style. The way Fitzgerald decided to have the narrator function is detrimental to the main character. I feel like I am playing an early adventure video game , where the protagonists are completely silent, despite other characters speaking to them. Nick tries to be a decent narrator by recording everything around him that happens. However, he fails to do a good job of this. Instead, the story reads like the main character has crippling ADD, and gets so easily distracted with something new. The tone of the story changes so instantly and quickly that it jars you out of the story, completely failing to keep the reader interested. I feel that the characters are all one dimensional, and after initially meeting them and reading about 5 pages with them, you know their entire character. For example, I feel like I can quickly figure out that Nick is either extremely passive, or is doing a very poor job at narrating his own actions. I am aware that this story is in contention with the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and others for the grand title of great American novel, but I fail to see how The Great Gatsby even contends to have this title at all. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The Great Gatsby is not a good book. Now, I am reading the book for a class, and I will confess that I have not finished the book. I do however, believe that I have read enough of the book to form an opinion on the quality of it. I have a few main gripes with the story, as well as the writing style. The way Fitzgerald decided to have the narrator function is detrimental to the main character. I feel like I am playing an early adventure video game , where the protagonists are completely silent, despite other characters speaking to them. Nick tries to be a decent narrator by recording everything around him that happens. However, he fails to do a good job of this. Instead, the story reads like the main character has crippling ADD, and gets so easily distracted with something new. The tone of the story changes so instantly and quickly that it jars you out of the story, completely failing to keep the reader interested. I feel that the characters are all one dimensional, and after initially meeting them and reading about 5 pages with them, you know their entire character. For example, I feel like I can quickly figure out that Nick is either extremely passive, or is doing a very poor job at narrating his own actions. I am aware that this story is in contention with the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and others for the grand title of great American novel, but I fail to see how The Great Gatsby even contends to have this title at all.

t3_1j8bq0

I think the Batman in "Justice League" is the best Batman in TV or film. CMV!

I think that the Batman in the "Justice League" cartoon is the best incarnation of Batman in TV or film. Batman is a superhero whose superpower is being rich and awesome. In all the movies he's ever been in either he's a clown, albeit a funny one (Adam West), a wimp (Michael Keaton), overly feminine looking (Val Kilmer), an asshole (George Clooney), or a snob (Christian Bale.) The cartoon Batman is superior to all of these "real life" incarnations because he is far more human, he's kinder, smarter, and funnier. He can be both Batman and Bruce, using his experiences in each life to inform his decisions in the other life, and he never forgets that his adversaries are people too - something that separates Batman from many other superheroes. Further, Batman is billed as the World's Greatest Detective, a title which I feel should imply that he's... you know... smarter than the average person. In many film and TV versions of him, he's little more than the least stupid person in a town full of stupid people. This is to some degree even true in Batman: The Animated Series, where he often gets "detective credit", if you will, for very stupid observations. Which brings me to The Justice League. Here he is almost never shown as Bruce Wayne - although he has a very human side to him still. But he's always around other superheroes, giving him the opportunity to show why he deserves to be there. He is smart, funny, calculating and efficient. The other members of the team: three are from other planets (Superman, Martian Manhunter, Hawkgirl), one can run at like .99c (Flash), and one has a crazy magic ring that can do anything (Green Lantern). Batman has nothing but his wits and his gadgets - he's not even super strong. And yet he earned himself an honored position on the team. So I think that the Batman in the "Justice League" cartoon is the best incarnation of Batman in TV or film. Change my view. (There's too many serious CMV's, let's have some fun!)

I think the Batman in "Justice League" is the best Batman in TV or film. CMV!. I think that the Batman in the "Justice League" cartoon is the best incarnation of Batman in TV or film. Batman is a superhero whose superpower is being rich and awesome. In all the movies he's ever been in either he's a clown, albeit a funny one (Adam West), a wimp (Michael Keaton), overly feminine looking (Val Kilmer), an asshole (George Clooney), or a snob (Christian Bale.) The cartoon Batman is superior to all of these "real life" incarnations because he is far more human, he's kinder, smarter, and funnier. He can be both Batman and Bruce, using his experiences in each life to inform his decisions in the other life, and he never forgets that his adversaries are people too - something that separates Batman from many other superheroes. Further, Batman is billed as the World's Greatest Detective, a title which I feel should imply that he's... you know... smarter than the average person. In many film and TV versions of him, he's little more than the least stupid person in a town full of stupid people. This is to some degree even true in Batman: The Animated Series, where he often gets "detective credit", if you will, for very stupid observations. Which brings me to The Justice League. Here he is almost never shown as Bruce Wayne - although he has a very human side to him still. But he's always around other superheroes, giving him the opportunity to show why he deserves to be there. He is smart, funny, calculating and efficient. The other members of the team: three are from other planets (Superman, Martian Manhunter, Hawkgirl), one can run at like .99c (Flash), and one has a crazy magic ring that can do anything (Green Lantern). Batman has nothing but his wits and his gadgets - he's not even super strong. And yet he earned himself an honored position on the team. So I think that the Batman in the "Justice League" cartoon is the best incarnation of Batman in TV or film. Change my view. (There's too many serious CMV's, let's have some fun!)

t3_1gcsav

I suspect that (ancient western) philosophy is to religion what books are their television counterparts; Same topic but easier consumption. CMV.

I'm a curious guy that have just begun reading about philosophy. I live under the assumption that all living things have but one life and strives to make that life better in any way imaginable. The only thing that differs between folks is their own opinion on the matter. If they can't imagine themselves living good they want to die, if they imagine killing someone else as a way to improve their life they will, if they believe improving the life of others improves their own life then they act accordingly and so on ad infinitum. This assumption spawned the idea of religion as a medium for philosophy. Feel free to CMV on the assumption above if you feel inclined to do so. Since I know very little I will not try to convince anyone that Christianity is to stoicism what J.R.R. tolkiens books to their movie adaptations. This has fundamentally changed my view on religion from "another form of public control" to an "misappropriated tool first made to help the masses, like myself, to be happy with life." I want you, who are more well read in philosophy, to debunk the relationship. Ancient greek and roman philosophy seem to emphasis virtues and pursuit the art of living well through introspection. Epictetus ["Discourses of epictetus"](http://www.archive.org/stream/discepictetus00epiciala#page/n9/mode/2up) and Markus Aurelius ["Meditations"](http://www.archive.org/stream/meditationsofmar00marc#page/n33/mode/2up) seem to emphasise what we recognize today as "good moral conduct". As I read more the thought of religion as an easy way to teach masses the moral conduct grows as a gnawing suspicion in the back of my head. It seems to be a way to indoctrinate the **how**'s without the **why**'s of life. Hence, priests preach virtuous (moral) values and the good book contains experiences the priests use to validate the virtuous (moral) values. I draw a distinction between **virtue** and **moral** - for clarification ITT only. **Moral** is the value a good christian should hold to improve one's life and reach heaven. **Virtue** is the value a student of philosophy holds to improve one's life as a result of one's own thoughts and past experiences. A clear example of religion as an easier vessel for philosophy would be how the buddhist religion evolved from the teachings of the buddha; despite the buddha's wishes according to popular culture. Again, I sit on very little information and would like to hear your take on this idea. It would be helpful to see other points of views I intend to visit some church gatherings, visit some meetups to talk about religion and read the book to get a rough understanding of religions importance to the believers this summer and the values they hold because of their devotion. However, for now. Come on! CMV :) Edit: Typo in the title ...are **to** their...

I suspect that (ancient western) philosophy is to religion what books are their television counterparts; Same topic but easier consumption. CMV. I'm a curious guy that have just begun reading about philosophy. I live under the assumption that all living things have but one life and strives to make that life better in any way imaginable. The only thing that differs between folks is their own opinion on the matter. If they can't imagine themselves living good they want to die, if they imagine killing someone else as a way to improve their life they will, if they believe improving the life of others improves their own life then they act accordingly and so on ad infinitum. This assumption spawned the idea of religion as a medium for philosophy. Feel free to CMV on the assumption above if you feel inclined to do so. Since I know very little I will not try to convince anyone that Christianity is to stoicism what J.R.R. tolkiens books to their movie adaptations. This has fundamentally changed my view on religion from "another form of public control" to an "misappropriated tool first made to help the masses, like myself, to be happy with life." I want you, who are more well read in philosophy, to debunk the relationship. Ancient greek and roman philosophy seem to emphasis virtues and pursuit the art of living well through introspection. Epictetus ["Discourses of epictetus"](http://www.archive.org/stream/discepictetus00epiciala#page/n9/mode/2up) and Markus Aurelius ["Meditations"](http://www.archive.org/stream/meditationsofmar00marc#page/n33/mode/2up) seem to emphasise what we recognize today as "good moral conduct". As I read more the thought of religion as an easy way to teach masses the moral conduct grows as a gnawing suspicion in the back of my head. It seems to be a way to indoctrinate the **how**'s without the **why**'s of life. Hence, priests preach virtuous (moral) values and the good book contains experiences the priests use to validate the virtuous (moral) values. I draw a distinction between **virtue** and **moral** - for clarification ITT only. **Moral** is the value a good christian should hold to improve one's life and reach heaven. **Virtue** is the value a student of philosophy holds to improve one's life as a result of one's own thoughts and past experiences. A clear example of religion as an easier vessel for philosophy would be how the buddhist religion evolved from the teachings of the buddha; despite the buddha's wishes according to popular culture. Again, I sit on very little information and would like to hear your take on this idea. It would be helpful to see other points of views I intend to visit some church gatherings, visit some meetups to talk about religion and read the book to get a rough understanding of religions importance to the believers this summer and the values they hold because of their devotion. However, for now. Come on! CMV :) Edit: Typo in the title ...are **to** their...

t3_1ofg4t

I think it is wrong for street performers to force people to listen to their music by performing in places that others are forced to be in. CMV.

People who perform in subway cars, in train stations, etc. are all in the wrong. They are forcing other people to listen to their music. Everyone there should not be forced into listening to their music. They may not like their music, be in the mood for it, or may just want peace in their surroundings. Instead they are forced to listen to the music being performed, against their will. People in a subway car or in a train station are there because they have to be there. They are going to work, the hospital, the store, whatever. They have to be there for transportation. It is not fair for someone to impose themselves onto someone else by forcing them to listen to their music. This is a form of control and should not be allowed under the law. CMV.

I think it is wrong for street performers to force people to listen to their music by performing in places that others are forced to be in. CMV. People who perform in subway cars, in train stations, etc. are all in the wrong. They are forcing other people to listen to their music. Everyone there should not be forced into listening to their music. They may not like their music, be in the mood for it, or may just want peace in their surroundings. Instead they are forced to listen to the music being performed, against their will. People in a subway car or in a train station are there because they have to be there. They are going to work, the hospital, the store, whatever. They have to be there for transportation. It is not fair for someone to impose themselves onto someone else by forcing them to listen to their music. This is a form of control and should not be allowed under the law. CMV.

t3_67yyfj

CMV: the US and its allies should use a peace offensive in the middle east

Defeating any ideology requires the change of minds and hearts. In my view if we persist on the path of destruction of the Middle East we will have Generations upon Generations that will want to exact Revenge upon the West. This led me to think about another time in American history where our public perception was Paramount. When we rebuild Europe using the Marshall Plan we rebuild an entire continent. We made lifetime allies, if we can show Iraqi , syrians etc. Etc. We want to protect you and your way of life. Villages and towns would tell us where the Isis is. We'd have eyes on the ground everywhere because we're looking out for them. In essence I'm saying saying choose America and you get schools bridges etc etc. Choose the Radical Islam you will be captured dead or alive.

CMV: the US and its allies should use a peace offensive in the middle east. Defeating any ideology requires the change of minds and hearts. In my view if we persist on the path of destruction of the Middle East we will have Generations upon Generations that will want to exact Revenge upon the West. This led me to think about another time in American history where our public perception was Paramount. When we rebuild Europe using the Marshall Plan we rebuild an entire continent. We made lifetime allies, if we can show Iraqi , syrians etc. Etc. We want to protect you and your way of life. Villages and towns would tell us where the Isis is. We'd have eyes on the ground everywhere because we're looking out for them. In essence I'm saying saying choose America and you get schools bridges etc etc. Choose the Radical Islam you will be captured dead or alive.

t3_1dp7ml

To have meaningful international policing, international courts require legal power not just judicial power.

This comes in response to the fact the WTO can passes as many rulings as it likes that the actions of a country are absolutely illegal. (The decision the US's cotton subsidies are illegal are per Brazil's request for investigation). But they have zero power to force a change in a nation's laws as to make it legal. (The WTO can't force the US farm bill to change its cotton subsidies section as to be legal). Basically I'm saying the WTO(and other similar organistions) should have power equivalent to an international Supreme court with the ability to rule laws void. Edit: CMV, sorry it'sn't in the title.

To have meaningful international policing, international courts require legal power not just judicial power. This comes in response to the fact the WTO can passes as many rulings as it likes that the actions of a country are absolutely illegal. (The decision the US's cotton subsidies are illegal are per Brazil's request for investigation). But they have zero power to force a change in a nation's laws as to make it legal. (The WTO can't force the US farm bill to change its cotton subsidies section as to be legal). Basically I'm saying the WTO(and other similar organistions) should have power equivalent to an international Supreme court with the ability to rule laws void. Edit: CMV, sorry it'sn't in the title.

t3_243lz7

CMV: If John F. Kennedy had lived, his reputation would've been greatly dampened.

Overall, I think JFK was a positive influence on the country, but we tend to over-idealize him and mary-sue him. But if people had learned the truth about who he was, n 1 – He had lots of extra-marital affairs including with celebrities like Marilyn Monroe. On one occasion, he instructed his intern Mimi Alford to give oral sex to another White House employee while Kennedy gleefully watched from the pool. 2 – JFK had a life-threatening illness that required a many different medications to ail. He also received regular amphetamine injections. There's no evidence any of these drugs impaired his judgment and I don't think they did at all. But being unhealthy is a deal-breaker to most voters. 3 – Vietnam would've got him. If he went, he would've had the same fate as LBJ's quagmire. If he didn't send troops to Vietnam, he would've gotten hell for being a wuss against communism. In the second term, the darker aspects of a presidency come to light. 1. Truman had McCarthyism and Korea 2. LBJ had Vietnam. 3. Nixon had Watergate. 4. Reagan had Iran-Contra. 5. Clinton had scandals. 6. GW Bush had Katrina and no WMD's in Iraq. 7. Obama is dealing with NSA controversey Kennedy hadn't simply lived to face his consequences. For a president that has slept with different women every week and needed a litany of drugs just to perform, it's an understatement to say he was volatile. _____ > *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 John F. Kennedy had lived, his reputation would've been greatly dampened. Overall, I think JFK was a positive influence on the country, but we tend to over-idealize him and mary-sue him. But if people had learned the truth about who he was, n 1 – He had lots of extra-marital affairs including with celebrities like Marilyn Monroe. On one occasion, he instructed his intern Mimi Alford to give oral sex to another White House employee while Kennedy gleefully watched from the pool. 2 – JFK had a life-threatening illness that required a many different medications to ail. He also received regular amphetamine injections. There's no evidence any of these drugs impaired his judgment and I don't think they did at all. But being unhealthy is a deal-breaker to most voters. 3 – Vietnam would've got him. If he went, he would've had the same fate as LBJ's quagmire. If he didn't send troops to Vietnam, he would've gotten hell for being a wuss against communism. In the second term, the darker aspects of a presidency come to light. 1. Truman had McCarthyism and Korea 2. LBJ had Vietnam. 3. Nixon had Watergate. 4. Reagan had Iran-Contra. 5. Clinton had scandals. 6. GW Bush had Katrina and no WMD's in Iraq. 7. Obama is dealing with NSA controversey Kennedy hadn't simply lived to face his consequences. For a president that has slept with different women every week and needed a litany of drugs just to perform, it's an understatement to say he was volatile.

t3_3f20yi

CMV: The only way to change the ignorant is with violence.

I've (M) grown up in a very accepting family where they accept me for who I am and how I express myself. Now, I can't say that for some of my friends or the people who have gone through that with family or people in general. As I was walking with my date (M) through town, a group of college students started laughing at us for holding hands. As we were walking by, I kept thinking of all the ways I could get them to stop because if they were to laugh at us, who else are they gonna make feel humiliated or disgusting. I felt like a pet. Some play toy. And that my life was humorous to other people. I can't say that there would be anything to say or do to make them realize that it's normal to appeal to the same sex. I'm ALL FOR education. I believe education makes the world go around and it's so perfect to learn abd understand new things about the world AND be open minded to everything. However, when I see a group of people act ignorantly, I can't help but clench my fist and think about raising hell in their life. The people they are are the kind that take pleasure in hurting people. Why? Because they want to do it for themselves. They can only think about themselves and that they're more perfect than everyone else. I sure as hell am not perfect. I resort to violence when it comes down to this topic. But when I hear or see ignorance made to hurt others, like this (https://youtu.be/1df_i26wh-w). I can't help but feel like this ignorance needs to be dealt with a punch in the face. Nobody deserves what I got. And nobody deserves the ignorance others recieve. Ignorance stems from close mindedness, which is something in this world we don't need. If we were all close minded, we wouldn't have advanced as far as we have. Do we really need more of it in this world? Is it necessary for our survival? I believe so to the extent that when there is an absolutely close minded person,there is an equally absolutely open minded person (the bell curve). So to deal with these people is to punish them with hurt nowhere near the pain they've inflicted onto people, while still sending a message. CMV Edit: I know violence won't get me anywhere. Are there any other solutions besides time, education and ignorng other people that can remedy the situation more directly?

CMV: The only way to change the ignorant is with violence. I've (M) grown up in a very accepting family where they accept me for who I am and how I express myself. Now, I can't say that for some of my friends or the people who have gone through that with family or people in general. As I was walking with my date (M) through town, a group of college students started laughing at us for holding hands. As we were walking by, I kept thinking of all the ways I could get them to stop because if they were to laugh at us, who else are they gonna make feel humiliated or disgusting. I felt like a pet. Some play toy. And that my life was humorous to other people. I can't say that there would be anything to say or do to make them realize that it's normal to appeal to the same sex. I'm ALL FOR education. I believe education makes the world go around and it's so perfect to learn abd understand new things about the world AND be open minded to everything. However, when I see a group of people act ignorantly, I can't help but clench my fist and think about raising hell in their life. The people they are are the kind that take pleasure in hurting people. Why? Because they want to do it for themselves. They can only think about themselves and that they're more perfect than everyone else. I sure as hell am not perfect. I resort to violence when it comes down to this topic. But when I hear or see ignorance made to hurt others, like this (https://youtu.be/1df_i26wh-w). I can't help but feel like this ignorance needs to be dealt with a punch in the face. Nobody deserves what I got. And nobody deserves the ignorance others recieve. Ignorance stems from close mindedness, which is something in this world we don't need. If we were all close minded, we wouldn't have advanced as far as we have. Do we really need more of it in this world? Is it necessary for our survival? I believe so to the extent that when there is an absolutely close minded person,there is an equally absolutely open minded person (the bell curve). So to deal with these people is to punish them with hurt nowhere near the pain they've inflicted onto people, while still sending a message. CMV Edit: I know violence won't get me anywhere. Are there any other solutions besides time, education and ignorng other people that can remedy the situation more directly?

t3_3iz0rq

CMV: A Computer Would Be the Ideal Libertarian President

First, I am not a libertarian, but I used to browse [Slashdot](http://slashdot.org/), which had a large libertarian contingent, so I would read libertarian arguments frequently. My view is that a computer would make for the ideal libertarian president. **Definition of Terms** * **Libertarian:** Here I mean *right-libertarian*, a supporter of an ideology that emphasizes strong [negative liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty) but not so much [positive liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty). They tend to be strong supporters of free markets, strong gun rights, low taxes, minimal government regulation, less foreign intervention, and "neither force nor fraud" as their conception of criminal law. Many libertarians, however—at least those on Slashdot—want to limit immigration; in other words, they may be comfortable limiting these freedoms to U.S. citizens. * **President:** I specifically refer to the President of the United States, but I'd imagine this could extend to heads of government/chief executives of other countries or even governors of states within the United States. For this CMV, we ignore the question of electability. * **Ideal:** Here ideal does not refer to a president who oversees economic growth, decreased unemployment, global peace, etc. Instead, here *ideal* refers to conformance to libertarian ideology. So even if the economy has tanked, half the population is unemployed and starving, and a foreign power's army has landed on our shores, so long as the president has brought U.S. policy closer to libertarian ideals, that president can be said to be closer to ideal. Let's look at the two best known libertarian politicians in the United States: Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. Rand Paul has diverged significantly away from pure libertarian ideology in order to increase his popularity among Republicans. His father has remained more ideologically pure, but he opposes abortion, which could be considered a freedom-attacking position. Beyond these two, let's consider a hypothetical human politician who espouses views even more libertarian than Ron Paul. We can imagine, during times of emergency, he or she may be tempted to take actions that do not conform strictly to libertarianism. In short, my view is that, since libertarianism can be boiled down to a few simple axioms, and it seems to be the case that libertarians want a context-free application of these axioms, a computer would be a far superior leader to implement libertarianism than a fallible, emotional human being. Libertarians should be working on an AI that can parse bills and decide whether to veto them, for instance, instead of getting excited about Rand Paul. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: A Computer Would Be the Ideal Libertarian President. First, I am not a libertarian, but I used to browse [Slashdot](http://slashdot.org/), which had a large libertarian contingent, so I would read libertarian arguments frequently. My view is that a computer would make for the ideal libertarian president. **Definition of Terms** * **Libertarian:** Here I mean *right-libertarian*, a supporter of an ideology that emphasizes strong [negative liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty) but not so much [positive liberty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty). They tend to be strong supporters of free markets, strong gun rights, low taxes, minimal government regulation, less foreign intervention, and "neither force nor fraud" as their conception of criminal law. Many libertarians, however—at least those on Slashdot—want to limit immigration; in other words, they may be comfortable limiting these freedoms to U.S. citizens. * **President:** I specifically refer to the President of the United States, but I'd imagine this could extend to heads of government/chief executives of other countries or even governors of states within the United States. For this CMV, we ignore the question of electability. * **Ideal:** Here ideal does not refer to a president who oversees economic growth, decreased unemployment, global peace, etc. Instead, here *ideal* refers to conformance to libertarian ideology. So even if the economy has tanked, half the population is unemployed and starving, and a foreign power's army has landed on our shores, so long as the president has brought U.S. policy closer to libertarian ideals, that president can be said to be closer to ideal. Let's look at the two best known libertarian politicians in the United States: Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. Rand Paul has diverged significantly away from pure libertarian ideology in order to increase his popularity among Republicans. His father has remained more ideologically pure, but he opposes abortion, which could be considered a freedom-attacking position. Beyond these two, let's consider a hypothetical human politician who espouses views even more libertarian than Ron Paul. We can imagine, during times of emergency, he or she may be tempted to take actions that do not conform strictly to libertarianism. In short, my view is that, since libertarianism can be boiled down to a few simple axioms, and it seems to be the case that libertarians want a context-free application of these axioms, a computer would be a far superior leader to implement libertarianism than a fallible, emotional human being. Libertarians should be working on an AI that can parse bills and decide whether to veto them, for instance, instead of getting excited about Rand Paul.

t3_5ndphf

CMV: The end of /r/ThePhenomenon ruined the plot.

DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT MILD SPOILERS. I saw a lot of circulation based on this story, especially: > Do not look outside. > Do not look at the sky. > Do not make noise. I loved how the story progressed initially with complex characters like Lucinda and her power greed, Sharon and her very rough attitude, Emil's suspicious actions, how Longmire's leadership could help survivors, Jesse's little breaks of humour and 'human-ness', Dr Rafei's brutality, and so on. It was intense and enthralling and I loved how these characters would pan out. But, why later in the story, was so much left unexplained? Sharon's character was never explained, Sarya's life was never explained, and characters like Victor and Angela just jumped out of nowhere with plotlines that seemed to promise a lot of insight on the Tall Ones and the rest of the Phenomena - especially in terms of their origins, nature, and why they exist as they do. But it just left out too much in haphazard plotline ends (like Victor's experimentation on him, and Angela's fate due to her discovery). If anything, Jesse and Longmire had the most coherent stories in terms of plotlines - the way Jesse began to found a new civilisation that explored the post-apocalypse world, but then it jumps to a final plotline millennia ahead with no real closure on any of the Phenomenon - the beings, their intentions, their origins, why people experienced similar dreams/'deaths', why some of the Phenomenon were benevolent towards humans, the reasons for the temples, Zoe's unfinished research, what happened to those 'converted' into Phenomenon beings... This can go on and on, but this is what comes to mind. In short, I feel let down about this. The first half or so of the chapters were absolutely incredible, and I couldn't stop reading, and felt really disappointed with the end chapters and - in a way - I want to missing something substantial to make the entire story incredible. So, that's my view. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The end of /r/ThePhenomenon ruined the plot. DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT MILD SPOILERS. I saw a lot of circulation based on this story, especially: > Do not look outside. > Do not look at the sky. > Do not make noise. I loved how the story progressed initially with complex characters like Lucinda and her power greed, Sharon and her very rough attitude, Emil's suspicious actions, how Longmire's leadership could help survivors, Jesse's little breaks of humour and 'human-ness', Dr Rafei's brutality, and so on. It was intense and enthralling and I loved how these characters would pan out. But, why later in the story, was so much left unexplained? Sharon's character was never explained, Sarya's life was never explained, and characters like Victor and Angela just jumped out of nowhere with plotlines that seemed to promise a lot of insight on the Tall Ones and the rest of the Phenomena - especially in terms of their origins, nature, and why they exist as they do. But it just left out too much in haphazard plotline ends (like Victor's experimentation on him, and Angela's fate due to her discovery). If anything, Jesse and Longmire had the most coherent stories in terms of plotlines - the way Jesse began to found a new civilisation that explored the post-apocalypse world, but then it jumps to a final plotline millennia ahead with no real closure on any of the Phenomenon - the beings, their intentions, their origins, why people experienced similar dreams/'deaths', why some of the Phenomenon were benevolent towards humans, the reasons for the temples, Zoe's unfinished research, what happened to those 'converted' into Phenomenon beings... This can go on and on, but this is what comes to mind. In short, I feel let down about this. The first half or so of the chapters were absolutely incredible, and I couldn't stop reading, and felt really disappointed with the end chapters and - in a way - I want to missing something substantial to make the entire story incredible. So, that's my view.

t3_2f3zol

CMV: Affirmitive action is racist, and does nothing to create a more equal, more fair, or more desirable world.

I believe that Affirmitive action (institutional preferential treatment of racial/gender groups in any context) is detrimental to society. I think that people who support this are conflating equal representation (what affirmitive action purports to achieve) with equal opportunity (a sensible goal of a civilized nation), and that these are *not* equivalent. Many people also claim that it is "not racist/sexist," to give preferential treatment to certain races/sexes, which is obviously untrue. There might be some way that racism or sexism in this case could be called a necessary evil, but I can't see it. Maybe someone else can. I can't help but think of AA supporters as racists, but I know most of them really are not, so CMV, please! _____ > *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: Affirmitive action is racist, and does nothing to create a more equal, more fair, or more desirable world. I believe that Affirmitive action (institutional preferential treatment of racial/gender groups in any context) is detrimental to society. I think that people who support this are conflating equal representation (what affirmitive action purports to achieve) with equal opportunity (a sensible goal of a civilized nation), and that these are *not* equivalent. Many people also claim that it is "not racist/sexist," to give preferential treatment to certain races/sexes, which is obviously untrue. There might be some way that racism or sexism in this case could be called a necessary evil, but I can't see it. Maybe someone else can. I can't help but think of AA supporters as racists, but I know most of them really are not, so CMV, please!

t3_5uxo2s

CMV: Islam will conquer Europe

I would very much like to have my views changed on this topic. So, I live in the UK and know a number of Muslims. They're decent people and I have no problem with them. That said, the Muslim population of the UK has roughly doubled in size every 10 years. It was 5% in 2011, 2.4 in 2001 and so on and so forth. I think I would like to be convinced that Islam is not a threat and that British Muslims will integrate into society, but I'm not convinced. The UK currently spends millions through our secret services monitoring radicals. If only 1 in 100 Muslims is radical/violent, the numbers are huge for the UK. The rest of the Muslim population may not be violent, -BUT, and this is a key point, are they condemning other Muslims violence, and will they continue to do so? Muslims necessarily believe in Islam, if they didn't they wouldn't be Muslim. Therefore, if the Quran says 'kill people who insult the prophet' how many Muslims are really going to be that upset if another Muslim kills an infidel? British Muslims are largely conservative and illiberal. Other Brits have a declining birth rate but British Muslims have large families. By 2021 there is no reason the population couldn't be 10%, and by 2031 20%. This might sound like irrational fear but history has countless examples of countries that were once Christian and are now Muslim. Lebanon is the latest to head in that direction. Minorities in those countries are not treated well at all. What's happening in the UK is also happening in Spain, Germany, Sweden, and France. So why wouldn't Islam become the dominant religion in Europe?

CMV: Islam will conquer Europe. I would very much like to have my views changed on this topic. So, I live in the UK and know a number of Muslims. They're decent people and I have no problem with them. That said, the Muslim population of the UK has roughly doubled in size every 10 years. It was 5% in 2011, 2.4 in 2001 and so on and so forth. I think I would like to be convinced that Islam is not a threat and that British Muslims will integrate into society, but I'm not convinced. The UK currently spends millions through our secret services monitoring radicals. If only 1 in 100 Muslims is radical/violent, the numbers are huge for the UK. The rest of the Muslim population may not be violent, -BUT, and this is a key point, are they condemning other Muslims violence, and will they continue to do so? Muslims necessarily believe in Islam, if they didn't they wouldn't be Muslim. Therefore, if the Quran says 'kill people who insult the prophet' how many Muslims are really going to be that upset if another Muslim kills an infidel? British Muslims are largely conservative and illiberal. Other Brits have a declining birth rate but British Muslims have large families. By 2021 there is no reason the population couldn't be 10%, and by 2031 20%. This might sound like irrational fear but history has countless examples of countries that were once Christian and are now Muslim. Lebanon is the latest to head in that direction. Minorities in those countries are not treated well at all. What's happening in the UK is also happening in Spain, Germany, Sweden, and France. So why wouldn't Islam become the dominant religion in Europe?

t3_6ot3bn

CMV: Dentists (DDS/DMD) are not doctors

I am not talking about oral or maxillofacial surgeons who have got MDs, or those who have done accredited surgical training after their DDS/DMD. I'm talking about the graduates from 4 year dental programs who don't do any medical training afterwards. Some will say that dental degrees 'basically cover what medical degrees cover, but we specialise before we graduate', but I don't think that is true at all. Dental degree's coverage of general medicine/surgery: half a year of lectures. No time spent seeing gen med/surg patients in hospital. No time spent learning to take histories or examine gen med/surg patients. Medical degree: at least 4 years (up to 6 in some countries) of gen med/surg teaching, with full time clinical attachments. In Australia, you're also required to do 2 years as a junior medical officer (more rotations) before you even get onto a specialty training program, unless it's psychiatry. A dentist couldn't look at a chest x-ray or an ECG and see the STEMI/air under the diaphragm. That would be inexcusable for any doctor, but it's acceptable in dentists because they are not doctors. As a last point, all surgeons are doctors. Dentists are not doctors, so they are not surgeons. _____ > *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: Dentists (DDS/DMD) are not doctors. I am not talking about oral or maxillofacial surgeons who have got MDs, or those who have done accredited surgical training after their DDS/DMD. I'm talking about the graduates from 4 year dental programs who don't do any medical training afterwards. Some will say that dental degrees 'basically cover what medical degrees cover, but we specialise before we graduate', but I don't think that is true at all. Dental degree's coverage of general medicine/surgery: half a year of lectures. No time spent seeing gen med/surg patients in hospital. No time spent learning to take histories or examine gen med/surg patients. Medical degree: at least 4 years (up to 6 in some countries) of gen med/surg teaching, with full time clinical attachments. In Australia, you're also required to do 2 years as a junior medical officer (more rotations) before you even get onto a specialty training program, unless it's psychiatry. A dentist couldn't look at a chest x-ray or an ECG and see the STEMI/air under the diaphragm. That would be inexcusable for any doctor, but it's acceptable in dentists because they are not doctors. As a last point, all surgeons are doctors. Dentists are not doctors, so they are not surgeons.

t3_21mui0

CMV: As an international student, the US is becoming too dangerous for me to consider it as a viable option for university

I just finished reading about the university student who was surrounded by six police officers who were in plain clothes and not properly identified. If things had not been handled properly by the girl, there is a high chance that she would have been shot dead. And this is not the only case where police have overstepped their bounds. I read them frequently: Cops kill man in bed, cops make accidental arrest resulting in sever injury, false tip leading to police raid resulting in death. I''m sorry, but as much as education is looking attractive in America, I for sure don't want to be at the wrong end of the police shotgun . 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: As an international student, the US is becoming too dangerous for me to consider it as a viable option for university. I just finished reading about the university student who was surrounded by six police officers who were in plain clothes and not properly identified. If things had not been handled properly by the girl, there is a high chance that she would have been shot dead. And this is not the only case where police have overstepped their bounds. I read them frequently: Cops kill man in bed, cops make accidental arrest resulting in sever injury, false tip leading to police raid resulting in death. I''m sorry, but as much as education is looking attractive in America, I for sure don't want to be at the wrong end of the police shotgun . CMV

t3_2obun2

CMV: It makes more sense to refer to Sheik as a 'he' than a 'she'

In most Super Smash Bros media, the Legend Of Zelda character Sheik is referred to as a woman. Feminine pronouns are used in place of masculine ones. Most players also seem to refer to Sheik as a woman as well. I argue that Sheik is a male character, and should be referred to as such. When Sheik appears, it's not just Zelda in a generic disguise of unknown gender. If you encountered a mysterious hooded person for example, that we later learned was Zelda, that mysterious person would make sense to be referred to as a woman. However, that's not what happens. Zelda adopts an entire persona. Within the world of Hyrule, Sheik is a fictional character that she invented. That character is clearly male. He has well define pectoral muscles and no breasts and a body type different from Zelda. She achieved this transformation using magic, not just by throwing on a costume and using chest binding. Even in the few instances where Sheik is mentioned by other characters, he is described as a guy. Consider this quote from Princess Ruto: > I'm sure you've already seen it! Zora's Domain--totally frozen! A young man named Sheik saved me from under the ice... But my father and the other Zoras have not...yet... I want to save them all! I want to save Zora's Domain! And later: > If you see Sheik, please give him my thanks, OK? If I went to watch a school play, and the Peter Pan was played by a woman, that would not make Peter a woman. We would still refer to Peter as a man, because we are referring to the character, not to the actor. This is the same. Zelda is acting, Sheik is the character, and the character is male. _____ > *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 makes more sense to refer to Sheik as a 'he' than a 'she'. In most Super Smash Bros media, the Legend Of Zelda character Sheik is referred to as a woman. Feminine pronouns are used in place of masculine ones. Most players also seem to refer to Sheik as a woman as well. I argue that Sheik is a male character, and should be referred to as such. When Sheik appears, it's not just Zelda in a generic disguise of unknown gender. If you encountered a mysterious hooded person for example, that we later learned was Zelda, that mysterious person would make sense to be referred to as a woman. However, that's not what happens. Zelda adopts an entire persona. Within the world of Hyrule, Sheik is a fictional character that she invented. That character is clearly male. He has well define pectoral muscles and no breasts and a body type different from Zelda. She achieved this transformation using magic, not just by throwing on a costume and using chest binding. Even in the few instances where Sheik is mentioned by other characters, he is described as a guy. Consider this quote from Princess Ruto: > I'm sure you've already seen it! Zora's Domain--totally frozen! A young man named Sheik saved me from under the ice... But my father and the other Zoras have not...yet... I want to save them all! I want to save Zora's Domain! And later: > If you see Sheik, please give him my thanks, OK? If I went to watch a school play, and the Peter Pan was played by a woman, that would not make Peter a woman. We would still refer to Peter as a man, because we are referring to the character, not to the actor. This is the same. Zelda is acting, Sheik is the character, and the character is male.

t3_5rmvit

CMV: Ideological Debate: Human Rights vs American Luxury

I don't think anybody, on either side, disagrees with making/keeping America great. Human rights versus American luxury taken to the extreme was American slavery before the civil war. It was the most divided our country has been. 99.999%+ of Americans agree we ended up on the right side of history by siding with human rights. Human rights ends up being one of our biggest advantages in the World since immigrants significantly make us as great as we are. Again, during the civil rights movement, we end up on the right side of history. Current human right activists help immigrants seeking refuge from extreme circumstances that were brought upon them. They are willing to take on the risk of extremist somehow passing our vetting system. American luxury activists seem to say no. Since a small % of extremists will want to murder non-Muslims no matter the country. And/or, we have have cultivated an environment where some people will hate us enough to commit terrorist attacks in our homeland. Or, both, even though our vetting system has not allowed a significant foreign terrorist on our soil since 9/11. Either way, it is not worth the risk. I do not think that violating human right makes America great in the eyes of history/ World. I respect your educated replies, especially if you are passionate about your opinion since you seek the same outcome of making/keeping America great. I respect my friends opinions on both sides and am seeking other perspectives to bring to our debate. Tell me where I got it wrong. Tell me which side you are on and why.

CMV: Ideological Debate: Human Rights vs American Luxury. I don't think anybody, on either side, disagrees with making/keeping America great. Human rights versus American luxury taken to the extreme was American slavery before the civil war. It was the most divided our country has been. 99.999%+ of Americans agree we ended up on the right side of history by siding with human rights. Human rights ends up being one of our biggest advantages in the World since immigrants significantly make us as great as we are. Again, during the civil rights movement, we end up on the right side of history. Current human right activists help immigrants seeking refuge from extreme circumstances that were brought upon them. They are willing to take on the risk of extremist somehow passing our vetting system. American luxury activists seem to say no. Since a small % of extremists will want to murder non-Muslims no matter the country. And/or, we have have cultivated an environment where some people will hate us enough to commit terrorist attacks in our homeland. Or, both, even though our vetting system has not allowed a significant foreign terrorist on our soil since 9/11. Either way, it is not worth the risk. I do not think that violating human right makes America great in the eyes of history/ World. I respect your educated replies, especially if you are passionate about your opinion since you seek the same outcome of making/keeping America great. I respect my friends opinions on both sides and am seeking other perspectives to bring to our debate. Tell me where I got it wrong. Tell me which side you are on and why.

t3_50z90k

CMV:I believe school detention should be illegal

Don't get me wrong, students who break the rules should be punished, but I think detention is the school overstepping their boundaries. It implies that they have authority over the students while they are not at school, and that they can freely use up their time as they wish; it's basically taking another's person's time as their property. The school's authority over students should start at 8 AM and end at 5 PM or whatever their regular hours are. In general, any organization's local code of conduct should only apply within the location and timeframe they occupy. To those who will say the school is an extension of the state (which could make their rules an extension of the law), remember private schools also have detention. _____ > *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 school detention should be illegal. Don't get me wrong, students who break the rules should be punished, but I think detention is the school overstepping their boundaries. It implies that they have authority over the students while they are not at school, and that they can freely use up their time as they wish; it's basically taking another's person's time as their property. The school's authority over students should start at 8 AM and end at 5 PM or whatever their regular hours are. In general, any organization's local code of conduct should only apply within the location and timeframe they occupy. To those who will say the school is an extension of the state (which could make their rules an extension of the law), remember private schools also have detention.

t3_2156ec

I believe if the state or federal government legally requires you to have something then they should provide it. CMV

I am referring primarily to utilities but also car and health insurance. If the state says they can evict me from my home or take away my children if I don't have electricity or water, then they are making those things a legal necessity, which is the government forcing me to buy a product. So if I lose my job and can not afford these forced products, I then become guilty of crimes. If the state forces me to have car insurance to drive and earn a living and I lose my job or just can't afford to keep up, then I lose my transportation and ability to work. The simple answer is if you are making it a crime to not have something, then you should provide it, to prevent the poor from becoming criminals for simply not having enough money to keep up with all your requirements. I am not entertaining arguments about the money it would take to support an entire nation's population's utilities because the government is obviously not concerned about my (or your) money if they are forcing purchases on us, so I have no concern for theirs. EDIT: I concede the "government money is our money" point of view. However, if governments are going to mandate utilities then they need to create/own/control the utilities and use tax money to run them rather than offering tax breaks to private companies to provide utility service and then forcing us to buy the product. EDIT #2: Lot's of great arguments going on. You guys are on point today. I concede the car insurance aspect. I admit that the "Driving is a privilege" thing rules the day. (Even though I don't agree with the concept) One thing I need to clarify is the overall point. My point isn't that I WANT government to provide things. My point is that I do NOT want government saying I MUST have something, but if they are going to, then they should provide it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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!*

I believe if the state or federal government legally requires you to have something then they should provide it. CMV. I am referring primarily to utilities but also car and health insurance. If the state says they can evict me from my home or take away my children if I don't have electricity or water, then they are making those things a legal necessity, which is the government forcing me to buy a product. So if I lose my job and can not afford these forced products, I then become guilty of crimes. If the state forces me to have car insurance to drive and earn a living and I lose my job or just can't afford to keep up, then I lose my transportation and ability to work. The simple answer is if you are making it a crime to not have something, then you should provide it, to prevent the poor from becoming criminals for simply not having enough money to keep up with all your requirements. I am not entertaining arguments about the money it would take to support an entire nation's population's utilities because the government is obviously not concerned about my (or your) money if they are forcing purchases on us, so I have no concern for theirs. EDIT: I concede the "government money is our money" point of view. However, if governments are going to mandate utilities then they need to create/own/control the utilities and use tax money to run them rather than offering tax breaks to private companies to provide utility service and then forcing us to buy the product. EDIT #2: Lot's of great arguments going on. You guys are on point today. I concede the car insurance aspect. I admit that the "Driving is a privilege" thing rules the day. (Even though I don't agree with the concept) One thing I need to clarify is the overall point. My point isn't that I WANT government to provide things. My point is that I do NOT want government saying I MUST have something, but if they are going to, then they should provide it.

t3_3aeyn7

CMV: Steam refunds should be allowed fro any playtime for episodic games

Valve recently added the ability for customers to ask for a refund for a game that has a playtime of under 2 hours among other variables. But in the case of games working with the episodes system such as The Walking Dead or The Wolf Among Us, We should be able to play the first episode more than a couple of hours and still be eligible for a refund. Why ? Because these types of games are story-driven and Gameplay isn't their strong suit. If you finish the first episode in 3 hours, you just finished the first "chapter" of the game but won't be able to experience the end of the story. 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: Steam refunds should be allowed fro any playtime for episodic games. Valve recently added the ability for customers to ask for a refund for a game that has a playtime of under 2 hours among other variables. But in the case of games working with the episodes system such as The Walking Dead or The Wolf Among Us, We should be able to play the first episode more than a couple of hours and still be eligible for a refund. Why ? Because these types of games are story-driven and Gameplay isn't their strong suit. If you finish the first episode in 3 hours, you just finished the first "chapter" of the game but won't be able to experience the end of the story. CMV

t3_1ftug0

I believe that the US Government has too much power, and does not not care about abiding by the laws restraining it, and at this point, with the media reporting and then forgetting about scandals every week, there is nothing that could rally the enough people to change anything, CMV.

With the recent scandal regarding the NSA's acquisition of data from Verizon, the Patriot Act, the Obama Administration's liberal use of drones and their ability to get away with killing 4 American citizens with impunity, the expansion of the use of drones for US surveillance, the US court's apathy and allowance of unwarranted wiretapping, and a plethora of other atrocities I'm sure I'm leaving out, along with the fact that the American people are too easily distracted by short term entertainment and social media to invest any time in gathering information on what the government is doing, and too easily distracted from these issues to care about going out en masse to protest for their 4th amendment rights, I just can't be convinced that there is anything that will be done to limit the government's power from the people, and the government will most definitely not change things themselves.

I believe that the US Government has too much power, and does not not care about abiding by the laws restraining it, and at this point, with the media reporting and then forgetting about scandals every week, there is nothing that could rally the enough people to change anything, CMV. With the recent scandal regarding the NSA's acquisition of data from Verizon, the Patriot Act, the Obama Administration's liberal use of drones and their ability to get away with killing 4 American citizens with impunity, the expansion of the use of drones for US surveillance, the US court's apathy and allowance of unwarranted wiretapping, and a plethora of other atrocities I'm sure I'm leaving out, along with the fact that the American people are too easily distracted by short term entertainment and social media to invest any time in gathering information on what the government is doing, and too easily distracted from these issues to care about going out en masse to protest for their 4th amendment rights, I just can't be convinced that there is anything that will be done to limit the government's power from the people, and the government will most definitely not change things themselves.

t3_2dg6ti

CMV: All lawyers and courtrooms should be abolished, and sentencing for criminals only carried out by a panel of three judges.

All criminals accused of a crime are sentenced by a panel of 3 judges who are provided all the evidence required, access to the accused social network feed, and a personal interview with the accused. The judges base their verdict on: -The legal/logical aspect of the evidence and crime (Did they do it or not?) -The social and mental wellbeing of the accused (Did other social/cultural factors indirectly contribute to the crime) -The personal attitude of the accused towards their crime (Are they coldly oblivious/nonchalant or are they a decent human being who made a mistake?) Our current bloated legal system has too many loopholes, redundancies, and obstacles that it is near impossible to see the humanity behind most of the accused. Instead of providing a judge with a list of every bad thing a person has done and encouraging someone else to speak for them, we use this system to encourage seeing the true person behind the crime and sentence accordingly. EDIT: I realize "provided all the evidence required" is extremely unstable and ambiguous. I'll admit I hadn't thought that part through that much. I suppose I attributed it to some hand waving that along with this new legal system there would also be new evidence collection methods that were fair and impartial. I am not implying that it is up to the defendant to provide his own evidence. Perhaps a neutral evidence gathering body would be necessary. EDIT2: Although I have been proven mostly wrong and have changed my view, I would still like to pursue this idea with discussion, so can we agree that if this system were implemented, no other already established legal loopholes and current legal system would also not exist? i.e. refuting my point by saying, "you're stupid, without a lawyer, the defendant can't object!" Well, obviously the normal courtroom proceedings would not exist. Could this work?

CMV: All lawyers and courtrooms should be abolished, and sentencing for criminals only carried out by a panel of three judges. All criminals accused of a crime are sentenced by a panel of 3 judges who are provided all the evidence required, access to the accused social network feed, and a personal interview with the accused. The judges base their verdict on: -The legal/logical aspect of the evidence and crime (Did they do it or not?) -The social and mental wellbeing of the accused (Did other social/cultural factors indirectly contribute to the crime) -The personal attitude of the accused towards their crime (Are they coldly oblivious/nonchalant or are they a decent human being who made a mistake?) Our current bloated legal system has too many loopholes, redundancies, and obstacles that it is near impossible to see the humanity behind most of the accused. Instead of providing a judge with a list of every bad thing a person has done and encouraging someone else to speak for them, we use this system to encourage seeing the true person behind the crime and sentence accordingly. EDIT: I realize "provided all the evidence required" is extremely unstable and ambiguous. I'll admit I hadn't thought that part through that much. I suppose I attributed it to some hand waving that along with this new legal system there would also be new evidence collection methods that were fair and impartial. I am not implying that it is up to the defendant to provide his own evidence. Perhaps a neutral evidence gathering body would be necessary. EDIT2: Although I have been proven mostly wrong and have changed my view, I would still like to pursue this idea with discussion, so can we agree that if this system were implemented, no other already established legal loopholes and current legal system would also not exist? i.e. refuting my point by saying, "you're stupid, without a lawyer, the defendant can't object!" Well, obviously the normal courtroom proceedings would not exist. Could this work?

t3_32x5bg

CMV: At offices with a dress code, Casual Monday is better than Casual Friday if you can only choose one.

I work at an office with a dress code that is, like most offices, business casual. When I first began here, they told me about Casual Monday, which is neat, but I was a bit bummed it wasn't Casual Friday. We have Casual Mondays every week no matter what. If the company meets or beats is weekly profit goal, we get a Casual Friday. Winter months are our slowest time, so the past few weeks have not had Casual Friday but have maintained Casual Monday. I've discovered, to my surprise, that I am more relieved and prefer to keep my Casual Monday more than the loss of my Casual Friday. By Friday, I'm in a good mood. The work week is coming to an end and I have two free days to look forward to. I'm thinking about all the fun and relaxing stuff I'm going to do; I'm going to sleep in, run, read, watch movies and play vidya. In other words, it's very easy for me to weather the "cost" of having to dress a little nicer - which takes longer and results in more dry-cleaning - on Friday than on Monday. On Mondays, I am dragging ass. I don't want to wake up at ass o'clock in the morning for the next five days, there is a slew of work to be done, I have today's and the rest of the week's errands to plan, and basically all the minor hazards of adulthood that add up. Being able to relax a bit on the clothes front - to not worry about those pantyhose or if that shirt is ironed or whatever - is a small relaxation that goes a long way. I feel like I get to wade back into the work waters and take a more enthusiastic approach to the rest of the day because a tiny bit of it is still mine. I am not super married to this preference, but it's one I have acquired over the past several months. I've just noticed it's way more of a relief each Monday morning to remember I can wear normal people clothes than it is a bummer to know, yeah, I have to dress up today, but who cares? Tomorrow I can do what I want. I'd love to have both, but if I could only have one, I would probably stick with Casual Monday. _____ > *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: At offices with a dress code, Casual Monday is better than Casual Friday if you can only choose one. I work at an office with a dress code that is, like most offices, business casual. When I first began here, they told me about Casual Monday, which is neat, but I was a bit bummed it wasn't Casual Friday. We have Casual Mondays every week no matter what. If the company meets or beats is weekly profit goal, we get a Casual Friday. Winter months are our slowest time, so the past few weeks have not had Casual Friday but have maintained Casual Monday. I've discovered, to my surprise, that I am more relieved and prefer to keep my Casual Monday more than the loss of my Casual Friday. By Friday, I'm in a good mood. The work week is coming to an end and I have two free days to look forward to. I'm thinking about all the fun and relaxing stuff I'm going to do; I'm going to sleep in, run, read, watch movies and play vidya. In other words, it's very easy for me to weather the "cost" of having to dress a little nicer - which takes longer and results in more dry-cleaning - on Friday than on Monday. On Mondays, I am dragging ass. I don't want to wake up at ass o'clock in the morning for the next five days, there is a slew of work to be done, I have today's and the rest of the week's errands to plan, and basically all the minor hazards of adulthood that add up. Being able to relax a bit on the clothes front - to not worry about those pantyhose or if that shirt is ironed or whatever - is a small relaxation that goes a long way. I feel like I get to wade back into the work waters and take a more enthusiastic approach to the rest of the day because a tiny bit of it is still mine. I am not super married to this preference, but it's one I have acquired over the past several months. I've just noticed it's way more of a relief each Monday morning to remember I can wear normal people clothes than it is a bummer to know, yeah, I have to dress up today, but who cares? Tomorrow I can do what I want. I'd love to have both, but if I could only have one, I would probably stick with Casual Monday.

t3_2693r2

CMV: I don't need an iMac if I have a Windows PC.

Hello! I'm going to soon build a computer that can run Windows 7 for gaming/general. But I'd also like to get an iMac (desktop mac) someday too. But the problem is, I feel like if I buy an iMac to have while owning a PC, I'd have no reason to use the Mac and I'd just be wasting money. I know there's a lot of people who argue that Mac is better than PC, or vice-versa. I just want to know why I would want to have both a Mac and a PC. Can someone change my view and tell me about the good features that are exclusive to Macs, specifically to iMacs instead of MacBooks/Macbook Pros/MacBook Airs? 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: I don't need an iMac if I have a Windows PC. Hello! I'm going to soon build a computer that can run Windows 7 for gaming/general. But I'd also like to get an iMac (desktop mac) someday too. But the problem is, I feel like if I buy an iMac to have while owning a PC, I'd have no reason to use the Mac and I'd just be wasting money. I know there's a lot of people who argue that Mac is better than PC, or vice-versa. I just want to know why I would want to have both a Mac and a PC. Can someone change my view and tell me about the good features that are exclusive to Macs, specifically to iMacs instead of MacBooks/Macbook Pros/MacBook Airs? Thanks!

t3_3gapde

CMV: The best way to browse Reddit is Sort by Conterversial

I believe the best way to read any post on reddit is Conterversial. Choosing this method allows you to see the opinions that are being upvotes AND downvoted the most. When you browse by best or top, you only see the opinions that have been heavily upvoted, and the responses will be very biased depending on the subreddit. When you sort by conteversial however, you get to see what kind of comments are having an impact on everyone, and those comments tend to be the most insightful. 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: The best way to browse Reddit is Sort by Conterversial. I believe the best way to read any post on reddit is Conterversial. Choosing this method allows you to see the opinions that are being upvotes AND downvoted the most. When you browse by best or top, you only see the opinions that have been heavily upvoted, and the responses will be very biased depending on the subreddit. When you sort by conteversial however, you get to see what kind of comments are having an impact on everyone, and those comments tend to be the most insightful. CMV!

t3_5khu9d

CMV: Conservative on global warming - why cut emissions? Not your ordinary global warming/climate change post.

I'll keep it short: Republicans get a lot of hate for being passive on global warming. One strange view that I have as a conservative, is that I strongly believe in the existence of climate change. The facts are overwhelmingly showing that climate change is not only occurring, but speeding up too. The only facts that climate deniers seem to provide are "oh, but scientists have been wrong before!" or "haha, Al Gore's predictions!" or "look at the ice cap!". However, I don't think we (speaking from the perspective of the U.S.) should be going crazy slashing oil and coal. Inhibiting our own economic growth isn't going to help when bigger polluters like China and India, as developing countries, are *completely exempt* from U.N. agreements and treaties. The Dakota Acess Pipeline is a good example; stopping one pipeline, out of hundreds already in use, is somehow going to help save our planet?! Surely we're smart enough to find solutions that are both environmentally and economically beneficial. Next, I'll direct your attention to [this](http://climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/43_24_g-co2-l.jpg). In fact, that's outdated info - we're already well past 420 ppm CO2 today, the graph shows us at 380. The time for regressive "cut-back" solutions like a carbon tax is far past; this might have worked if we tried in 1980. Furthermore, we could already be past the "point of no return" in regards to positive feedback loops (Example - methane loop: temperature warms -> permafrost melts -> releases methane -> warms temperature... etc). The most recent studies have also shown that even if the world cut emissions to ZERO (which is impossible), TODAY, the earth would still continue to warm. My view is that what we should be doing is pushing our efforts into technology and innovation to solve this issue. Examples like microalgae biofuel, or the atmospheric sulfate experiment, or other geoengineering projects can help. Change my mind - Can we really reverse global warming by not using fossil fuels - just us? Edit: Spelling errors _____ > *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: Conservative on global warming - why cut emissions? Not your ordinary global warming/climate change post. I'll keep it short: Republicans get a lot of hate for being passive on global warming. One strange view that I have as a conservative, is that I strongly believe in the existence of climate change. The facts are overwhelmingly showing that climate change is not only occurring, but speeding up too. The only facts that climate deniers seem to provide are "oh, but scientists have been wrong before!" or "haha, Al Gore's predictions!" or "look at the ice cap!". However, I don't think we (speaking from the perspective of the U.S.) should be going crazy slashing oil and coal. Inhibiting our own economic growth isn't going to help when bigger polluters like China and India, as developing countries, are *completely exempt* from U.N. agreements and treaties. The Dakota Acess Pipeline is a good example; stopping one pipeline, out of hundreds already in use, is somehow going to help save our planet?! Surely we're smart enough to find solutions that are both environmentally and economically beneficial. Next, I'll direct your attention to [this](http://climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/43_24_g-co2-l.jpg). In fact, that's outdated info - we're already well past 420 ppm CO2 today, the graph shows us at 380. The time for regressive "cut-back" solutions like a carbon tax is far past; this might have worked if we tried in 1980. Furthermore, we could already be past the "point of no return" in regards to positive feedback loops (Example - methane loop: temperature warms -> permafrost melts -> releases methane -> warms temperature... etc). The most recent studies have also shown that even if the world cut emissions to ZERO (which is impossible), TODAY, the earth would still continue to warm. My view is that what we should be doing is pushing our efforts into technology and innovation to solve this issue. Examples like microalgae biofuel, or the atmospheric sulfate experiment, or other geoengineering projects can help. Change my mind - Can we really reverse global warming by not using fossil fuels - just us? Edit: Spelling errors

t3_6sibmf

CMV: The World Would be Better off if all of it were Westernized.

To an extent it already is and already has become better off. Globalization, Capitalism, and The Enlightenment have basically spread to every corner of the world. Instant communication, incredibly quick travel, insane medical breakthroughs, and a trend of exponential technological advancement on the whole are al really badass and have for the most part been enabled by the Western World Order. The rise of democracy not only as a governmental concept but as a social one also being a huge part of all this. But I don't think it has gone far enough, specifically, when it comes to the Middle East and Russia. The world as a whole still has many backwards social codes that were never thrown out by Imperialism, and for all the technological progress we have made, secularism doesn't seem to be spreading alongside it as well as it should be. Socially, there are many ways I think we could go about westernizing the world. Appropriating the Hijab to make it more of a fashion choice as opposed to holding any cultural or religious significance. Funding secular societies and thinkers in the middle east. Spreading and encouraging counter culture in Russia, etc. Economically, I think we're already getting the hang of things, it's mainly the culture war I'm concerned about. Which is really equally as important, as the culture of freedom and innovation in the US protected and encouraged by the government is really what has led to so many innovations here. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The World Would be Better off if all of it were Westernized. To an extent it already is and already has become better off. Globalization, Capitalism, and The Enlightenment have basically spread to every corner of the world. Instant communication, incredibly quick travel, insane medical breakthroughs, and a trend of exponential technological advancement on the whole are al really badass and have for the most part been enabled by the Western World Order. The rise of democracy not only as a governmental concept but as a social one also being a huge part of all this. But I don't think it has gone far enough, specifically, when it comes to the Middle East and Russia. The world as a whole still has many backwards social codes that were never thrown out by Imperialism, and for all the technological progress we have made, secularism doesn't seem to be spreading alongside it as well as it should be. Socially, there are many ways I think we could go about westernizing the world. Appropriating the Hijab to make it more of a fashion choice as opposed to holding any cultural or religious significance. Funding secular societies and thinkers in the middle east. Spreading and encouraging counter culture in Russia, etc. Economically, I think we're already getting the hang of things, it's mainly the culture war I'm concerned about. Which is really equally as important, as the culture of freedom and innovation in the US protected and encouraged by the government is really what has led to so many innovations here.

t3_28u0li

CMV: the US would dominate the world in soccer if more African and Hispanic Americans were exposed to the sport at a young age.

I like watching soccer but I can't help but feel we are playing with one hand tied behind our back. Soccer seems to involve a lot of athleticism and I can't help but wonder what we would be if more Hispanic Americans, and especially black Americans played the sport. I truly feel we would be a soccer powerhouse, rivaling countries like Spain, Brazil, Argentina and Germany. The trouble is some of countries best athletes are denied the chance to play at an early age. I lived part of my child in the heart of a major city, and never saw soccer being played in the local parks. When my family moved to the suburbs, soccer seemed a staple of life out there. Just like I saw courts of black kids dunking over each other in the city, I saw large fields of white kids kicking soccer balls to each other. I'm not sure what came first, this perception or the reality, but it is detrimental to our competitiveness in soccer on the international. To be clear I'm making two claims: 1) if more minorities, especially black kids, were exposed to soccer early, they'd play it their whole lives 2) these athletes would eventually make US soccer most dominating brand and team of soccer in the world. 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: the US would dominate the world in soccer if more African and Hispanic Americans were exposed to the sport at a young age. I like watching soccer but I can't help but feel we are playing with one hand tied behind our back. Soccer seems to involve a lot of athleticism and I can't help but wonder what we would be if more Hispanic Americans, and especially black Americans played the sport. I truly feel we would be a soccer powerhouse, rivaling countries like Spain, Brazil, Argentina and Germany. The trouble is some of countries best athletes are denied the chance to play at an early age. I lived part of my child in the heart of a major city, and never saw soccer being played in the local parks. When my family moved to the suburbs, soccer seemed a staple of life out there. Just like I saw courts of black kids dunking over each other in the city, I saw large fields of white kids kicking soccer balls to each other. I'm not sure what came first, this perception or the reality, but it is detrimental to our competitiveness in soccer on the international. To be clear I'm making two claims: 1) if more minorities, especially black kids, were exposed to soccer early, they'd play it their whole lives 2) these athletes would eventually make US soccer most dominating brand and team of soccer in the world. CMV...

t3_2ryj6z

CMV: marijuana enriches life; it's effects are so beneficial that you should smoke regularly to improve yourself

Marijuana has many benefits: increased mood, relieves depression, makes you more social, eases anxiety and stress, improves sleep, makes you happy, makes you content with yourself, improves creativity. I experienced this first hand. Marijuana has many positive effects, those described above amongst them, and those effects make that marijuana is of added value to life. Smoking the green helps battle challenges that many people experience everyday, like stress, anxiety, self-consciousness. These effects are so beneficial that I'd recommend everyone to smoke marijuana everyday*. CMV *E1: If you are allergic to marijuana, this doesn't apply to you. Allergies suck, and you will want to avoid them.

CMV: marijuana enriches life; it's effects are so beneficial that you should smoke regularly to improve yourself. Marijuana has many benefits: increased mood, relieves depression, makes you more social, eases anxiety and stress, improves sleep, makes you happy, makes you content with yourself, improves creativity. I experienced this first hand. Marijuana has many positive effects, those described above amongst them, and those effects make that marijuana is of added value to life. Smoking the green helps battle challenges that many people experience everyday, like stress, anxiety, self-consciousness. These effects are so beneficial that I'd recommend everyone to smoke marijuana everyday*. CMV *E1: If you are allergic to marijuana, this doesn't apply to you. Allergies suck, and you will want to avoid them.

t3_32yk29

CMV: The Marvel movies are far, far better than the DC ones both past, present and future.

I'll admit to a bias as I'm more of a Marvel fan in general (comic reader for 20 years) but I honestly think from a filmmaking standpoint, Marvel Studios has it all over Warner Bros and DC. I'll count all Marvel movies starting from Iron Man and all DC movies from Batman Begins (but since there's been more Marvel ones, DC defenders can reach back if it'll help their argument). It seems like DC is confusing dour and overly-serious with portentous and epic. Superman is a farm boy from Kansas raised by two loving parents who wears blue and red tights... why does his movies seem like footage from a Marilyn Manson video? Why in a superhero movie ostensibly for all audiences are their hundreds to thousands of civilian casualties, and why would it be a big deal to see Superman kill the enemy when we haven't even seen his code against killing yet? I like the Dark Knight trilogy, but you also have to admit there are some huge plot holes and flaws, performances aside. Heath Ledger alone elevates that whole trilogy about four quality points on a ten point scale. I won't get into Green Lantern because I don't want to be mean. EDIT: I'm utilizing "recent" Marvel and DC films for clarity. I don't want to drag in Batman and Robin or Elektra. Iron Man and Batman Begins both seemed like the first time both studios really began to make an effort and take things seriously. Also, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider and X-Men are Marvel characters, not Marvel Studios movies. _____ > *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 Marvel movies are far, far better than the DC ones both past, present and future. I'll admit to a bias as I'm more of a Marvel fan in general (comic reader for 20 years) but I honestly think from a filmmaking standpoint, Marvel Studios has it all over Warner Bros and DC. I'll count all Marvel movies starting from Iron Man and all DC movies from Batman Begins (but since there's been more Marvel ones, DC defenders can reach back if it'll help their argument). It seems like DC is confusing dour and overly-serious with portentous and epic. Superman is a farm boy from Kansas raised by two loving parents who wears blue and red tights... why does his movies seem like footage from a Marilyn Manson video? Why in a superhero movie ostensibly for all audiences are their hundreds to thousands of civilian casualties, and why would it be a big deal to see Superman kill the enemy when we haven't even seen his code against killing yet? I like the Dark Knight trilogy, but you also have to admit there are some huge plot holes and flaws, performances aside. Heath Ledger alone elevates that whole trilogy about four quality points on a ten point scale. I won't get into Green Lantern because I don't want to be mean. EDIT: I'm utilizing "recent" Marvel and DC films for clarity. I don't want to drag in Batman and Robin or Elektra. Iron Man and Batman Begins both seemed like the first time both studios really began to make an effort and take things seriously. Also, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider and X-Men are Marvel characters, not Marvel Studios movies.

t3_2tzxz2

CMV: I find babies/toddlers/children who run around naked horrible and innapropriate.

On the beach in particular this really gets to me, not sure why. Sure if a baby/toddler is getting changed and is naked with their family for a few minutes that's okay. But it’s when they’re sitting in the sand, running to and from the sea, just generally being in public naked I find awful. If an adult (on a public, non-nude beach) ran around naked and were exposing their body, people would feel it was inappropriate, as their families and children see in real life a woman's boobs or a man's penis, or asses, they’d want to protect their children from seeing it. Plus they would think badly for the person for allowing themselves to be naked on a family public beach. How come babies can do it? What if a beach that day had a peado on it? Just because your child is young and innocent does not mean they can run around naked! Clothes were made to cover our bodies up, in one way or another. Why do parents feel its okay to not cover up their children? I'm very curious to hear people's opinions and the other side of this argument. **EDIT**: Just so everyone knows, I do not sexualize children, thats gross **EDIT2**: Another reason I do not like it is because it draws unnessecary attention to the children, from anyone including the creeps out there. **FINAL EDIT**: You guys all have reasonable arguments I guess, but I find personally seeing children naked makes me uncomfortable as well as other reasons Ive mentioned. Dont think my view has changed though! Thanks for contributons :)

CMV: I find babies/toddlers/children who run around naked horrible and innapropriate. On the beach in particular this really gets to me, not sure why. Sure if a baby/toddler is getting changed and is naked with their family for a few minutes that's okay. But it’s when they’re sitting in the sand, running to and from the sea, just generally being in public naked I find awful. If an adult (on a public, non-nude beach) ran around naked and were exposing their body, people would feel it was inappropriate, as their families and children see in real life a woman's boobs or a man's penis, or asses, they’d want to protect their children from seeing it. Plus they would think badly for the person for allowing themselves to be naked on a family public beach. How come babies can do it? What if a beach that day had a peado on it? Just because your child is young and innocent does not mean they can run around naked! Clothes were made to cover our bodies up, in one way or another. Why do parents feel its okay to not cover up their children? I'm very curious to hear people's opinions and the other side of this argument. **EDIT**: Just so everyone knows, I do not sexualize children, thats gross **EDIT2**: Another reason I do not like it is because it draws unnessecary attention to the children, from anyone including the creeps out there. **FINAL EDIT**: You guys all have reasonable arguments I guess, but I find personally seeing children naked makes me uncomfortable as well as other reasons Ive mentioned. Dont think my view has changed though! Thanks for contributons :)

t3_274vn4

CMV: John Oliver's attempt to support Net Neutrality by sending in "the internet's worst trolls to yell at the FCC" is certain to backfire.

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2741d1/john_oliver_wants_the_internets_worst_trolls_to/ The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is trying to pass a law that enables internet service providers to decide on which websites to give priority to. Obviously, this is going to hurt third-party companies such as YouTube, Google, and others. And, like always, the Internet's users are there to join in. But I'm surprised at the number of people that actually support John Oliver's idea of "trolling" the FCC. Sending all those vitriolic comments is gonna make our argument sound like a bunch of angsty twelve-year-olds. Just saying. I'm not sure if Oliver is being satirical or if he's trying to sabotage our case here. Just to quote /u/PaperTapir, > I really think the FCC could be on our side as long as we offer thoughtful and constructive criticism. So if this is the case, your troll comments are going to be a hindrance to progress being made in favor of net neutrality. I would hate to think that while people are spamming the FCC's phone lines and comments section with garbage, someone who had something useful to say would have their chance taken away... And /u/TheIcelander, > This is going to backfire. > > "See, all the people who oppose this are annoying children who don't have any valid concerns. BTW, when you start working for us would you like a corner office or one with a private bathroom?" So, yeah. What do you guys think? _____ > *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: John Oliver's attempt to support Net Neutrality by sending in "the internet's worst trolls to yell at the FCC" is certain to backfire. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2741d1/john_oliver_wants_the_internets_worst_trolls_to/ The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is trying to pass a law that enables internet service providers to decide on which websites to give priority to. Obviously, this is going to hurt third-party companies such as YouTube, Google, and others. And, like always, the Internet's users are there to join in. But I'm surprised at the number of people that actually support John Oliver's idea of "trolling" the FCC. Sending all those vitriolic comments is gonna make our argument sound like a bunch of angsty twelve-year-olds. Just saying. I'm not sure if Oliver is being satirical or if he's trying to sabotage our case here. Just to quote /u/PaperTapir, > I really think the FCC could be on our side as long as we offer thoughtful and constructive criticism. So if this is the case, your troll comments are going to be a hindrance to progress being made in favor of net neutrality. I would hate to think that while people are spamming the FCC's phone lines and comments section with garbage, someone who had something useful to say would have their chance taken away... And /u/TheIcelander, > This is going to backfire. > > "See, all the people who oppose this are annoying children who don't have any valid concerns. BTW, when you start working for us would you like a corner office or one with a private bathroom?" So, yeah. What do you guys think?

t3_2xj8st

CMV: Animal Liberation Front should not be classified as a terrorist group

ALF has never and hopes to never injure either humans or animals. You can't call it an ALF action if it injures a living being. How, then, are they terrorists? Or, why should "financial terrorism" even be considered terrorism? It just deligitmizes the word. No longer is it "groups that terrorize people", it's now "groups that break the law for political motives" when ALF is called terrorist. KKK? Terrorist. ALF? Naw. Bonus view: The main reason they are considered terrorist is to protect the fiscal interests of Big Ag with things like ag gag laws. _____ > *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: Animal Liberation Front should not be classified as a terrorist group. ALF has never and hopes to never injure either humans or animals. You can't call it an ALF action if it injures a living being. How, then, are they terrorists? Or, why should "financial terrorism" even be considered terrorism? It just deligitmizes the word. No longer is it "groups that terrorize people", it's now "groups that break the law for political motives" when ALF is called terrorist. KKK? Terrorist. ALF? Naw. Bonus view: The main reason they are considered terrorist is to protect the fiscal interests of Big Ag with things like ag gag laws.

t3_39onqt

CMV: It is completely OK to not have any interest in the 2015 Womens World Cup if you're a fan of men's football/soccer.

Generally speaking, I could easily change my CMV to something to the extent of "it's completely OK to not have any interest in women's sports if you're a fan of the male equivalent i.e. WNBA to the NBA." however, given the FIFA Women's World Cup is being played this month, I figure I would give more focus to that competition. I was having a conversation with a friend who is a fan of both the US National Team and the US Women's National Team, and when asked if I was going to hang out with him to see the Women's World Cup matches, I simply told him I did not have any interest in the tournament. He asked why, justifying his reasoning that if I support the Men's side, that the Women's side require just as much support from me in order to grow the sport for both sexes. While I am all for growing the sport of football/soccer in the United States, I just cannot care if the sport has success on the women's side. My simply reasoning is that the women's side of the sport is every way, shape and form, inferior to the men's side. To back up this, the USWNT was torched in a friendly in 2012 by the US Men's U-17 side with the final score being 8-2 (see more info here: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/uswnt-vs-u-17-usmnt.1939180/). On the other token, I have quite a bit of interest in our U-17 and U-20 side, knowing that we have coaches raising these players with the potential of making the main side that competes in the Gold Cup and the FIFA World Cup. I am by no means saying that young girls shouldn't go out to watch the Womens World Cup if they feel compelled to. I do know that positive, quality, female role models in the sport, or rather in any field, are needed in this day and age. However, watching women play the sport is not entertaining or interesting to me. CMV EDIT 1: I apologize for the late responses; lets just say life takes some interesting turns... EDIT 2: I think some people are taking my argument as if I am not supporting the USWNT. It's anything but. If they win the World Cup, then great, it'll help the sport out greatly domestically, and it'll be another feather in US Soccer Federation's cap. I just prefer, and thus has an interest, in the men's side of the sport. _____ > *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 completely OK to not have any interest in the 2015 Womens World Cup if you're a fan of men's football/soccer. Generally speaking, I could easily change my CMV to something to the extent of "it's completely OK to not have any interest in women's sports if you're a fan of the male equivalent i.e. WNBA to the NBA." however, given the FIFA Women's World Cup is being played this month, I figure I would give more focus to that competition. I was having a conversation with a friend who is a fan of both the US National Team and the US Women's National Team, and when asked if I was going to hang out with him to see the Women's World Cup matches, I simply told him I did not have any interest in the tournament. He asked why, justifying his reasoning that if I support the Men's side, that the Women's side require just as much support from me in order to grow the sport for both sexes. While I am all for growing the sport of football/soccer in the United States, I just cannot care if the sport has success on the women's side. My simply reasoning is that the women's side of the sport is every way, shape and form, inferior to the men's side. To back up this, the USWNT was torched in a friendly in 2012 by the US Men's U-17 side with the final score being 8-2 (see more info here: http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/uswnt-vs-u-17-usmnt.1939180/). On the other token, I have quite a bit of interest in our U-17 and U-20 side, knowing that we have coaches raising these players with the potential of making the main side that competes in the Gold Cup and the FIFA World Cup. I am by no means saying that young girls shouldn't go out to watch the Womens World Cup if they feel compelled to. I do know that positive, quality, female role models in the sport, or rather in any field, are needed in this day and age. However, watching women play the sport is not entertaining or interesting to me. CMV EDIT 1: I apologize for the late responses; lets just say life takes some interesting turns... EDIT 2: I think some people are taking my argument as if I am not supporting the USWNT. It's anything but. If they win the World Cup, then great, it'll help the sport out greatly domestically, and it'll be another feather in US Soccer Federation's cap. I just prefer, and thus has an interest, in the men's side of the sport.

t3_67tghd

CMV: Sports Teams Should Not Be Segregated By Gender

The reason men's and women's sports teams ever existed in the first place is that women weren't really allowed to intermingle with men in sports teams and that women had to form their own. However, since the US passed laws taking down discrimination based on sex, things have improved. With the rise of women in sports and the advancement of LGBT rights and recognition, it's created a sort of a dilemma. With the liberation of women from most discriminatory measures, the idea that men and women should be on separate sports team feels too antiquated. If the law is meant to create greater equality in the world of sports, wouldn't it mean not dividing men and women into separate teams? Wouldn't it make more sense for women and men to be integrated into the same team? Not to mention the whole transgender controversy has made things complicated. With biological men claiming themselves as females and biological women claiming themselves as men, it's made the gender segregation in sports complicated. It would sound much less complicated if sports weren't divided by gender and sex and that anyone from those categories can be a team together. I feel that in this era that segregation of sports teams based on sex and gender is outdated. It would be much less complicated if people got to be in one team together. I don't really see what's wrong with that.

CMV: Sports Teams Should Not Be Segregated By Gender. The reason men's and women's sports teams ever existed in the first place is that women weren't really allowed to intermingle with men in sports teams and that women had to form their own. However, since the US passed laws taking down discrimination based on sex, things have improved. With the rise of women in sports and the advancement of LGBT rights and recognition, it's created a sort of a dilemma. With the liberation of women from most discriminatory measures, the idea that men and women should be on separate sports team feels too antiquated. If the law is meant to create greater equality in the world of sports, wouldn't it mean not dividing men and women into separate teams? Wouldn't it make more sense for women and men to be integrated into the same team? Not to mention the whole transgender controversy has made things complicated. With biological men claiming themselves as females and biological women claiming themselves as men, it's made the gender segregation in sports complicated. It would sound much less complicated if sports weren't divided by gender and sex and that anyone from those categories can be a team together. I feel that in this era that segregation of sports teams based on sex and gender is outdated. It would be much less complicated if people got to be in one team together. I don't really see what's wrong with that.

t3_2vv56q

CMV: Britney Spears is just as good as Johnny Cash or Bruce Springsteen and there is no "objectively" good music. To say otherwise is just a circlejerk.

Growing up my dad was very into music, he was the type that would complain about music videos ruining music and how modern pop was too manufactured. I 100% agree he has the right to those opinions, but I think that this is totally subjective, and that his preferred artists (Johnny Cash, Springsteen, CCR, etc.) are simply preferred by a different group of people - this doesn't make them worse, just different. If I want to party to some pitbull or electronic music that I think sounds better than any of his choices I don't think it's because my choices are better, but rather because I personally like them better. I often see the argument that modern music requires less skill from the artist due to them having writers, managers, stylists, etc. This may be true but it's irrelevant. All that matters is how the music makes me feel. If some generic pop beat makes me feel happy and that is the mood I'm in at this moment that is perfect. I don't care if the person's voice has been run through 17 auto tunes or written by 10 different people, because that isn't something that enhances my enjoyment of the song. _____ > *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: Britney Spears is just as good as Johnny Cash or Bruce Springsteen and there is no "objectively" good music. To say otherwise is just a circlejerk. Growing up my dad was very into music, he was the type that would complain about music videos ruining music and how modern pop was too manufactured. I 100% agree he has the right to those opinions, but I think that this is totally subjective, and that his preferred artists (Johnny Cash, Springsteen, CCR, etc.) are simply preferred by a different group of people - this doesn't make them worse, just different. If I want to party to some pitbull or electronic music that I think sounds better than any of his choices I don't think it's because my choices are better, but rather because I personally like them better. I often see the argument that modern music requires less skill from the artist due to them having writers, managers, stylists, etc. This may be true but it's irrelevant. All that matters is how the music makes me feel. If some generic pop beat makes me feel happy and that is the mood I'm in at this moment that is perfect. I don't care if the person's voice has been run through 17 auto tunes or written by 10 different people, because that isn't something that enhances my enjoyment of the song.

t3_1vlur4

I think that there is nothing wrong with governments keeping an eye on their citizens (e.g. the NSA). CMV.

I think that the only thing wrong with the NSA is that they kept what they were doing secret from their citizens. Although I am british I am 100% sure the government here are doing a similar thing, and I don't see an issue with the government keeping an eye on everyone if it means possibly stopping some terrorist plots at their source. They can watch me stare aimlessly at reddit through my webcam if they want, but I have nothing to hide and they would quickly get bored, so whats the big deal with them 'watching' ?

I think that there is nothing wrong with governments keeping an eye on their citizens (e.g. the NSA). CMV. I think that the only thing wrong with the NSA is that they kept what they were doing secret from their citizens. Although I am british I am 100% sure the government here are doing a similar thing, and I don't see an issue with the government keeping an eye on everyone if it means possibly stopping some terrorist plots at their source. They can watch me stare aimlessly at reddit through my webcam if they want, but I have nothing to hide and they would quickly get bored, so whats the big deal with them 'watching' ?

t3_1fmrwz

I don't see how it is possible for a heaven or something equivalent to it, to exist. CMV

The only thing that makes you you is your brain. And your brain is only working because of electrical impulses. When those impulses stop working, all the memories, thoughts and beliefs are gone forever.

I don't see how it is possible for a heaven or something equivalent to it, to exist. CMV. The only thing that makes you you is your brain. And your brain is only working because of electrical impulses. When those impulses stop working, all the memories, thoughts and beliefs are gone forever.

t3_5fdiec

CMV: The overwhelming majority of injuries/deaths on train tracks are 100% avoidable and the fault of the individual.

I have heard of a lot of people who know of someone being killed/injured by a train. I understand that freak accidents happen, but the amount of stories I hear about someone "passing out on the tracks" or "their car got stuck on the tracks and they couldn't get out". What are the odds that you would pass out on or nearby the tracks while crossing them? What are the odds that your car would stop while crossing tracks AND you would be unable to get out of your car in time? Every time I've brought this up to anyone I'm always told that "it happens more than you think". But the odds are so astronomical that I can't help but feel like people are fucking with me. It seems ludicrous that you could just chalk all these up to accidents/freaks of nature. _____ > *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 overwhelming majority of injuries/deaths on train tracks are 100% avoidable and the fault of the individual. I have heard of a lot of people who know of someone being killed/injured by a train. I understand that freak accidents happen, but the amount of stories I hear about someone "passing out on the tracks" or "their car got stuck on the tracks and they couldn't get out". What are the odds that you would pass out on or nearby the tracks while crossing them? What are the odds that your car would stop while crossing tracks AND you would be unable to get out of your car in time? Every time I've brought this up to anyone I'm always told that "it happens more than you think". But the odds are so astronomical that I can't help but feel like people are fucking with me. It seems ludicrous that you could just chalk all these up to accidents/freaks of nature.

t3_1mfxm4

I don't think that insects deserve the same treatment as larger animals (primarily mammals). CMV

I am of the opinion that it is completely fine to kill an insect, but wrong to hurt an animal (for the sake of this thread, an "animal" only refers to mammals, birds, fish, lizards etc., and not insects). The main reason I am of this opinion is that insects (appear) to express very little or no pain or suffering, whilst animals do. Insects do have a less advanced nervous system, and so would feel almost no pain if crushed. I would think that it is wrong to torture an insect (e.g keep it in a glass container and cut off its limbs), but not to kill it. Of course there are probably some hypothetical grey areas, but I think that it is almost always acceptable to kill an insect, but less so an animal. CMV.

I don't think that insects deserve the same treatment as larger animals (primarily mammals). CMV. I am of the opinion that it is completely fine to kill an insect, but wrong to hurt an animal (for the sake of this thread, an "animal" only refers to mammals, birds, fish, lizards etc., and not insects). The main reason I am of this opinion is that insects (appear) to express very little or no pain or suffering, whilst animals do. Insects do have a less advanced nervous system, and so would feel almost no pain if crushed. I would think that it is wrong to torture an insect (e.g keep it in a glass container and cut off its limbs), but not to kill it. Of course there are probably some hypothetical grey areas, but I think that it is almost always acceptable to kill an insect, but less so an animal. CMV.

t3_1g05un

I do not think that gaming qualifies as a form of artistic expression. CVM

Time and again I see my "gamer" friends whittling away their lives in front of the latest Call of Duty or whatever. When I ask them about it, I get some kind of one-off explanation about how it's all art. Sure, actually making games qualifies as some kind of art, but I wouldn't sit in front of the mona lisa for 6 hours a day and consider myself a painter. Edit to clarify a little: Video games are art, but I have seen people play video games excessively to the extent where it becomes a major aspect of their lives and validate their "gaming" by stating that it is an art form. All consumption and no production negates this excuse in my opinion. **Final Edit: I didn't know what to expect from this, but holy cow am I humbled. I was in the mindset that art and art appreciation must manifest itself in the same way (i.e. If you collect paintings, you must be a painter for that to be meaningful.) I now see that any kind of art appreciation (including gaming) is bound to find another outlet. While I still do not think gaming is the pinnacle of artistic expression, I do recognize it as one now. I definitely see it as legitimate art appreciation. That was totally unexpected, reddit. Thanks for changing my view!** also: video games = complicated chess

I do not think that gaming qualifies as a form of artistic expression. CVM. Time and again I see my "gamer" friends whittling away their lives in front of the latest Call of Duty or whatever. When I ask them about it, I get some kind of one-off explanation about how it's all art. Sure, actually making games qualifies as some kind of art, but I wouldn't sit in front of the mona lisa for 6 hours a day and consider myself a painter. Edit to clarify a little: Video games are art, but I have seen people play video games excessively to the extent where it becomes a major aspect of their lives and validate their "gaming" by stating that it is an art form. All consumption and no production negates this excuse in my opinion. **Final Edit: I didn't know what to expect from this, but holy cow am I humbled. I was in the mindset that art and art appreciation must manifest itself in the same way (i.e. If you collect paintings, you must be a painter for that to be meaningful.) I now see that any kind of art appreciation (including gaming) is bound to find another outlet. While I still do not think gaming is the pinnacle of artistic expression, I do recognize it as one now. I definitely see it as legitimate art appreciation. That was totally unexpected, reddit. Thanks for changing my view!** also: video games = complicated chess

t3_29p1g4

CMV: If humans made contact with intelligent alien life, it would inevitably end with war.

If humans made physical or tele-communication with intelligent life from another planet, at least one of the two sides would end up making war with the other. This could happen for various reasons such as mistrust, valuable resources, etc etc. Even if it was peaceful at first, the alliance would variously break down as either side (most probably humans) realised that they could benefit more from exploiting the other. 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: If humans made contact with intelligent alien life, it would inevitably end with war. If humans made physical or tele-communication with intelligent life from another planet, at least one of the two sides would end up making war with the other. This could happen for various reasons such as mistrust, valuable resources, etc etc. Even if it was peaceful at first, the alliance would variously break down as either side (most probably humans) realised that they could benefit more from exploiting the other. 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!*

t3_3djju0

CMV: Heterosexual and Homosexual should be changed replaced with Poonsexual and Peensexual

When referring to people's sexual orientations, you end up saying "heterosexual men and/or lesbians" to refer to those with a sexual orientation toward women with vaginas. And then you have to use "heterosexual women and/or homosexual men" to mean those who are sexually oriented only toward people with penises. This sort of phrasing is long and awkward. Instead, people should just use "poonsexual" for 'likes vagina' and "peensexual" for 'likes penis'. No more confusion or long-windedness. Those who like either set of genitals will continue to be called bisexual. Done.

CMV: Heterosexual and Homosexual should be changed replaced with Poonsexual and Peensexual. When referring to people's sexual orientations, you end up saying "heterosexual men and/or lesbians" to refer to those with a sexual orientation toward women with vaginas. And then you have to use "heterosexual women and/or homosexual men" to mean those who are sexually oriented only toward people with penises. This sort of phrasing is long and awkward. Instead, people should just use "poonsexual" for 'likes vagina' and "peensexual" for 'likes penis'. No more confusion or long-windedness. Those who like either set of genitals will continue to be called bisexual. Done.

t3_1xzt1c

I see no practical reason to drive a manual. CMV

**Full disclaimer:** My experience in driving manual transmission cars is very limited. I spent about a month working in an auto center, so I had to have a crash course (no pun intended) in driving manuals. I know how to make the car move, and I wouldn't have much trouble moving it to another parking spot, but I've never driven one on an actual road, and I've never had the car past first gear. So here are the reasons that are usually given for driving a manual: * It's more fun * It saves gas mileage * it's easier to work on * It makes you a better driver However, I'm not entirely convinced. First, driving a manual could be more fun, but I see my car as a means of transportation. I use it to get from point A to point B. If I didn't have to be somewhere, I wouldn't be in my car. Next it the issue of gas mileage. In the past, manuals always had better mileage, but automatics have caught up so much that the gap is insignificant. In fact, some automatics actually get better mileage than their manual counterparts. For example, [take a look at the 2014 Mazda 6.](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_Mazda_6.shtml) as you can see, the automatic is rated higher than the manual. Finally, the point that manuals make you more focused and overall a better driver. I feel that I spend enough time trying to maintain my speed, making sure no one is in my blind spots, maintaining a reasonable distance between the car in front of me, and trying to pay attention to road signs. Having to pay attention to yet another gage seems very unappealing to me. The last point I'd like to address is that riding in a manual as a passenger can actually make me carsick. Unless the person is super good at shifting, (and let's face it, they never are) the car lurches back and fourth and makes me want to puke. I'd rather ride in an automatic where cars generally don't do that! In the advent of self driving cars, I just don't see much of a reason to learn how to drive a manual. Can anyone change my view?

I see no practical reason to drive a manual. CMV. **Full disclaimer:** My experience in driving manual transmission cars is very limited. I spent about a month working in an auto center, so I had to have a crash course (no pun intended) in driving manuals. I know how to make the car move, and I wouldn't have much trouble moving it to another parking spot, but I've never driven one on an actual road, and I've never had the car past first gear. So here are the reasons that are usually given for driving a manual: * It's more fun * It saves gas mileage * it's easier to work on * It makes you a better driver However, I'm not entirely convinced. First, driving a manual could be more fun, but I see my car as a means of transportation. I use it to get from point A to point B. If I didn't have to be somewhere, I wouldn't be in my car. Next it the issue of gas mileage. In the past, manuals always had better mileage, but automatics have caught up so much that the gap is insignificant. In fact, some automatics actually get better mileage than their manual counterparts. For example, [take a look at the 2014 Mazda 6.](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_Mazda_6.shtml) as you can see, the automatic is rated higher than the manual. Finally, the point that manuals make you more focused and overall a better driver. I feel that I spend enough time trying to maintain my speed, making sure no one is in my blind spots, maintaining a reasonable distance between the car in front of me, and trying to pay attention to road signs. Having to pay attention to yet another gage seems very unappealing to me. The last point I'd like to address is that riding in a manual as a passenger can actually make me carsick. Unless the person is super good at shifting, (and let's face it, they never are) the car lurches back and fourth and makes me want to puke. I'd rather ride in an automatic where cars generally don't do that! In the advent of self driving cars, I just don't see much of a reason to learn how to drive a manual. Can anyone change my view?

t3_57mhe3

CMV: I believe in non-authoritarian socialism

As the title says, I believe in non-authoritarian, preferably democratic, socialism. This means I believe that the USSR, while having undergone rapid industrialization and having contributed to many [scientific fields](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union), was flawed. As for many anti-socialism arguments that are brought up: **Human nature** Even if we ignore the communal societies of prehistoric man and all other such communities, that still leaves us with monarchy and other rigidly hierarchical structures. Capitalism was conceived in the 1800s, monarchy and other forms of absolutist rule were used earlier. Therefore (again, ignoring communal societies), absolutism is human nature. **Efficiency** Capitalism requires the same technology to be developed multiple times, due to the nature of market competition and patents etc. Furthermore, the billions spent in advertising could be used to alleviate social problems. _____ > *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 in non-authoritarian socialism. As the title says, I believe in non-authoritarian, preferably democratic, socialism. This means I believe that the USSR, while having undergone rapid industrialization and having contributed to many [scientific fields](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Soviet_Union), was flawed. As for many anti-socialism arguments that are brought up: **Human nature** Even if we ignore the communal societies of prehistoric man and all other such communities, that still leaves us with monarchy and other rigidly hierarchical structures. Capitalism was conceived in the 1800s, monarchy and other forms of absolutist rule were used earlier. Therefore (again, ignoring communal societies), absolutism is human nature. **Efficiency** Capitalism requires the same technology to be developed multiple times, due to the nature of market competition and patents etc. Furthermore, the billions spent in advertising could be used to alleviate social problems.

t3_1bppep

I think white people and the West are totally fucked up both historically and presently. CMV.

List of fucked up things that white people and the West have done. 1. Nearly wiped out every Native American, members of the First Nations, and other aboriginal groups. 2. Mass modern enslavement of entire West African populations. 3. Creating some of the worst possible ideologies that have irreparably harmed humanity and led to the death of millions (e.g. fascism, communism). 4. A complete and utter disregard for the sovereignty of other nations and the will of those populations (e.g. Iran in 1954). 5. The intentional invention of weapons that have the potential to wipe out humanity (e.g. nuclear weapons). 6. Systematic oppression of fellow citizens through racism (e.g. Jim Crow). 7. A general disregard for the lives of fellow non-white human beings (e.g. A million Iraqi *civilians* have died because of the war there. What number do we talk about here? The 5k American soldiers who have died. I won't argue that we shouldn't talk about those soldiers, but where is the talk about the loss of life in general? Is an innocent Iraqi life not worth the same as a lily white American?). 8. Let's not forget colonization and the rampant theft of natural sources that the West has gorged off of (e.g. De Beers). Let's not forget the use of religious proselytization to further that goal. No wonder people have beef with the West. If someone kept trying to rob, kill, and enslave me, I'd hate them too.

I think white people and the West are totally fucked up both historically and presently. CMV. List of fucked up things that white people and the West have done. 1. Nearly wiped out every Native American, members of the First Nations, and other aboriginal groups. 2. Mass modern enslavement of entire West African populations. 3. Creating some of the worst possible ideologies that have irreparably harmed humanity and led to the death of millions (e.g. fascism, communism). 4. A complete and utter disregard for the sovereignty of other nations and the will of those populations (e.g. Iran in 1954). 5. The intentional invention of weapons that have the potential to wipe out humanity (e.g. nuclear weapons). 6. Systematic oppression of fellow citizens through racism (e.g. Jim Crow). 7. A general disregard for the lives of fellow non-white human beings (e.g. A million Iraqi *civilians* have died because of the war there. What number do we talk about here? The 5k American soldiers who have died. I won't argue that we shouldn't talk about those soldiers, but where is the talk about the loss of life in general? Is an innocent Iraqi life not worth the same as a lily white American?). 8. Let's not forget colonization and the rampant theft of natural sources that the West has gorged off of (e.g. De Beers). Let's not forget the use of religious proselytization to further that goal. No wonder people have beef with the West. If someone kept trying to rob, kill, and enslave me, I'd hate them too.

t3_4kjxwz

CMV: Digital piracy / copyright infringement is theft.

Assume a seller is selling their digital materials for $XX (film, music, art, game, software application, etc). If I acquire their digital materials, then I owe them $XX. If I acquire their digital materials and intentionally not pay them, then I'm now in possession of $XX that belongs to them. Having money that belongs to other people, and intentionally withholding it, is theft. CMV. (I've checked a few past CMVs on this topic, and they all seem to centre around: Copying isn't theft, because you're not depriving anyone of anything, you're just making duplicates. If you're not depriving anyone of anything, then it can't be theft! *But the theft has nothing to do with the copied content itself* - the theft involves *the money* that would/should otherwise be paid for the usage/possession of the content.) EDIT 1: People are saying that simply possessing something that belongs to someone else and deliberately depriving them of what is rightfully theirs is not actually "theft", because they never actually had it in the first place. I'm not sure how to respond to this - as this seems more like a pedantic disagreement on definitions, rather than a disagreement with my actual view. EDIT 2: I've given a delta because the amount owed is disputable. And I agree... when you pirate something being sold for $60 - but you would have only paid $20 for it - how much are you stealing? $60? $20? Or $0.00? My view is that if you value it at $20 and would have paid $20 for it, then you are *effectively* stealing $20. _____ > *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: Digital piracy / copyright infringement is theft. Assume a seller is selling their digital materials for $XX (film, music, art, game, software application, etc). If I acquire their digital materials, then I owe them $XX. If I acquire their digital materials and intentionally not pay them, then I'm now in possession of $XX that belongs to them. Having money that belongs to other people, and intentionally withholding it, is theft. CMV. (I've checked a few past CMVs on this topic, and they all seem to centre around: Copying isn't theft, because you're not depriving anyone of anything, you're just making duplicates. If you're not depriving anyone of anything, then it can't be theft! *But the theft has nothing to do with the copied content itself* - the theft involves *the money* that would/should otherwise be paid for the usage/possession of the content.) EDIT 1: People are saying that simply possessing something that belongs to someone else and deliberately depriving them of what is rightfully theirs is not actually "theft", because they never actually had it in the first place. I'm not sure how to respond to this - as this seems more like a pedantic disagreement on definitions, rather than a disagreement with my actual view. EDIT 2: I've given a delta because the amount owed is disputable. And I agree... when you pirate something being sold for $60 - but you would have only paid $20 for it - how much are you stealing? $60? $20? Or $0.00? My view is that if you value it at $20 and would have paid $20 for it, then you are *effectively* stealing $20.

t3_3pe7nq

CMV:The use of recreational marijuana should be legal in all 50 states.

One major benefit of legalizing marijuana would be allowing the United States government to spend a dramatically lower amount of time, energy, and resources on the war on drugs. It is increasingly expensive to keep drugs off the street, and even to keep people in prison. On top of that, 88% of the 8.2 million arrests in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were related to possession of marijuana (ACLU). Legalizing marijuana would get rid of the need for that spending, allow law enforcement to concentrate their efforts on protecting public safety, and open space in overcrowded prisons for more dangerous and violent offenders. Not only will spending be reduced, but a proper regulation, possibly similar to that of alcohol and tobacco, would create job opportunities and open up a new market for an industry that is already in demand. A main reason for making drugs illegal is commonly health related. Marijuana, in particular, is a drug that is not lethal by overdosing, unlike already legal drugs including alcohol or prescription drugs. Approximately 88,00 deaths in the United States each year are alcohol related (CDC), and none directly related to marijuana overdose. Studies have shown that marijuana leads to dependence in only 9% of adult users, and that people who use marijuana before harder drugs is more often a case of correlation than of causation (Huffington Post). Like any drug, marijuana has capacity to be dangerous. I don’t think that it is necessarily healthy to be high all of the time, and I definitely don’t advocate for driving while under the influence of marijuana. That being said, the United States holds freedom as a protected value. The negative impacts of marijuana on health are not dangerous enough to let the government decide for its citizens if they should smoke or not. People should have the right to chose whether or not they want to smoke marijuana, and not have to worry about being taken to jail. If alcohol, a potentially dangerous substance, but safe in moderation, is legal in the United States, there is no reason why marijuana should not be legal as well. _____ > *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 use of recreational marijuana should be legal in all 50 states. One major benefit of legalizing marijuana would be allowing the United States government to spend a dramatically lower amount of time, energy, and resources on the war on drugs. It is increasingly expensive to keep drugs off the street, and even to keep people in prison. On top of that, 88% of the 8.2 million arrests in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were related to possession of marijuana (ACLU). Legalizing marijuana would get rid of the need for that spending, allow law enforcement to concentrate their efforts on protecting public safety, and open space in overcrowded prisons for more dangerous and violent offenders. Not only will spending be reduced, but a proper regulation, possibly similar to that of alcohol and tobacco, would create job opportunities and open up a new market for an industry that is already in demand. A main reason for making drugs illegal is commonly health related. Marijuana, in particular, is a drug that is not lethal by overdosing, unlike already legal drugs including alcohol or prescription drugs. Approximately 88,00 deaths in the United States each year are alcohol related (CDC), and none directly related to marijuana overdose. Studies have shown that marijuana leads to dependence in only 9% of adult users, and that people who use marijuana before harder drugs is more often a case of correlation than of causation (Huffington Post). Like any drug, marijuana has capacity to be dangerous. I don’t think that it is necessarily healthy to be high all of the time, and I definitely don’t advocate for driving while under the influence of marijuana. That being said, the United States holds freedom as a protected value. The negative impacts of marijuana on health are not dangerous enough to let the government decide for its citizens if they should smoke or not. People should have the right to chose whether or not they want to smoke marijuana, and not have to worry about being taken to jail. If alcohol, a potentially dangerous substance, but safe in moderation, is legal in the United States, there is no reason why marijuana should not be legal as well.

t3_1qqv4x

I think History is a worthless subject. CMV

The only thing I see history being taught for is so that more history teachers can roam the earth. I see no practical use for a History major. Learning from past mistakes is great. But I just don't see what you could use the knowledge of 'Henry VIII had six wives' for. I've got no idea how you would make any sort of money, or be a productive member of society, or help advance our civilization by knowing miscellaneous stuff like that. The only place I could see anyone applying a history major is as a teacher, which is pretty pointless, seeing as it never does anything, why have someone teach it? **tldr: What does one do with a history major, and how does history knowledge positively affect our current society?** edit: I also have no idea what you learn while studying history. So if you could tell me that, that would be awesome as well. Also, please tell me if I need to go into further detail, or I did something earth-shatteringly wrong, because this is my first time posting here.

I think History is a worthless subject. CMV. The only thing I see history being taught for is so that more history teachers can roam the earth. I see no practical use for a History major. Learning from past mistakes is great. But I just don't see what you could use the knowledge of 'Henry VIII had six wives' for. I've got no idea how you would make any sort of money, or be a productive member of society, or help advance our civilization by knowing miscellaneous stuff like that. The only place I could see anyone applying a history major is as a teacher, which is pretty pointless, seeing as it never does anything, why have someone teach it? **tldr: What does one do with a history major, and how does history knowledge positively affect our current society?** edit: I also have no idea what you learn while studying history. So if you could tell me that, that would be awesome as well. Also, please tell me if I need to go into further detail, or I did something earth-shatteringly wrong, because this is my first time posting here.

t3_1db0k0

I think that most girls play mind games with guys. CMV

I believe that most girls will do a certain action to play around with a guy's feelings. I see girls portraying themselves as being physically and mentally attracted to a guy and then denying it or getting grossed out when the actual opportunity of "hooking up" comes. They know that they have a certain amount of power over a guy's feelings and they take advantage of that. I believe that these types of situations are just women playing games with a man's mind for their own enjoyment, because they know they can. CMV

I think that most girls play mind games with guys. CMV. I believe that most girls will do a certain action to play around with a guy's feelings. I see girls portraying themselves as being physically and mentally attracted to a guy and then denying it or getting grossed out when the actual opportunity of "hooking up" comes. They know that they have a certain amount of power over a guy's feelings and they take advantage of that. I believe that these types of situations are just women playing games with a man's mind for their own enjoyment, because they know they can. CMV

t3_5q3wh6

CMV: The U.S. spends too much on foreign assistance; this may feel compassionate but could be better spent domestically or on defense

To get it out of the way, I understand that the foreign assistance budget is a small proportion of the total U.S. budget and is dwarfed by our military budget. At [$23 billion](https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/budget-spending) it's less than 4 percent the amount we [spend on defense](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal) and well under 1 percent of the [total budget](https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-white-house-fiscal-2017-budget-proposal/1953/). That said, it's still in the tens of billions of dollars. While I understand that it's important to be compassionate and that giving this money away allows us to conduct diplomacy and negotiate from a higher moral standing, I don't believe that we get limited tangible benefits from it. In an age when we have veterans who require care and there are plenty of people outside the U.S. who wish to do us harm and who we have to defend against, I can think of many other, better functions for this money Please change my view **EDIT:** Thank you to everyone and to u/electronics12345 and u/McKoijion in particular. To me, the best arguments tied foreign assistance with a cost we wouldn't have to incur elsewhere. For example, providing money to organizations in W. African nations to fight Ebola means they can contain it and we don't have to fight Ebola here. Providing money to middle eastern nations means they can effectively do what U.S. service members on U.S. bases in the region would do. In each of these cases, because of many reasons including that we're assisting and not doing the whole thing ourselves, the cost can be much cheaper. **EDIT2:** It's important to also mention u/fstd who suggested that the premise upon which my argument was based is flawed. A big chunk of foreign assistance goes to security -- not just humanitarian aid. Thanks again and have a good evening. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The U.S. spends too much on foreign assistance; this may feel compassionate but could be better spent domestically or on defense. To get it out of the way, I understand that the foreign assistance budget is a small proportion of the total U.S. budget and is dwarfed by our military budget. At [$23 billion](https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/budget-spending) it's less than 4 percent the amount we [spend on defense](https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/652687/department-of-defense-dod-releases-fiscal-year-2017-presidents-budget-proposal) and well under 1 percent of the [total budget](https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/the-white-house-fiscal-2017-budget-proposal/1953/). That said, it's still in the tens of billions of dollars. While I understand that it's important to be compassionate and that giving this money away allows us to conduct diplomacy and negotiate from a higher moral standing, I don't believe that we get limited tangible benefits from it. In an age when we have veterans who require care and there are plenty of people outside the U.S. who wish to do us harm and who we have to defend against, I can think of many other, better functions for this money Please change my view **EDIT:** Thank you to everyone and to u/electronics12345 and u/McKoijion in particular. To me, the best arguments tied foreign assistance with a cost we wouldn't have to incur elsewhere. For example, providing money to organizations in W. African nations to fight Ebola means they can contain it and we don't have to fight Ebola here. Providing money to middle eastern nations means they can effectively do what U.S. service members on U.S. bases in the region would do. In each of these cases, because of many reasons including that we're assisting and not doing the whole thing ourselves, the cost can be much cheaper. **EDIT2:** It's important to also mention u/fstd who suggested that the premise upon which my argument was based is flawed. A big chunk of foreign assistance goes to security -- not just humanitarian aid. Thanks again and have a good evening.

t3_38ehc6

CMV: It should be customary to get a job before you go to college. (Having your first job at 22 isn't okay.)

(A) Work part-time in high school ; Then go to college (B) Work full-time before you go to college (C) Work while you study in college. I was a spoiled lazy kid because I never got a job. Had my priorities mixed up and flunked. I got a job in the real world, and it was painful, but humbling. If I had gotten a job at 18 (or sooner), I would've done much better in college and learned crucial life lessons sooner. There's also lots of other people who are deluded and spoiled because they don't work. I won't allow my kids to go to college without having worked first. * I'm not restricting this purely to retail, but retail teaches humility. It teaches you how to be diplomatic, how you're not the center of the universe, sometimes you have to tolerate shit, things won't always go your way. And after working a retail job, you'll treat other retail workers with more respect. * Having a job also teaches the reality of the world versus theory. I used to be a hardcore Republican who thought poor people didn't have it THAT bad and wealthy people deserve to live 100x better because they work harder. Now, I see the real challenges average people face, especially in the ghetto. * Having real world experience will help you just as much (you'll encounter lots of people, learn your strengths and weaknesses), if not more than spending years in college "finding yourself". If you have no idea what you want to do in college, you're going to waste lots of time. * Lots of college kids are entitled because parents/government pay for everything. And they think they automatically deserve a high-paying job just because they graduated. Nope, gotta work your way up from the bottom. Nobody's too good for an entry-level job. * Oh, and it doesn't hurt to have a little more on your resume. _____ > *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 should be customary to get a job before you go to college. (Having your first job at 22 isn't okay.). (A) Work part-time in high school ; Then go to college (B) Work full-time before you go to college (C) Work while you study in college. I was a spoiled lazy kid because I never got a job. Had my priorities mixed up and flunked. I got a job in the real world, and it was painful, but humbling. If I had gotten a job at 18 (or sooner), I would've done much better in college and learned crucial life lessons sooner. There's also lots of other people who are deluded and spoiled because they don't work. I won't allow my kids to go to college without having worked first. * I'm not restricting this purely to retail, but retail teaches humility. It teaches you how to be diplomatic, how you're not the center of the universe, sometimes you have to tolerate shit, things won't always go your way. And after working a retail job, you'll treat other retail workers with more respect. * Having a job also teaches the reality of the world versus theory. I used to be a hardcore Republican who thought poor people didn't have it THAT bad and wealthy people deserve to live 100x better because they work harder. Now, I see the real challenges average people face, especially in the ghetto. * Having real world experience will help you just as much (you'll encounter lots of people, learn your strengths and weaknesses), if not more than spending years in college "finding yourself". If you have no idea what you want to do in college, you're going to waste lots of time. * Lots of college kids are entitled because parents/government pay for everything. And they think they automatically deserve a high-paying job just because they graduated. Nope, gotta work your way up from the bottom. Nobody's too good for an entry-level job. * Oh, and it doesn't hurt to have a little more on your resume.

t3_1eangw

CMV: I believe that not all human life is equal.

I believe that the life of someone like Bill Gates, or Alexander the Great is much more valuable than the life of a homeless person, or a pervert. I began to think this ever since I began reading Nietzsche, I love the idea of an Übermench. Note: I am not a Nazi, I don't believe there is a superior race, I just believe some people are better than others. -USA

CMV: I believe that not all human life is equal. I believe that the life of someone like Bill Gates, or Alexander the Great is much more valuable than the life of a homeless person, or a pervert. I began to think this ever since I began reading Nietzsche, I love the idea of an Übermench. Note: I am not a Nazi, I don't believe there is a superior race, I just believe some people are better than others. -USA

t3_1vocb7

I believe that sales are a better judge of music's quality than any critic. CMV

Music is, of course, completely subjective. However, we as a culture allow the quality of music often to be defined by what critic's say about the matter. We (I include myself) hungrily devour and debate year-end lists and make sure we've heard and have opinions on the year's "best" records. The history of rock and roll is lined with Radioheads and Lou Reeds and Sex Pistols, all due to this climate of circlejerking critics, both professional and amateur. Music that sells well, however, is often regaled to the sides of music history, like so much wallpaper. Led Zeppelin is honored, sure, but is certainly not "cool". Flamboyant, blockbuster acts like KISS and Guns N' Roses are treated like pond scum. Top-selling rappers like Ludacris, Eminem, and Lil Wayne are adored to be sure, but never as honored by critics as their record sales would indicate. Mainstream country is ignored and even reviled. Nickelback was the best-selling rock act of the last decade and is also the most hated. Please understand that I am not a fan of many of those artists; I just think that, if we are going to pretend there is a universal definition of "good" music, should we not be looking to the music the most people are listening to? Isn't the objective truth that which most of us believe?

I believe that sales are a better judge of music's quality than any critic. CMV. Music is, of course, completely subjective. However, we as a culture allow the quality of music often to be defined by what critic's say about the matter. We (I include myself) hungrily devour and debate year-end lists and make sure we've heard and have opinions on the year's "best" records. The history of rock and roll is lined with Radioheads and Lou Reeds and Sex Pistols, all due to this climate of circlejerking critics, both professional and amateur. Music that sells well, however, is often regaled to the sides of music history, like so much wallpaper. Led Zeppelin is honored, sure, but is certainly not "cool". Flamboyant, blockbuster acts like KISS and Guns N' Roses are treated like pond scum. Top-selling rappers like Ludacris, Eminem, and Lil Wayne are adored to be sure, but never as honored by critics as their record sales would indicate. Mainstream country is ignored and even reviled. Nickelback was the best-selling rock act of the last decade and is also the most hated. Please understand that I am not a fan of many of those artists; I just think that, if we are going to pretend there is a universal definition of "good" music, should we not be looking to the music the most people are listening to? Isn't the objective truth that which most of us believe?

t3_3pwxrg

CMV: Wasn't the ACA (Affordable Care Act) supposed to be affordable? A >25% increase of premium for next year isn't affordable.

Fist off I am asking a serious question. Secondly this isn't a political discussion. Finally I really don't understand how premiums have increased so quickly and without controls. Here is my case. I'm a single income earning family living in the Western US (not a coastal state). I'm an independent consultant. When I have a client I do well. When I don't have a client I tend to live off of savings. I make to much to qualify for any type of subsidy for health care. This year my provider got, out of pocket from me, just under $920/month for health care. Please note this is just health care and doesn't include what I pay for dental and vision separately. I just got my note for next years premium and it will jump to just under $1150/month. I calculated the actual numbers and my increase is about 25.2% (more precise 25.19325828016462%) for next year. We have a fairly high deductible on the plan. It isn't a Gold level plan at all. We chose a silver plan. We used only about $500 of the deductible amount for the family portion. There are people in the US that pay less than that for a house payment. Perhaps I should look at what the impact to taxes would be if I don't have insurance next year. So please CMV how is my plan affordable? Edit 1 - I forgot to mention that prior to ACA I lived in the MidWest and my individual family plan with a provider cost me about $300/month.

CMV: Wasn't the ACA (Affordable Care Act) supposed to be affordable? A >25% increase of premium for next year isn't affordable. Fist off I am asking a serious question. Secondly this isn't a political discussion. Finally I really don't understand how premiums have increased so quickly and without controls. Here is my case. I'm a single income earning family living in the Western US (not a coastal state). I'm an independent consultant. When I have a client I do well. When I don't have a client I tend to live off of savings. I make to much to qualify for any type of subsidy for health care. This year my provider got, out of pocket from me, just under $920/month for health care. Please note this is just health care and doesn't include what I pay for dental and vision separately. I just got my note for next years premium and it will jump to just under $1150/month. I calculated the actual numbers and my increase is about 25.2% (more precise 25.19325828016462%) for next year. We have a fairly high deductible on the plan. It isn't a Gold level plan at all. We chose a silver plan. We used only about $500 of the deductible amount for the family portion. There are people in the US that pay less than that for a house payment. Perhaps I should look at what the impact to taxes would be if I don't have insurance next year. So please CMV how is my plan affordable? Edit 1 - I forgot to mention that prior to ACA I lived in the MidWest and my individual family plan with a provider cost me about $300/month.

t3_1r28z6

[Trigger warning] I don't think making yourself throw up is inherently bad. CMV

I'm not bulimic, but have made myself throw up more times than I can count. This is a personal choice of mine that I would never dream of sharing with anyone, I don't find it necessary. I consider it more as portion control, I rarely purge to an empty stomach, just enough to where I feel like I have gotten rid of the excess if I feel I over ate. I tend to not find anything wrong with this, I wash my hands before and after, swish water after, and keep my nails pretty short (personal preference anyway). I think there is a taboo about sticking your fingers down your throat that most likely alludes to an eating disorder which I am aware is very serious, very sad, and potentially fatal. My point is I believe while suffering from bulimia includes making yourself throw up, making yourself throw up does not necessarily include bulimia and in which case isn't all that bad. You may want to inform me of other dangers, maybe like broken blood vessels or strain on the body but keep in mind I only do this when I feel I ate too much so I'm usually topped off anyway and it doesn't take much effort at all. I'm not a binge and purger, so I'm not fluctuating wildly. And I started about two years ago now with no incident since, still as healthy as can be. Would love to hear some counter-arguments that may CMV.

[Trigger warning] I don't think making yourself throw up is inherently bad. CMV. I'm not bulimic, but have made myself throw up more times than I can count. This is a personal choice of mine that I would never dream of sharing with anyone, I don't find it necessary. I consider it more as portion control, I rarely purge to an empty stomach, just enough to where I feel like I have gotten rid of the excess if I feel I over ate. I tend to not find anything wrong with this, I wash my hands before and after, swish water after, and keep my nails pretty short (personal preference anyway). I think there is a taboo about sticking your fingers down your throat that most likely alludes to an eating disorder which I am aware is very serious, very sad, and potentially fatal. My point is I believe while suffering from bulimia includes making yourself throw up, making yourself throw up does not necessarily include bulimia and in which case isn't all that bad. You may want to inform me of other dangers, maybe like broken blood vessels or strain on the body but keep in mind I only do this when I feel I ate too much so I'm usually topped off anyway and it doesn't take much effort at all. I'm not a binge and purger, so I'm not fluctuating wildly. And I started about two years ago now with no incident since, still as healthy as can be. Would love to hear some counter-arguments that may CMV.

t3_4l4x5k

CMV: English spelling should be changed

Yes, I have seen those 'lojikl' and 'kohirnt' satires of English spelling reform. But why bother with the Latin alphabet at all? The Romans intended it for usewith their spoken language, not some bastard descendant spoken two millenia later. A quick look at the Wikipedia 'IPA for English' page shows there are barely enough letters to represent the consonants, not accounting forredundancies (I'm looking at you, 'c' 'q' and 'x'!), and more vowels than can be represented using 5 letters. I'm aware of regional differences in pronunciation, realizing a phonetic, not phonemic system would be pointless. Hence, I advocate for a system where only sounds used to differentiate meaning (not, for example, [ɔ] and [oː] in 'law' for the General American and Received Pronunciation pronunciations, respectively) are differentiated in writing, but always and consistently so between words. A secondary gripe of mine is the use of digraphs for representing sounds like /ð/. It gets confusing for a word like 'thyme'. Hence, one sound should be represented by one letter. For those who say the forms of written words be kept to show the history of the word, I argue that history can be referred to in something like etymonline. I don't feel the need to be reminded of a word's history every time I write it. Besides, you probably would've had to refer to something to know that the suffix '-ize' came from Greek. The ease of 'spelling' (there should be no need to memorize spellings anyway), an essential part of conveying the information in a word, trumps the importance of carrying the history, a non-essential part of conveying information in a word.

CMV: English spelling should be changed. Yes, I have seen those 'lojikl' and 'kohirnt' satires of English spelling reform. But why bother with the Latin alphabet at all? The Romans intended it for usewith their spoken language, not some bastard descendant spoken two millenia later. A quick look at the Wikipedia 'IPA for English' page shows there are barely enough letters to represent the consonants, not accounting forredundancies (I'm looking at you, 'c' 'q' and 'x'!), and more vowels than can be represented using 5 letters. I'm aware of regional differences in pronunciation, realizing a phonetic, not phonemic system would be pointless. Hence, I advocate for a system where only sounds used to differentiate meaning (not, for example, [ɔ] and [oː] in 'law' for the General American and Received Pronunciation pronunciations, respectively) are differentiated in writing, but always and consistently so between words. A secondary gripe of mine is the use of digraphs for representing sounds like /ð/. It gets confusing for a word like 'thyme'. Hence, one sound should be represented by one letter. For those who say the forms of written words be kept to show the history of the word, I argue that history can be referred to in something like etymonline. I don't feel the need to be reminded of a word's history every time I write it. Besides, you probably would've had to refer to something to know that the suffix '-ize' came from Greek. The ease of 'spelling' (there should be no need to memorize spellings anyway), an essential part of conveying the information in a word, trumps the importance of carrying the history, a non-essential part of conveying information in a word.

t3_1gurf3

I believe that unhealthy food/fast food should have a "sin" tax. CMV

Just like alcohol and cigarettes are taxed, I believe food that is deemed unhealthy or with little/no nutritional content should be taxed (this would be determined by a non-biased nutritionalist group). Just like one cigarette or a few beers won't significantly cut down on your lifespan, if it becomes a habit, it will! I think the money generated from this should be put into education on real nutrition and it would also encourage companies to make healthier food so that they won't be taxed. I don't believe there should be a flat tax, but sort of a climbing one. (*Grade A, B, C, etc. and their corresponding tax amount). I also believe this would support local farmers and agriculture. The taxation isn't the only deterrent to make people avoid unhealthy food, but the money generated from this would be put back into health care and education. While I believe everyone should have a choice to do what they want to their body, in the 'end', cheap fast food really isn't that 'cheap' when you consider what it does to the body over the long term. I think food should that you buy should consider the long term effects and the long term costs when you initially buy it. I do think that those who are poor may struggle more, but the idea is it will incentivize them to make the long term "cheaper" choice. (There are many articles that show how cheap food really is not cheap at all). Feel free to ask questions/clarification. CMV and thanks!

I believe that unhealthy food/fast food should have a "sin" tax. CMV. Just like alcohol and cigarettes are taxed, I believe food that is deemed unhealthy or with little/no nutritional content should be taxed (this would be determined by a non-biased nutritionalist group). Just like one cigarette or a few beers won't significantly cut down on your lifespan, if it becomes a habit, it will! I think the money generated from this should be put into education on real nutrition and it would also encourage companies to make healthier food so that they won't be taxed. I don't believe there should be a flat tax, but sort of a climbing one. (*Grade A, B, C, etc. and their corresponding tax amount). I also believe this would support local farmers and agriculture. The taxation isn't the only deterrent to make people avoid unhealthy food, but the money generated from this would be put back into health care and education. While I believe everyone should have a choice to do what they want to their body, in the 'end', cheap fast food really isn't that 'cheap' when you consider what it does to the body over the long term. I think food should that you buy should consider the long term effects and the long term costs when you initially buy it. I do think that those who are poor may struggle more, but the idea is it will incentivize them to make the long term "cheaper" choice. (There are many articles that show how cheap food really is not cheap at all). Feel free to ask questions/clarification. CMV and thanks!

t3_2nzz4f

CMV: America should get rid of the Grand Jury system

This was inspired by the events in Ferguson, but it goes beyond that. If a government agent is put before a grand jury for a crime, the prosecutor and the accused are both playing for the same team. The system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served. Grand juries are meant to force the prosecutor to present at least enough evidence to convince the public that the case should, indeed, go to trial. If they were fulfilling that purpose, we would expect at least a few percent of the cases they hear to not pass the test. However, [according to fivethirtyeight.com](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/), > U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them. So they're obviously a rubber stamp court, doing what the prosecutors want them to do. Since they don't fulfill their positive purpose (forcing the state to bring a good case) and they do seem to fulfill a rather negative one (protecting government agents from prosecution), I think we should get rid 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: America should get rid of the Grand Jury system. This was inspired by the events in Ferguson, but it goes beyond that. If a government agent is put before a grand jury for a crime, the prosecutor and the accused are both playing for the same team. The system is not adversarial, which means that justice will, most likely, not be served. Grand juries are meant to force the prosecutor to present at least enough evidence to convince the public that the case should, indeed, go to trial. If they were fulfilling that purpose, we would expect at least a few percent of the cases they hear to not pass the test. However, [according to fivethirtyeight.com](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/), > U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them. So they're obviously a rubber stamp court, doing what the prosecutors want them to do. Since they don't fulfill their positive purpose (forcing the state to bring a good case) and they do seem to fulfill a rather negative one (protecting government agents from prosecution), I think we should get rid of them.

t3_6z9h6u

CMV: Economists are not to blame for failing to predict the Great Recession

No one goes to a evolutionary psychologist and asks them: "Why Weren't Evolutionary Psychologists Able to Predict Cuckolding? Don't you all study natural selection for a living? Isn't your top journal called Trends in Ecology and Evolution (reproduction?)? Isn't the passing of genes in the purview of evolutionary psychology? Your field is a failure. You should have been there to predict cuckolding. Society was counting on you and you let them down." Yet, the same is said for my field. I get mocked among my friends and family for failing to predict the Great Recession and I am turned into a laughing stock

CMV: Economists are not to blame for failing to predict the Great Recession. No one goes to a evolutionary psychologist and asks them: "Why Weren't Evolutionary Psychologists Able to Predict Cuckolding? Don't you all study natural selection for a living? Isn't your top journal called Trends in Ecology and Evolution (reproduction?)? Isn't the passing of genes in the purview of evolutionary psychology? Your field is a failure. You should have been there to predict cuckolding. Society was counting on you and you let them down." Yet, the same is said for my field. I get mocked among my friends and family for failing to predict the Great Recession and I am turned into a laughing stock

t3_4m8az7

CMV: The gorilla being killed to save a boy who fell in the cage incident - Help me understand where my view is wrong on this

So I've posted here before, but I think this is the first time where I'm truly bewildered by the other side. Usually I can see at least some of both sides of a position and choose one that I think is the most correct. But in this case, I just truly don't understand the other side of the argument. Link to story: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/harambe-gorilla-killed-cincinnati-zoo-had-pay-price-experts-n583146 So the zoo's policy appears to be that they will do anything and everything in order to save the life of a child that falls into an animal enclosure, and that is where I disagree. I think the policy should be something like *We will do everything we can to save the life of a human that's fallen into an animal enclosure, **short of** killing endangered animals* I completely understand how a tranquilizer would have been a greater risk to the child than simply shooting the gorilla, but I think they should have done that anyway. Here is the scope of what I want to talk about here: Each situation should be taken differently. Our default response should not be to always kill animals (if it's necessary) in order to save the lives of careless humans. If it wasn't a critically endangered animal, or the animal had gotten out of their enclosure and was rampaging around human areas...okay fine, it makes more sense to me. In this case however, every time I analyze the situation I don't think killing the gorilla should have ever been an option, even if it mean harm coming to the child. _____ > *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 gorilla being killed to save a boy who fell in the cage incident - Help me understand where my view is wrong on this. So I've posted here before, but I think this is the first time where I'm truly bewildered by the other side. Usually I can see at least some of both sides of a position and choose one that I think is the most correct. But in this case, I just truly don't understand the other side of the argument. Link to story: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/harambe-gorilla-killed-cincinnati-zoo-had-pay-price-experts-n583146 So the zoo's policy appears to be that they will do anything and everything in order to save the life of a child that falls into an animal enclosure, and that is where I disagree. I think the policy should be something like *We will do everything we can to save the life of a human that's fallen into an animal enclosure, **short of** killing endangered animals* I completely understand how a tranquilizer would have been a greater risk to the child than simply shooting the gorilla, but I think they should have done that anyway. Here is the scope of what I want to talk about here: Each situation should be taken differently. Our default response should not be to always kill animals (if it's necessary) in order to save the lives of careless humans. If it wasn't a critically endangered animal, or the animal had gotten out of their enclosure and was rampaging around human areas...okay fine, it makes more sense to me. In this case however, every time I analyze the situation I don't think killing the gorilla should have ever been an option, even if it mean harm coming to the child.

t3_4ugw9l

CMV: Hitler is the world's most influential person

Hitler led a revolution in Germany and had what seemed like the entire country supporting him. His speeches and rallies are stuff that can only attempt to be replicated in terms of their size and atmosphere. He started the world's most famous war, and which led to millions dead and also involved the most famous and arguably worst genocide in human history. The US economy boomed during WWII, London and Paris were destroyed, and the Soviet Union lost a large chunk of it's population. After the war, numerous steps were taken to avoid such a catastrophic event, On top of this, Germany was divided, the Cold War began, and the Nuclear arms race caused major world tension. Today, Germany is a country with little national pride. Besides football tournaments, Germans are rarely displaying the national flag or showing any sign of nationalistic pride. EDIT: I'm an idiot and hit send by accident. In the past few elections, the two most famous politicans in the world have been compared to him by critics. Europe have been hit with a refugee crisis due to the fear of being compared to Hitler. On top of this all, being "Literally Hitler" is now a meme.

CMV: Hitler is the world's most influential person. Hitler led a revolution in Germany and had what seemed like the entire country supporting him. His speeches and rallies are stuff that can only attempt to be replicated in terms of their size and atmosphere. He started the world's most famous war, and which led to millions dead and also involved the most famous and arguably worst genocide in human history. The US economy boomed during WWII, London and Paris were destroyed, and the Soviet Union lost a large chunk of it's population. After the war, numerous steps were taken to avoid such a catastrophic event, On top of this, Germany was divided, the Cold War began, and the Nuclear arms race caused major world tension. Today, Germany is a country with little national pride. Besides football tournaments, Germans are rarely displaying the national flag or showing any sign of nationalistic pride. EDIT: I'm an idiot and hit send by accident. In the past few elections, the two most famous politicans in the world have been compared to him by critics. Europe have been hit with a refugee crisis due to the fear of being compared to Hitler. On top of this all, being "Literally Hitler" is now a meme.

t3_5sij0q

CMV: There are no realistic existential threats to humanity

I do not think that there are any threats right now that could realistically cause human extinction. I think that people are just paranoid since humans have a tendency towards apocalypticism. Commonly cited threats such as Artificial Intelligence and nuclear war do not seem any more realistic to me than the rapture does. Artificial intelligence is probably going to have diminishing returns and perhaps a hard limit making the scenarios often predicted unrealistic and nuclear war would probably not be done at the scale of destroying the entire environment, nuclear winter predictions are based on cities made mostly of wood burning so concrete solves that problem. Climate change definitely will cause problems for many people but it is unlikely to lead to human extinction, possibly we will have enough technological advances to even cancel out the negative effects. EDIT: I am talking about existential threats in the next few centuries that would cause a total extinction not just a bottleneck _____ > *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 are no realistic existential threats to humanity. I do not think that there are any threats right now that could realistically cause human extinction. I think that people are just paranoid since humans have a tendency towards apocalypticism. Commonly cited threats such as Artificial Intelligence and nuclear war do not seem any more realistic to me than the rapture does. Artificial intelligence is probably going to have diminishing returns and perhaps a hard limit making the scenarios often predicted unrealistic and nuclear war would probably not be done at the scale of destroying the entire environment, nuclear winter predictions are based on cities made mostly of wood burning so concrete solves that problem. Climate change definitely will cause problems for many people but it is unlikely to lead to human extinction, possibly we will have enough technological advances to even cancel out the negative effects. EDIT: I am talking about existential threats in the next few centuries that would cause a total extinction not just a bottleneck

t3_6gbjtg

CMV: Religious people hate Atheists

I grew up in a very strict religious household. I was accustomed to hear church leaders describe Atheists as evil, devil worshippers, murderers, drunks, abusers, debauched, and all other manner of insults. After I grew up and realized I am an Atheist, I am constantly afraid of discovery at work. My own father asked if I was going to murder someone when he found out. Both my parents have been cold and distant ever since. My mother still cries when she talks to me on the phone and tells me that she "wanted more for me". I have a steady job, rarely drink, eat healthy, and I am married to a great guy. The religion I left still preaches that Atheists are horrible people, destined for hell. Am I crazy in believing that most religious people, Christians in particular, hate Atheists? I would love to be wrong. I am new here so sorry if I forget any rules. Edit: Thanks everyone for the speedy response. It is going to take a bit if time to respond to you all. Edit 2: Thanks for the discussion folks. This has been really enlightening. My problem may be that despite leaving the religion of my youth and losing the community I once had, I still live in the same town. I grew up believing my religion had all the answers. I remember telling an Atheist kid in high school that I felt sorry for him because he was Atheist. My view may be tainted because I think others view me as I viewed that kid. It may be that my view will be altered once I get to know people in other parts of the country and world. For now, your frankness and kindness has given me hope that there are moderates out there who genuinely care.

CMV: Religious people hate Atheists. I grew up in a very strict religious household. I was accustomed to hear church leaders describe Atheists as evil, devil worshippers, murderers, drunks, abusers, debauched, and all other manner of insults. After I grew up and realized I am an Atheist, I am constantly afraid of discovery at work. My own father asked if I was going to murder someone when he found out. Both my parents have been cold and distant ever since. My mother still cries when she talks to me on the phone and tells me that she "wanted more for me". I have a steady job, rarely drink, eat healthy, and I am married to a great guy. The religion I left still preaches that Atheists are horrible people, destined for hell. Am I crazy in believing that most religious people, Christians in particular, hate Atheists? I would love to be wrong. I am new here so sorry if I forget any rules. Edit: Thanks everyone for the speedy response. It is going to take a bit if time to respond to you all. Edit 2: Thanks for the discussion folks. This has been really enlightening. My problem may be that despite leaving the religion of my youth and losing the community I once had, I still live in the same town. I grew up believing my religion had all the answers. I remember telling an Atheist kid in high school that I felt sorry for him because he was Atheist. My view may be tainted because I think others view me as I viewed that kid. It may be that my view will be altered once I get to know people in other parts of the country and world. For now, your frankness and kindness has given me hope that there are moderates out there who genuinely care.

t3_2w2zt5

CMV: There are other forms of life in the universe besides human beings

I find the possibility of life outside of Earth an undeniable fact. In short, the universe is too enormous to contain only one planet sustainable of housing life. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as of 2-12-15, there are 1,814 confirmed exoplanets which have been spotted outside of our solar system, meaning if only 1% of these planets are suitable for human life, it leaves almost 20 habitable planets just within view from Earth alone. Even with these twenty planets, there could be hundreds, if not thousands, which already have a form of life occupying them who do not need Earth-like conditions to live and are outside of our viewing limitations. Just thinking of how vast the universe is, I find it inconceivable to believe Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life. 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: There are other forms of life in the universe besides human beings. I find the possibility of life outside of Earth an undeniable fact. In short, the universe is too enormous to contain only one planet sustainable of housing life. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as of 2-12-15, there are 1,814 confirmed exoplanets which have been spotted outside of our solar system, meaning if only 1% of these planets are suitable for human life, it leaves almost 20 habitable planets just within view from Earth alone. Even with these twenty planets, there could be hundreds, if not thousands, which already have a form of life occupying them who do not need Earth-like conditions to live and are outside of our viewing limitations. Just thinking of how vast the universe is, I find it inconceivable to believe Earth is the only planet capable of sustaining life. Change my view.

t3_1k0hna

I don't believe that doctors should be able to conscientiously object to providing medical care. CMV.

Conscientious objection is when a doctors 'conscious' influences their decision not to provide a certain medical treatment or type of care. *Disclaimer: I know I am focusing on reproductive decisions but these seem to be the main kinds of conscientious objections.* I believe this is wrong because: 1. Allowing doctors to give partial care makes the health care system inefficient, if I come to a doctor for a birth control prescription and they refuse, I have just wasted an appointment that could have been used by someone else, and I then need to go use another doctors time. 2. They know the job requirements. If a doctors is unwilling to preform a type of service then it is their responsibility to ensure they will never be in that situation. If you are opposed to abortions or making abortion referrals, then don't become a gynecologist. There are fields like oncology or pathology where a doctor will never be asked to make an reproductive related decision. 3. It unfairly disadvantages women. Women are known to be less assertive and being refused a treatment may feel uneasy about approaching another doctor for the same thing. Women often have more limited time with household, child bearing and work commitments, so this roadblock may prevent them getting care for a longer time period. 4. It gives special status to religious views. Other types of moral judgement are not given the special status of religious views. I think that if a doctor tried to make a different type of moral judgement it would not be meet with the same type of support that a religious judgement could find. 5. If you don't like the job, get out of the game. I am a vegetarian, I would never take a job as a steak house chef. I would understand that part of that job was to cook dead animals, something I find morally unpleasant. If you don't want to provide standad reproductive care to women, don't become a GP or a gynecologist.

I don't believe that doctors should be able to conscientiously object to providing medical care. CMV. Conscientious objection is when a doctors 'conscious' influences their decision not to provide a certain medical treatment or type of care. *Disclaimer: I know I am focusing on reproductive decisions but these seem to be the main kinds of conscientious objections.* I believe this is wrong because: 1. Allowing doctors to give partial care makes the health care system inefficient, if I come to a doctor for a birth control prescription and they refuse, I have just wasted an appointment that could have been used by someone else, and I then need to go use another doctors time. 2. They know the job requirements. If a doctors is unwilling to preform a type of service then it is their responsibility to ensure they will never be in that situation. If you are opposed to abortions or making abortion referrals, then don't become a gynecologist. There are fields like oncology or pathology where a doctor will never be asked to make an reproductive related decision. 3. It unfairly disadvantages women. Women are known to be less assertive and being refused a treatment may feel uneasy about approaching another doctor for the same thing. Women often have more limited time with household, child bearing and work commitments, so this roadblock may prevent them getting care for a longer time period. 4. It gives special status to religious views. Other types of moral judgement are not given the special status of religious views. I think that if a doctor tried to make a different type of moral judgement it would not be meet with the same type of support that a religious judgement could find. 5. If you don't like the job, get out of the game. I am a vegetarian, I would never take a job as a steak house chef. I would understand that part of that job was to cook dead animals, something I find morally unpleasant. If you don't want to provide standad reproductive care to women, don't become a GP or a gynecologist.

t3_3xh22w

CMV: about The Force Awakens [SPOILERS]

If you have not seen the movie and you don't want to see spoilers then please stop reading and go back. Change My View: it's possible that Kylo Ren will come back from the Dark Side at the end of Episode IX and not be killed. The coldness with which he killed his father on that bridge was truly horrifying and it means his character definitely deserves to die a horrible death at the hands of either Luke or Rey before Episode IX is concluded. But the number of times Han and Leia discuss the "good in him" as well as the little 'talk' he has with his grandfather's mask lead me to believe Abrams and Kasdan will write a redemption into his character arc. Why am I wrong?

CMV: about The Force Awakens [SPOILERS]. If you have not seen the movie and you don't want to see spoilers then please stop reading and go back. Change My View: it's possible that Kylo Ren will come back from the Dark Side at the end of Episode IX and not be killed. The coldness with which he killed his father on that bridge was truly horrifying and it means his character definitely deserves to die a horrible death at the hands of either Luke or Rey before Episode IX is concluded. But the number of times Han and Leia discuss the "good in him" as well as the little 'talk' he has with his grandfather's mask lead me to believe Abrams and Kasdan will write a redemption into his character arc. Why am I wrong?

t3_1h4yca

I believe there is no such thing as a 'mental illness'

First of all, whenever I try to express this view people take it a completely different way and accuse me of being ignorant and insensitive. Let's get one thing straight, I am not rejecting people's suffering, I have nothing against those who are going through a tough time. Human life is suffering. I am just challenging the idea of 'mental illness' which is intertwined with today's society. Human life is full of suffering. And every human being is an unique individual with his own beliefs and personality traits. I believe that mental illness is nothing but a tool created by society to control people. It is a intriguing idea because it's so much easier to say someone is 'disordered' than actually acknowledging their actions/beliefs because they don't fit into the 'standards' of our society. Eugenics was used by Nazis to purify the weak, they sterilized people and also murdered a lot of people who were locked up in institutions against their will. And now today people are being jailed just because they have feelings. There is no proof involved in the diagnosis of mental illness, it's just the subjective opinions of the psychiatrists. In that logic, I too can diagnose someone as mentally ill just because they pray to god.. Like how they used to say gay people are mentally ill. Or things like Drapetomania. People don't think about it like this because the camouflage of 'help'. Who on earth would like someone to die? Who would not want to help another human being in suffering? Psychiatry just uses this weak point to classify people as disordered and get away with it. As soon as you are labeled unstable, your rights are very limited. Freedom of speech, liberty etc. are gone. By state laws, they can lock you up, make you to take medications, electroshock you, require you to see psychiatrists, - your opinion doesn't matter. Whatever you say to defend yourself is crazy talk because you are crazy. However these are extreme cases. But they exist. And they are a bunch of bullshit. Society wants to control you. They want you to think you are disordered. Too depressed? It's a disease. Too shy? It's a disease. Attracted to kids? It's a disease. There is no such thing as individuality. We must fit in to what the society wants us to be.

I believe there is no such thing as a 'mental illness'. First of all, whenever I try to express this view people take it a completely different way and accuse me of being ignorant and insensitive. Let's get one thing straight, I am not rejecting people's suffering, I have nothing against those who are going through a tough time. Human life is suffering. I am just challenging the idea of 'mental illness' which is intertwined with today's society. Human life is full of suffering. And every human being is an unique individual with his own beliefs and personality traits. I believe that mental illness is nothing but a tool created by society to control people. It is a intriguing idea because it's so much easier to say someone is 'disordered' than actually acknowledging their actions/beliefs because they don't fit into the 'standards' of our society. Eugenics was used by Nazis to purify the weak, they sterilized people and also murdered a lot of people who were locked up in institutions against their will. And now today people are being jailed just because they have feelings. There is no proof involved in the diagnosis of mental illness, it's just the subjective opinions of the psychiatrists. In that logic, I too can diagnose someone as mentally ill just because they pray to god.. Like how they used to say gay people are mentally ill. Or things like Drapetomania. People don't think about it like this because the camouflage of 'help'. Who on earth would like someone to die? Who would not want to help another human being in suffering? Psychiatry just uses this weak point to classify people as disordered and get away with it. As soon as you are labeled unstable, your rights are very limited. Freedom of speech, liberty etc. are gone. By state laws, they can lock you up, make you to take medications, electroshock you, require you to see psychiatrists, - your opinion doesn't matter. Whatever you say to defend yourself is crazy talk because you are crazy. However these are extreme cases. But they exist. And they are a bunch of bullshit. Society wants to control you. They want you to think you are disordered. Too depressed? It's a disease. Too shy? It's a disease. Attracted to kids? It's a disease. There is no such thing as individuality. We must fit in to what the society wants us to be.

t3_67b0z1

CMV: Freedom of Speech should have no restrictions with regard to comedy

Everybody is offended by something. If we were to limit comedy to jokes that do not offend anybody, there would be no jokes to tell. On the continuum of jokes and their corresponding offensiveness, some are more offensive than others. They can be more offensive either by the magnitude of offense or by the number of people offended. If restrictions were to be placed, who would decide what restrictions were placed and on which jokes? For example, should restrictions be placed on a joke that is racist towards towards black people but not on one that is racist towards white people? Also, should restrictions be placed on certain demographics of people? For example, can a black person tell racist jokes towards black people even when a white person can not? Also, what would these restrictions be? Would they be written in law so that it would be illegal to tell jokes? Would they just be societal restrictions so that people face real consequences such as unemployment for telling a joke? For example, a girl in college who's snapchat of herself with black face goes viral and she gets kicked out of her university and can not find a job. Would a restriction be violence or threats of violence that are restrictions themselves or lead to government restrictions to protect people? An example of this would be a law against drawing the prophet Muhammed because it leads to terrorist attacks. My belief is that none of these restrictions should be placed on comedy. Firstly, because it is protected under the first amendment. Secondly, because being offended by something is subjective and ultimately anybody can claim to be offended by any joke. In the case of trying to prevent terrorism, I think you should fight the violent terrorists rather than restricting the people who are making the jokes. I believe that even comedy that 99% of people find offensive such as jokes about rape or 9/11 should have no restrictions. Aside from attacking my main claim, I would like to hear from you guys if any of the restrictions I mentioned should be in place and examples of situations they should be used. I would also like to hear if there are any restrictions I did not mention and examples of situations they should be used. For the sake of this argument assume that none of the jokes are inciting violence or doing anything like yelling fire in a movie theatre. (Unless some of my specific examples did these things and please explain why you believe they do.) Edit: For the example about the girl, the important part of that was her getting kicked out of her government run public university and subsequently being unable to find a job. Sorry it was unclear I admit. _____ > *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: Freedom of Speech should have no restrictions with regard to comedy. Everybody is offended by something. If we were to limit comedy to jokes that do not offend anybody, there would be no jokes to tell. On the continuum of jokes and their corresponding offensiveness, some are more offensive than others. They can be more offensive either by the magnitude of offense or by the number of people offended. If restrictions were to be placed, who would decide what restrictions were placed and on which jokes? For example, should restrictions be placed on a joke that is racist towards towards black people but not on one that is racist towards white people? Also, should restrictions be placed on certain demographics of people? For example, can a black person tell racist jokes towards black people even when a white person can not? Also, what would these restrictions be? Would they be written in law so that it would be illegal to tell jokes? Would they just be societal restrictions so that people face real consequences such as unemployment for telling a joke? For example, a girl in college who's snapchat of herself with black face goes viral and she gets kicked out of her university and can not find a job. Would a restriction be violence or threats of violence that are restrictions themselves or lead to government restrictions to protect people? An example of this would be a law against drawing the prophet Muhammed because it leads to terrorist attacks. My belief is that none of these restrictions should be placed on comedy. Firstly, because it is protected under the first amendment. Secondly, because being offended by something is subjective and ultimately anybody can claim to be offended by any joke. In the case of trying to prevent terrorism, I think you should fight the violent terrorists rather than restricting the people who are making the jokes. I believe that even comedy that 99% of people find offensive such as jokes about rape or 9/11 should have no restrictions. Aside from attacking my main claim, I would like to hear from you guys if any of the restrictions I mentioned should be in place and examples of situations they should be used. I would also like to hear if there are any restrictions I did not mention and examples of situations they should be used. For the sake of this argument assume that none of the jokes are inciting violence or doing anything like yelling fire in a movie theatre. (Unless some of my specific examples did these things and please explain why you believe they do.) Edit: For the example about the girl, the important part of that was her getting kicked out of her government run public university and subsequently being unable to find a job. Sorry it was unclear I admit.

t3_1smrgi

I believe Pope Francis is not a deserving recipient for Time's Person of The Year. CMV.

Two reason why I do not believe he is deserving. - Obama Syndrome. He's been given an award for saying good things, rather than *doing* actual good things. Where is the evidence of actual positive change that has been accomplished as a result of Francis? - He's the head of the Catholic Church, a group with a sordid history based on unproven superstitions that is continuing to repress basic human rights in many areas. Personally, I do not think anyone affiliated with such a religion should be given such a honor, and rather such rewards should be given to people from groups that are willing to embrace science and independent thought rather than reject it.

I believe Pope Francis is not a deserving recipient for Time's Person of The Year. CMV. Two reason why I do not believe he is deserving. - Obama Syndrome. He's been given an award for saying good things, rather than *doing* actual good things. Where is the evidence of actual positive change that has been accomplished as a result of Francis? - He's the head of the Catholic Church, a group with a sordid history based on unproven superstitions that is continuing to repress basic human rights in many areas. Personally, I do not think anyone affiliated with such a religion should be given such a honor, and rather such rewards should be given to people from groups that are willing to embrace science and independent thought rather than reject it.

t3_1m4zug

I disagree with the idea that people can simply self-identify as being another gender and be considered such without getting sexual reassignment surgery. CMV?

I'm a bit awkward with words, so I hope I express this clearly. I disagree with the notion that people can simply self-identify as being another gender, not get sexual reassignment surgery, and be considered as being the new gender (e.g. - man identifies as a woman, does not get the operation, and is considered a woman). As this is closely tied to what gender is, I will need to explain and justify my definition of gender. As gender is a somewhat loosely defined term, I will provide the one that makes most sense to me: gender is an amalgamation of two attributes - species (specifically human) and sex. That is, a "man" or "boy" is a male human, and a "woman" or "girl" is a female human. I find it strange to attribute personality differences between the genders - mainly because they would most likely be based on hormonal differences between the two genders, not on their genitalia in and of themselves. And given how much hormonal variation there can be between members of the same gender, the personality differences between the genders would merely be trends, not absolutes. Therefore, simply defining gender as a term to include sex and species makes more sense than trying to define gender as a personality type. As such, self identifying as another gender is stating that you possess a different set of genitalia, a purely physical difference. This is hardly different from self-identifying as another race or species (transethnic and otherkin, respectively). However, it can be taken even further, such as self-identifying as being composed entirely of silicon (lets call this "trans-matter") or even as being an entirely gaseous entity ("trans-state-of-matter"). I find trans-matter, and I cannot detect a difference in kind between self identifying as being silicon and self identifying as being a member of another gender. Of course, this is all different if you actually change your physical characteristics. If you get sexual reassignment surgery, alter yourself to be another race (somehow), manage to become another species, convert yourself into silicon, or are vaporized - then I have no issue with acknowledging you as your new physical state. Tl;dr - I define gender as being based on physical characteristics, not personality differences. Merely self identifying as another gender without changing your sex is therefore ridiculous. CMV?

I disagree with the idea that people can simply self-identify as being another gender and be considered such without getting sexual reassignment surgery. CMV?. I'm a bit awkward with words, so I hope I express this clearly. I disagree with the notion that people can simply self-identify as being another gender, not get sexual reassignment surgery, and be considered as being the new gender (e.g. - man identifies as a woman, does not get the operation, and is considered a woman). As this is closely tied to what gender is, I will need to explain and justify my definition of gender. As gender is a somewhat loosely defined term, I will provide the one that makes most sense to me: gender is an amalgamation of two attributes - species (specifically human) and sex. That is, a "man" or "boy" is a male human, and a "woman" or "girl" is a female human. I find it strange to attribute personality differences between the genders - mainly because they would most likely be based on hormonal differences between the two genders, not on their genitalia in and of themselves. And given how much hormonal variation there can be between members of the same gender, the personality differences between the genders would merely be trends, not absolutes. Therefore, simply defining gender as a term to include sex and species makes more sense than trying to define gender as a personality type. As such, self identifying as another gender is stating that you possess a different set of genitalia, a purely physical difference. This is hardly different from self-identifying as another race or species (transethnic and otherkin, respectively). However, it can be taken even further, such as self-identifying as being composed entirely of silicon (lets call this "trans-matter") or even as being an entirely gaseous entity ("trans-state-of-matter"). I find trans-matter, and I cannot detect a difference in kind between self identifying as being silicon and self identifying as being a member of another gender. Of course, this is all different if you actually change your physical characteristics. If you get sexual reassignment surgery, alter yourself to be another race (somehow), manage to become another species, convert yourself into silicon, or are vaporized - then I have no issue with acknowledging you as your new physical state. Tl;dr - I define gender as being based on physical characteristics, not personality differences. Merely self identifying as another gender without changing your sex is therefore ridiculous. CMV?

t3_1grueh

I will never be good at talking to women.; Change My View.

I am writing this to prove a point to a friend. He says he believes that anyone can get better at talking to women. That it is a skill and can be practiced and improvement can be achieved. I am 26, male. I have always been awkward. I have a hard time speaking to people I don't know. I don't stutter, but my brain moves faster than my mouth and it can be hard to get sentences out properly even with friends. I have female friends, but as soon as I try talking to women in a romantic way it just ends bad. Probably sixty interactions in my adult life so far. Not only did none of them end positively, but I didn't get any better. I have had women sneer, say, "oh, gross" and walk away. If any improvement could be achieved, it simply wouldn't be worth the discomfort of being rejected time and time again. If I could improve, I would be almost dying before I got anywhere. So in summation, based on my experiences, I know I will never be able to talk to women. I am resigned to a life without sex, or meaningful romantic relationships. Change my view.

I will never be good at talking to women.; Change My View. I am writing this to prove a point to a friend. He says he believes that anyone can get better at talking to women. That it is a skill and can be practiced and improvement can be achieved. I am 26, male. I have always been awkward. I have a hard time speaking to people I don't know. I don't stutter, but my brain moves faster than my mouth and it can be hard to get sentences out properly even with friends. I have female friends, but as soon as I try talking to women in a romantic way it just ends bad. Probably sixty interactions in my adult life so far. Not only did none of them end positively, but I didn't get any better. I have had women sneer, say, "oh, gross" and walk away. If any improvement could be achieved, it simply wouldn't be worth the discomfort of being rejected time and time again. If I could improve, I would be almost dying before I got anywhere. So in summation, based on my experiences, I know I will never be able to talk to women. I am resigned to a life without sex, or meaningful romantic relationships. Change my view.

t3_1eahzp

I don't believe that it was right for Brutus to kill Caesar.

Caesar was a wonderful ruler. He never did any harm to any of the people. So why was it right for the conspirators to kill him even though they had no proof that Caesar was going to be a tyrant of a ruler. Caesar trusted Brutus.

I don't believe that it was right for Brutus to kill Caesar. Caesar was a wonderful ruler. He never did any harm to any of the people. So why was it right for the conspirators to kill him even though they had no proof that Caesar was going to be a tyrant of a ruler. Caesar trusted Brutus.

t3_2hk4px

CMV: There is little reason to tip pizza delivery drivers

Now, I'm saying this as a delivery driver myself! I just started a job a few months ago at a big pizza chain, and, although I love getting tips, I also don't really see why I do. I can't think of an easier job to do than this. I just drive around, listen to music, and deliver pizzas. When it slows down I may have to do dishes, fold boxes, answer phones etc. but thats really the only time I consider myself doing work. Driving around is fun and easy. I already get reimbursed for gas ($1.80 a delivery, however we have a very large area we deliver to so it's higher than most) and even that I think it a bit much. (Again though, I like it!) But still. A dollar a delivery could easily cover the cost. And then of course I make the $9 min wage (cali) and tips on top of that. After tips, I probably make anywhere from ~~$15-$20~~ $20-25 an hour (it varies based on good people are tipping!) Now, of course being a delivery driver, I think it's awesome I'm getting paid so well for so little work, but I almost feel bad for customers. I get that tipping is voluntary, but I think most people probably feel obligated to give some. But I just don't see why. CMV. edit: also, I think I may even be making more than the people who work the kitchen, which I think is crazy since I would hate to have that job, relative to mine. Have to be near the hot ovens all day, being constantly rushed, constantly burning yourself, always on your feet, etc. idk how much they get paid, but if I had to guess I'd say no more than $15 an hour. Probably like $13/H. _____ > *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 little reason to tip pizza delivery drivers. Now, I'm saying this as a delivery driver myself! I just started a job a few months ago at a big pizza chain, and, although I love getting tips, I also don't really see why I do. I can't think of an easier job to do than this. I just drive around, listen to music, and deliver pizzas. When it slows down I may have to do dishes, fold boxes, answer phones etc. but thats really the only time I consider myself doing work. Driving around is fun and easy. I already get reimbursed for gas ($1.80 a delivery, however we have a very large area we deliver to so it's higher than most) and even that I think it a bit much. (Again though, I like it!) But still. A dollar a delivery could easily cover the cost. And then of course I make the $9 min wage (cali) and tips on top of that. After tips, I probably make anywhere from ~~$15-$20~~ $20-25 an hour (it varies based on good people are tipping!) Now, of course being a delivery driver, I think it's awesome I'm getting paid so well for so little work, but I almost feel bad for customers. I get that tipping is voluntary, but I think most people probably feel obligated to give some. But I just don't see why. CMV. edit: also, I think I may even be making more than the people who work the kitchen, which I think is crazy since I would hate to have that job, relative to mine. Have to be near the hot ovens all day, being constantly rushed, constantly burning yourself, always on your feet, etc. idk how much they get paid, but if I had to guess I'd say no more than $15 an hour. Probably like $13/H.

t3_6xqadf

CMV: All Lives Matter advances the cause of Black Lives Matter, even if they don’t like it.

At the start of this decade there was a strong, grassroots movement addressing police misconduct. In response to public pressure police departments began increasing their dash cams, body cams, de-escalation training--and sometimes cops would get in trouble. The public demanded accountability and was beginning to see it. Then a couple high-profile cases involved white officers and black victims and BLM took charge of the conversation. They were great at shining the spotlight on the issue and clearly one race was affected by it more than another. BLM and the original police accountability advocates are pushing for the same thing. They want systems put in place to hold cops accountable for their abuse of power—achieved by gaining public support and pressure. BLM’s problem is that it racialized the issue to the degree that it was seen as only a problem for Black people and not a problem for All people. If it’s only a problem for a minority, the majority doesn’t *really* have to worry about it. Despite its racist undertones, All Lives Matter keeps the issue of police misconduct as a problem for everyone. Recently a [video](https://youtu.be/yia7qs01z1M?t=5m10s) of a cop mistreating a white nurse went viral and the public is once again reminded that out-of-control police is a problem for us All. This kind of attention keeps the pressure on police and governments to put in place the same systems BLM is demanding. More cameras, better policies, and strict punishments for offending officers. Tl:dr: All Lives Matter may sound like it’s marginalizing the problem that Black Lives face, but it actually pushes public pressure toward the same goals.

CMV: All Lives Matter advances the cause of Black Lives Matter, even if they don’t like it. At the start of this decade there was a strong, grassroots movement addressing police misconduct. In response to public pressure police departments began increasing their dash cams, body cams, de-escalation training--and sometimes cops would get in trouble. The public demanded accountability and was beginning to see it. Then a couple high-profile cases involved white officers and black victims and BLM took charge of the conversation. They were great at shining the spotlight on the issue and clearly one race was affected by it more than another. BLM and the original police accountability advocates are pushing for the same thing. They want systems put in place to hold cops accountable for their abuse of power—achieved by gaining public support and pressure. BLM’s problem is that it racialized the issue to the degree that it was seen as only a problem for Black people and not a problem for All people. If it’s only a problem for a minority, the majority doesn’t *really* have to worry about it. Despite its racist undertones, All Lives Matter keeps the issue of police misconduct as a problem for everyone. Recently a [video](https://youtu.be/yia7qs01z1M?t=5m10s) of a cop mistreating a white nurse went viral and the public is once again reminded that out-of-control police is a problem for us All. This kind of attention keeps the pressure on police and governments to put in place the same systems BLM is demanding. More cameras, better policies, and strict punishments for offending officers. Tl:dr: All Lives Matter may sound like it’s marginalizing the problem that Black Lives face, but it actually pushes public pressure toward the same goals.

t3_1ql7md

I see no educational benefit from reading in school. CMV

To me, it seems like it's just another form of entertainment. After being able to learn how to read in general, I see no reason to read the Oedipus Cycle or The Catcher in the Rye. The morals of these books could be shown through movies and TV shows so why is this any different? Studies show that people that read more in their free time have higher GPAs and SAT scores but I think that's just correlation and not causation because people who read on their free time probably don't have the most action-packed social life so they have more time to study. Why is reading different than watching a movie?

I see no educational benefit from reading in school. CMV. To me, it seems like it's just another form of entertainment. After being able to learn how to read in general, I see no reason to read the Oedipus Cycle or The Catcher in the Rye. The morals of these books could be shown through movies and TV shows so why is this any different? Studies show that people that read more in their free time have higher GPAs and SAT scores but I think that's just correlation and not causation because people who read on their free time probably don't have the most action-packed social life so they have more time to study. Why is reading different than watching a movie?

t3_405eia

CMV:Soldiers who went to Iraq were part of an invasion/occupying force and when they harmed people/property those were acts of aggression which they should be held personally responsible for.

Every soldier is a moral agent and should be judged on the grounds of that fact. It's not enough to say that a soldier is only following orders as we learned after the Nuremberg trials. Every one of them had a choice to make when they heard they were going to Iraq. Everyone that did go went because they valued money more than the harm they could inflict on strangers. Although it may never come to fruition, those soldiers should be tried for their acts. In the case of someone like Chris Kyle, killing people who were trying to get the invasion force out is simply killing a man who wants independence. Some thoughts: -This may apply much more broadly -It's no defense to say that some soldiers might have believed US propoganda about WMDs because by that logic they would have to all turn traitor and invade Washington D.C. which controls the most WMDs. So Reddit, I'd love for you to 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:Soldiers who went to Iraq were part of an invasion/occupying force and when they harmed people/property those were acts of aggression which they should be held personally responsible for. Every soldier is a moral agent and should be judged on the grounds of that fact. It's not enough to say that a soldier is only following orders as we learned after the Nuremberg trials. Every one of them had a choice to make when they heard they were going to Iraq. Everyone that did go went because they valued money more than the harm they could inflict on strangers. Although it may never come to fruition, those soldiers should be tried for their acts. In the case of someone like Chris Kyle, killing people who were trying to get the invasion force out is simply killing a man who wants independence. Some thoughts: -This may apply much more broadly -It's no defense to say that some soldiers might have believed US propoganda about WMDs because by that logic they would have to all turn traitor and invade Washington D.C. which controls the most WMDs. So Reddit, I'd love for you to change my view.

t3_1gdwef

I think people who believe welfare recipients should be drug tested are uncompassionate and unrealistic, CMV.

I've heard many people argue that welfare recipients should be drug tested, not be allowed to vote or have children, and should be forced to do community service. I think that these views are not compassionate and unrealistic. Furthermore, I think that it would be a detriment to society if these views were implemented. I believe that the costs of implementing these strategies would outweigh any costs saved on welfare and that more problems would arise as a result, which would be harder to address

I think people who believe welfare recipients should be drug tested are uncompassionate and unrealistic, CMV. I've heard many people argue that welfare recipients should be drug tested, not be allowed to vote or have children, and should be forced to do community service. I think that these views are not compassionate and unrealistic. Furthermore, I think that it would be a detriment to society if these views were implemented. I believe that the costs of implementing these strategies would outweigh any costs saved on welfare and that more problems would arise as a result, which would be harder to address