Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1y85xp

Paying for elite prep programs negates your right to say that you "worked for everything you have." CMV?

Roommate got into law school recently. He keeps saying that he's really proud because he's worked for everything he has. I think getting into law school is an accomplishment worthy of being proud of. But, he has wealthy parents who paid for him to go to a incredibly expensive LSAT tutoring school over the summer (like $16,000) and paid a significant amount of money for a private tutor. On top of that, paid upwards of $250 an hour for a private "coach" who not only helped him tailor his entire application (editing essays, formatting CV/Resume, helping him decide on the best internships, etc.) but also helped him organize dates and practice for interviews, and so on. Again, I'm not trying to take away from his accomplishment. And I don't think there is anything morally or ethically wrong with patronizing these services. However, he didn't 'work' for the money to pay for these services. And further, he was dishonest when interviewers asked him if he paid for a consultant. So, I don't think it's fair for him to say, "I've worked for everything I have."

Paying for elite prep programs negates your right to say that you "worked for everything you have." CMV?. Roommate got into law school recently. He keeps saying that he's really proud because he's worked for everything he has. I think getting into law school is an accomplishment worthy of being proud of. But, he has wealthy parents who paid for him to go to a incredibly expensive LSAT tutoring school over the summer (like $16,000) and paid a significant amount of money for a private tutor. On top of that, paid upwards of $250 an hour for a private "coach" who not only helped him tailor his entire application (editing essays, formatting CV/Resume, helping him decide on the best internships, etc.) but also helped him organize dates and practice for interviews, and so on. Again, I'm not trying to take away from his accomplishment. And I don't think there is anything morally or ethically wrong with patronizing these services. However, he didn't 'work' for the money to pay for these services. And further, he was dishonest when interviewers asked him if he paid for a consultant. So, I don't think it's fair for him to say, "I've worked for everything I have."

t3_4nnt79

CMV: Quest markers are one of the worst things to ever happen to video games, and they're ruining the concept of immersion.

Quest markers, [these](http://m.imgur.com/IPwa00Q) little guys, started years ago and are now a staple of a lot of games. They are, in my opinion, the worst addition to video games in my lifetime. Worse than DRM, worse than QTES. Worse than Superman 64. Alright, maybe not that last one. They've changed games drastically. Before, you used to have to look for the answer/location/item/whatever. Finding it may have taken a bit more time, but there was a sense of accomplishment when you found it. You actually learned the area. I still have GTA 3 memorized despite not playing it for 15 years because they didn't have a GPS...I actually learned the lay of the land because I had to know my way around. With quest markers or GPS, I end up staring at my compass instead of the surroundings. The running joke in Skyrim is that we would rather go over the mountain than take the path around it. And this is bad for gaming. You can't appreciate the surroundings if you're looking at your compass. You're not involved in the hunt for this location, you just point the arrow in the middle of the screen and walk forward. Now I will admit, things have gotten better in some aspects. The "quest circles" are better, where they get you to a central area and just get you to the general area, but the idea of "no markers" is still far more immersion. And yes, you can turn them off, but the games generally aren't made for that. For example, compare Morrowind and Skyrim. Skyrim might say "the cave west of here," and then give you a marker. Morrowind won't give you a marker, but they give you directions like "go west, cross the river. Turn right at the crater, when you see a smoldering tree, look left." Which one of those gives a better experience? _____ > *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: Quest markers are one of the worst things to ever happen to video games, and they're ruining the concept of immersion. Quest markers, [these](http://m.imgur.com/IPwa00Q) little guys, started years ago and are now a staple of a lot of games. They are, in my opinion, the worst addition to video games in my lifetime. Worse than DRM, worse than QTES. Worse than Superman 64. Alright, maybe not that last one. They've changed games drastically. Before, you used to have to look for the answer/location/item/whatever. Finding it may have taken a bit more time, but there was a sense of accomplishment when you found it. You actually learned the area. I still have GTA 3 memorized despite not playing it for 15 years because they didn't have a GPS...I actually learned the lay of the land because I had to know my way around. With quest markers or GPS, I end up staring at my compass instead of the surroundings. The running joke in Skyrim is that we would rather go over the mountain than take the path around it. And this is bad for gaming. You can't appreciate the surroundings if you're looking at your compass. You're not involved in the hunt for this location, you just point the arrow in the middle of the screen and walk forward. Now I will admit, things have gotten better in some aspects. The "quest circles" are better, where they get you to a central area and just get you to the general area, but the idea of "no markers" is still far more immersion. And yes, you can turn them off, but the games generally aren't made for that. For example, compare Morrowind and Skyrim. Skyrim might say "the cave west of here," and then give you a marker. Morrowind won't give you a marker, but they give you directions like "go west, cross the river. Turn right at the crater, when you see a smoldering tree, look left." Which one of those gives a better experience?

t3_2xx8nb

CMV: All qualifications equal, there should still be an even blend of men and women in positions of power because men and women release different hormones during stress and women's "tend and befriend" hormones are much needed complement to men's "flight or fight" hormones.

Most of us know the idea of the "fight or flight" reaction under stress. Research shows this reaction is in part due to testosterone and vasopressin, of which men have more than women. But it isn't the only response to stress! Researchers have coined "tend and befriend" as another response to stress; one that is in part caused by estrogen and oxytocin (oxytocin being "the bonding chemical" that bonds new mothers to their newborn infants), and women have more estrogen and oxytocin than men do. [link](http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/mccarthy.html) Cooperation and mediation in stressful situations is essential to resolution in conflict. And creates a far better resolution than domination and force would: when opposing people find common ground to agree on and reach a mutual resolution that's far better than one side just dominating the other to resolve the conflict. This applies to business, local leadership, and international leadership. To any group of leaders or to any group of people that will need to work together in stressful situations. If you have all the perfectly equally qualified candidates to pick from of both genders and you need to fill ten positions, you should still try to have roughly half be men and half be women - despite the fact that these men and women are all equally qualified and one might assume there's no difference between them - because having the blend of hormonal responses to stress instead of having all hormonal responses to stress be the same is going to create better resolutions and better decision making. To be absolutely clear: of course men have estrogen and oxytocin, and men "tend and befriend," and women have testosterone and vasopressin, and women "flight or fight." It's just that the genders have the hormones in different amounts. And of course individuals have the hormones in even different varying amounts. _____ > *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: All qualifications equal, there should still be an even blend of men and women in positions of power because men and women release different hormones during stress and women's "tend and befriend" hormones are much needed complement to men's "flight or fight" hormones. Most of us know the idea of the "fight or flight" reaction under stress. Research shows this reaction is in part due to testosterone and vasopressin, of which men have more than women. But it isn't the only response to stress! Researchers have coined "tend and befriend" as another response to stress; one that is in part caused by estrogen and oxytocin (oxytocin being "the bonding chemical" that bonds new mothers to their newborn infants), and women have more estrogen and oxytocin than men do. [link](http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/mccarthy.html) Cooperation and mediation in stressful situations is essential to resolution in conflict. And creates a far better resolution than domination and force would: when opposing people find common ground to agree on and reach a mutual resolution that's far better than one side just dominating the other to resolve the conflict. This applies to business, local leadership, and international leadership. To any group of leaders or to any group of people that will need to work together in stressful situations. If you have all the perfectly equally qualified candidates to pick from of both genders and you need to fill ten positions, you should still try to have roughly half be men and half be women - despite the fact that these men and women are all equally qualified and one might assume there's no difference between them - because having the blend of hormonal responses to stress instead of having all hormonal responses to stress be the same is going to create better resolutions and better decision making. To be absolutely clear: of course men have estrogen and oxytocin, and men "tend and befriend," and women have testosterone and vasopressin, and women "flight or fight." It's just that the genders have the hormones in different amounts. And of course individuals have the hormones in even different varying amounts.

t3_6jp922

CMV: I shouldn't continue watching Battlestar Galatica (I stopped at the Season 2 Finale).

So my last post was controversial enough to get a removal. I'll try something a little more tame this time, but with Reddit's views regarding Battlestar, who knows... I just watched the first 2 seasons of Battlestar. I wasn't so impressed. Most of the acting is subpar. The main characters have thick plot armor which reduces the stakes and tension. There is little complexity in exploring the sci-fi themes. The coincidences, cliches, and plot holes could fill a novel. I find it a sometimes fun diversion, but not worth putting in the time to see the show through to its end. I do want my view changed, because I want to see and enjoy Battlestar the way all the millions of fans do. I don't want to be missing out so hard. But right now I can't find a way to justify spending many hours wrapping it all up. Please change my view. **PLEASE NO SPOILERS. REMEMBER, I'VE ONLY SEEN SEASON 1 AND 2.**

CMV: I shouldn't continue watching Battlestar Galatica (I stopped at the Season 2 Finale). So my last post was controversial enough to get a removal. I'll try something a little more tame this time, but with Reddit's views regarding Battlestar, who knows... I just watched the first 2 seasons of Battlestar. I wasn't so impressed. Most of the acting is subpar. The main characters have thick plot armor which reduces the stakes and tension. There is little complexity in exploring the sci-fi themes. The coincidences, cliches, and plot holes could fill a novel. I find it a sometimes fun diversion, but not worth putting in the time to see the show through to its end. I do want my view changed, because I want to see and enjoy Battlestar the way all the millions of fans do. I don't want to be missing out so hard. But right now I can't find a way to justify spending many hours wrapping it all up. Please change my view. **PLEASE NO SPOILERS. REMEMBER, I'VE ONLY SEEN SEASON 1 AND 2.**

t3_30z0i2

CMV:Whipping in the House of Commons is undemocratic and should be abolished

I believe that the system of Whipping in the British House of Commons is undemocratic and should ideally be scrapped. The reason I believe this is because MPs have a duty to represent their constituents and whipping forces them to either forget about this requirement and be a good little pet for the party or face possible punishment by their party. Another reason I hold this view is because over time it results in a group of MPs that do not care about the people they are supposed to represent, instead only caring about internal promotions within the party. - This devalues the local politics and turns people off voting. _____ > *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:Whipping in the House of Commons is undemocratic and should be abolished. I believe that the system of Whipping in the British House of Commons is undemocratic and should ideally be scrapped. The reason I believe this is because MPs have a duty to represent their constituents and whipping forces them to either forget about this requirement and be a good little pet for the party or face possible punishment by their party. Another reason I hold this view is because over time it results in a group of MPs that do not care about the people they are supposed to represent, instead only caring about internal promotions within the party. - This devalues the local politics and turns people off voting.

t3_6la1up

CMV: Taillights the double as blinkers are dangerous and have no place on a modern automobile.

Generally cars have [amber blinkers](http://wwwpub.zih.tu-dresden.de/~s3767052/Ruecklicht/LED/combi/combi_animation_blinker.gif). Others have [red taillights that double as blinkers](https://nibblesforthought.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1-and-3-blinker.gif). I used to drive a Toyota Tundra which had a traditional amber blinker. I recently got rid of my Tundra and got a Ford Ranger. The Ranger uses the dual purpose taillight. I've noticed that ever since I got the ranger, far less people seem to acknowledge when I have my turn signal on. This doesn't seem to be an issue during night driving. However during day time, it seems that people don't notice that my blinker is flashing. I parked my truck one day and walked behind it with the blinker on. You could barely tell it was flashing. I assumed my bulbs were going bad so I swapped them out, nope still barely noticeable on a sunny day. So, I am a firm believer that these dual purpose taillights are dangerous because people won't catch your blinker as if were a normal amber blinker.

CMV: Taillights the double as blinkers are dangerous and have no place on a modern automobile. Generally cars have [amber blinkers](http://wwwpub.zih.tu-dresden.de/~s3767052/Ruecklicht/LED/combi/combi_animation_blinker.gif). Others have [red taillights that double as blinkers](https://nibblesforthought.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1-and-3-blinker.gif). I used to drive a Toyota Tundra which had a traditional amber blinker. I recently got rid of my Tundra and got a Ford Ranger. The Ranger uses the dual purpose taillight. I've noticed that ever since I got the ranger, far less people seem to acknowledge when I have my turn signal on. This doesn't seem to be an issue during night driving. However during day time, it seems that people don't notice that my blinker is flashing. I parked my truck one day and walked behind it with the blinker on. You could barely tell it was flashing. I assumed my bulbs were going bad so I swapped them out, nope still barely noticeable on a sunny day. So, I am a firm believer that these dual purpose taillights are dangerous because people won't catch your blinker as if were a normal amber blinker.

t3_524m5p

CMV: Donald Trump should refuse to debate HRC unless Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are also included.

Just to be clear, Im not a Trump supporter. I am just talking about strategy. I think Donald Trump should outright refuse to participate in the debates unless Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are also included. My logic is simple, Donald Trump would benefit because of the following reasons: (1) he does better in polls when Johnson and Stein are also included, and the more chaos there is this election, the better chance he has to win, (2) he would speak for less time, making him less likely to make a total and complete ass of himself, (3) he would get the benefit of other people hating on HRC, since Johnson and Stein would likely attack the frontrunner (plus, she has policies to attack, he doesn't know anything, so it makes the people attacking her seem more grounded in policy if they do it legitimately), (4) he could use the advocacy of Stein and Johnson as the (legitimate) basis for a claim the system is corrupt, saying it's not a real democracy unless more voices are included, (5) Trump's only real path to victory is to get a significant portion of the independent vote, what better way to get credibility with independents than to give the third party candidates a platform, (6) he claims he wants to shake up the system, here is his best chance to prove he is not just hot air, (7) he hates the Republican party as much as anyone, so fuck them for rigging the system with the dems to keep the third parties out. (8) it couldn't possibly harm him, considering he is going lose if he doesn't. Change my view. why would it be bad for Trump to refuse to debate with HRC unless the third party candidates were also included. _____ > *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: Donald Trump should refuse to debate HRC unless Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are also included. Just to be clear, Im not a Trump supporter. I am just talking about strategy. I think Donald Trump should outright refuse to participate in the debates unless Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are also included. My logic is simple, Donald Trump would benefit because of the following reasons: (1) he does better in polls when Johnson and Stein are also included, and the more chaos there is this election, the better chance he has to win, (2) he would speak for less time, making him less likely to make a total and complete ass of himself, (3) he would get the benefit of other people hating on HRC, since Johnson and Stein would likely attack the frontrunner (plus, she has policies to attack, he doesn't know anything, so it makes the people attacking her seem more grounded in policy if they do it legitimately), (4) he could use the advocacy of Stein and Johnson as the (legitimate) basis for a claim the system is corrupt, saying it's not a real democracy unless more voices are included, (5) Trump's only real path to victory is to get a significant portion of the independent vote, what better way to get credibility with independents than to give the third party candidates a platform, (6) he claims he wants to shake up the system, here is his best chance to prove he is not just hot air, (7) he hates the Republican party as much as anyone, so fuck them for rigging the system with the dems to keep the third parties out. (8) it couldn't possibly harm him, considering he is going lose if he doesn't. Change my view. why would it be bad for Trump to refuse to debate with HRC unless the third party candidates were also included.

t3_3orldi

CMV: It is morally right to kill one in order to save two.

This has been asked before, but I would like new input. The [Trolley Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) is what made me think of this issue. To summarize, a trolley is barreling down a track. Two people are tied up on the track ahead, and will be killed if the trolley continues. You have the option of pulling a switch and diverting the train onto another track. However, there is a single worker on the second track that will be killed if you divert the train. I would feel morally required to pull the switch and save the two people. Likewise, if I were the worker I would expect someone to divert the train toward me. This is assuming you know nothing about anyone involved. For those who disagree with the above position, imagine it was 50 people tied up and one worker. Is it morally required to divert the train to the worker? If your answers to these two questions are different, please explain why? I am looking for people to present alternative scenarios that I have not thought of in order to rethink my viewpoint. Reddit, CMV! Edit: I really appreciate the responses and it has made me look at the situation from different angles. My argument was made from a utilitarian viewpoint, but I have come to understand utilitarianism is not all numbers. I tried to be objective when looking at the Trolley Problem, but I realize no situation will ever be truly objective. I was trying to offer a moral argument that held true in all theoretical situations, but I am unable to make one as every situation is different. _____ > *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 morally right to kill one in order to save two. This has been asked before, but I would like new input. The [Trolley Problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) is what made me think of this issue. To summarize, a trolley is barreling down a track. Two people are tied up on the track ahead, and will be killed if the trolley continues. You have the option of pulling a switch and diverting the train onto another track. However, there is a single worker on the second track that will be killed if you divert the train. I would feel morally required to pull the switch and save the two people. Likewise, if I were the worker I would expect someone to divert the train toward me. This is assuming you know nothing about anyone involved. For those who disagree with the above position, imagine it was 50 people tied up and one worker. Is it morally required to divert the train to the worker? If your answers to these two questions are different, please explain why? I am looking for people to present alternative scenarios that I have not thought of in order to rethink my viewpoint. Reddit, CMV! Edit: I really appreciate the responses and it has made me look at the situation from different angles. My argument was made from a utilitarian viewpoint, but I have come to understand utilitarianism is not all numbers. I tried to be objective when looking at the Trolley Problem, but I realize no situation will ever be truly objective. I was trying to offer a moral argument that held true in all theoretical situations, but I am unable to make one as every situation is different.

t3_5ik5kv

CMV: I believe Mansplaining, Cissplaining, Whitesplaining can be misused as a Thought-Terminating Cliche.

I believe Mansplaining, Cissplaining, Whitesplaining can be misused as a Thought-Terminating Cliche. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9 I try to be feminist, trans-positive, non-racist, et cetera. As it happens, I am also male, cis, white, well-educated, upper middle class, white collar, and many other things which give me about the intersectionality of an Illinois cornfield. While 95% of the time I am in agreement with progressive communities, from time to time my opinion differs, and if I express my opinion I get accused of white/cis/mansplaining, especially if I support my opinion with reasoned argument. Now, I get that sea-lioning, brigading, and privileged condescension exists and is rampant. I get that as a white cis male I'm used to walking into any old space and having my opinion valued, and that people who don't have that privilege have to set aside their own spaces where their voices have the volume turned up and the usual voices have the dial turned down. but, for example, earlier today I saw an assertion that "Looking for a biological cause for transness is neurosexist, transphobic, cisnormative, and eugenist," and raised the specter of forcing people to be tested for transness before being permitted to transition, that "treatments" would cause trans people to disappear, or how a trans person is supposed to feel if they're told they don't have "the trans gene." To which I thought...no, none of that follows simply from researching what causes transness in the brain. It could be misapplied, it could give people who happen to be transphobic and neurosexist and the rest *ammunition* to enact their prejudices, but that's not the necessary consequence of scientific research. So, I said as much. I went out of my way to validate the concerns expressed and acknowledge that real problems do exist, but I love science and I think we always are better off if we know more. Aaaaand I got thwapped for cissplaining and the OP immediately made a comment that posts of a certain tenor would be deleted. There goes that conversation, no discussion to be had on that subject. So...what the F? Sometimes I get the impression that XYZsplaining is nothing more than having an opinion while white or male or straight or cis and being willing to express it and support it. Things that I'm looking for that will earn deltas: * what the heck is XYZsplaining other than just being me and having an opinion, and what can I do to participate, trying to be an ally, to avoid the accusation, which once made completely terminates any further legitimacy of my comments? It's not like I can explain "no I'm not XYZsplaining" without being accused of more of the same, especially if I take umbrage at the accusation. * if the accusation that I'm XYZsplaining is made, what can I do to re-enter the conversation and not just be some privileged guy asserting his right to be heard at all times in all places? Things that I'm not looking for: * criticism from people who use terms like "SJW," "Political Correctness," "cuck," "beta," or suchlike without irony. I'm not interested in opinions from people who think progressive social attitudes are a bad thing or that they've gone too far. * criticism of of people who aren't white/male/straight/cis for being overly sensitive in general just because their copy of the game of Life came with higher difficulty preset options. _____ > *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 Mansplaining, Cissplaining, Whitesplaining can be misused as a Thought-Terminating Cliche. I believe Mansplaining, Cissplaining, Whitesplaining can be misused as a Thought-Terminating Cliche. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9 I try to be feminist, trans-positive, non-racist, et cetera. As it happens, I am also male, cis, white, well-educated, upper middle class, white collar, and many other things which give me about the intersectionality of an Illinois cornfield. While 95% of the time I am in agreement with progressive communities, from time to time my opinion differs, and if I express my opinion I get accused of white/cis/mansplaining, especially if I support my opinion with reasoned argument. Now, I get that sea-lioning, brigading, and privileged condescension exists and is rampant. I get that as a white cis male I'm used to walking into any old space and having my opinion valued, and that people who don't have that privilege have to set aside their own spaces where their voices have the volume turned up and the usual voices have the dial turned down. but, for example, earlier today I saw an assertion that "Looking for a biological cause for transness is neurosexist, transphobic, cisnormative, and eugenist," and raised the specter of forcing people to be tested for transness before being permitted to transition, that "treatments" would cause trans people to disappear, or how a trans person is supposed to feel if they're told they don't have "the trans gene." To which I thought...no, none of that follows simply from researching what causes transness in the brain. It could be misapplied, it could give people who happen to be transphobic and neurosexist and the rest *ammunition* to enact their prejudices, but that's not the necessary consequence of scientific research. So, I said as much. I went out of my way to validate the concerns expressed and acknowledge that real problems do exist, but I love science and I think we always are better off if we know more. Aaaaand I got thwapped for cissplaining and the OP immediately made a comment that posts of a certain tenor would be deleted. There goes that conversation, no discussion to be had on that subject. So...what the F? Sometimes I get the impression that XYZsplaining is nothing more than having an opinion while white or male or straight or cis and being willing to express it and support it. Things that I'm looking for that will earn deltas: * what the heck is XYZsplaining other than just being me and having an opinion, and what can I do to participate, trying to be an ally, to avoid the accusation, which once made completely terminates any further legitimacy of my comments? It's not like I can explain "no I'm not XYZsplaining" without being accused of more of the same, especially if I take umbrage at the accusation. * if the accusation that I'm XYZsplaining is made, what can I do to re-enter the conversation and not just be some privileged guy asserting his right to be heard at all times in all places? Things that I'm not looking for: * criticism from people who use terms like "SJW," "Political Correctness," "cuck," "beta," or suchlike without irony. I'm not interested in opinions from people who think progressive social attitudes are a bad thing or that they've gone too far. * criticism of of people who aren't white/male/straight/cis for being overly sensitive in general just because their copy of the game of Life came with higher difficulty preset options.

t3_5aolc0

CMV: For non-native speakers, standard pronunciation should not be welcomed.

I'm a non-native english speaker. I think, that my pronunciation is good for someone who doesn't frequently speak with natives. But I also like shortenings like "I-ma" instead of "I am going to", or "'cuz" instead of "because". I consciously confuse accents. People still can understand me perfectly well, and we have great conversations with each other. In our schools, though, most teachers still can only say words out of the textbook. And God forbid you say anything not the way it's written in this 20 year old book. Whenever I hear my teacher speak, it sounds awful. It's hard to distinguish words, and it just sounds off. But it is the way English is taught all around my country. No wonder hardly anyone can actually speak it. Now, I know there is Standard English, and it's well and good for learners to understand, but I don't see any use in that, since no one really speaks it. There is such a wide variety of accents, that picking one won't help. Learners should be listening to all most spread accents, I know I did. That way, the more they learn to understand new speech, the easier it will be to communicate with new people, rather than sticking to a broken record. That's how I think. Prove I'm wrong. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: For non-native speakers, standard pronunciation should not be welcomed. I'm a non-native english speaker. I think, that my pronunciation is good for someone who doesn't frequently speak with natives. But I also like shortenings like "I-ma" instead of "I am going to", or "'cuz" instead of "because". I consciously confuse accents. People still can understand me perfectly well, and we have great conversations with each other. In our schools, though, most teachers still can only say words out of the textbook. And God forbid you say anything not the way it's written in this 20 year old book. Whenever I hear my teacher speak, it sounds awful. It's hard to distinguish words, and it just sounds off. But it is the way English is taught all around my country. No wonder hardly anyone can actually speak it. Now, I know there is Standard English, and it's well and good for learners to understand, but I don't see any use in that, since no one really speaks it. There is such a wide variety of accents, that picking one won't help. Learners should be listening to all most spread accents, I know I did. That way, the more they learn to understand new speech, the easier it will be to communicate with new people, rather than sticking to a broken record. That's how I think. Prove I'm wrong. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_282r7k

CMV: Intelligence is the privilege that trumps all other privileges

I think that when people talk about privilege, they forget about the most important one. Smarts. If you're smart, you can be a wheelchair bound and paralyzed, and still make it in the world. Case in point: Stephen Hawking. He's got almost nothing going for him other than his brain. He's still successful. You could be an African-American/Pacific Islander transgendered/multisex pansexual with chronic diarrhea, paralyzed from the neck down, and a triple amputee with body dysmorphia, but if you've got a 190 IQ, you can become rich. You can be famous. You can have a pretty good spot in life. Change my view. EDIT: Swearrengen changed my view. Smarts are worthless without motivation and dedication. The will to succeed is a lot more important than just being a smarty-pants.

CMV: Intelligence is the privilege that trumps all other privileges. I think that when people talk about privilege, they forget about the most important one. Smarts. If you're smart, you can be a wheelchair bound and paralyzed, and still make it in the world. Case in point: Stephen Hawking. He's got almost nothing going for him other than his brain. He's still successful. You could be an African-American/Pacific Islander transgendered/multisex pansexual with chronic diarrhea, paralyzed from the neck down, and a triple amputee with body dysmorphia, but if you've got a 190 IQ, you can become rich. You can be famous. You can have a pretty good spot in life. Change my view. EDIT: Swearrengen changed my view. Smarts are worthless without motivation and dedication. The will to succeed is a lot more important than just being a smarty-pants.

t3_6abfwq

CMV: Other than the NICS or the NFA w.r.t. automatic weapons, gun control does more harm than good

I've done quite a bit of internet research on gun control due to a couple persuasive essays I did on the topic when I was in college. My degree was in Aerospace Engineering, so understanding the math was never difficult for me. During my research, I couldn't find very many reasons that could explain why so many democrats are dead set against allowing regular people to have guns. Keeping felons from having guns I understand because they’re much more likely to commit a crime, hence my being okay with background checks. I've read about the problems with mob violence in the 30s, hence my being okay with restrictions on full-autos. The primary reason for gun control is to stop gun violence, but I haven't seen any statistically relevant difference in areas with heavy gun control compared to areas without. Chicago has extremely strict gun control, but is infamous for gun violence. (17.5/capita) Las Vegas for example, is mild by comparison, despite less stringent regulations. (8.1/capita) Now of course you can get the opposite if you pick two different cities, but that's part of my point. The data is all over the place when you try to correlate gun control to homicide rate, and you use a statistically relevant number of cities or states. It’s not consistent enough to prove causation. However, race, population density, and poverty correlate much closer to violent crimes, but I don't see that being talked about except by hard-line gun rights people. Now I know what you're thinking, "Gun violence is way lower in Australia and Europe, so let’s do what they do!" The problem here is that it's way higher in South American countries, despite similarly strict gun control, once again damaging the claim that gun availability is the primary contributing factor. Violence in Europe/Australia was also lower than the U.S. before the major gun control legislation went through. Their violent crime rates were also going down before the bans, and the rate of change didn’t alter much after the bans. I think the U.S. has so much extra violence due to the increased gang cultures in our cities, not because it's easier to get a gun. The culture in western nations keep it low, despite guns being legal still. I think expanded background checks for purchases are fine because it doesn’t deny anyone without a serious criminal record. Everything else (may issue states, magazine capacity limits, assault weapon bans, approved handgun list, silencer regulations, SBR/SBS regulations, gun free zones, etc.) just limit people’s rights + ability to protect themselves and distract us from the problems that actually have significant impact on violent crime rates. I get my statistics from the FBI crime statistics located here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime/violentcrimemain_final To gun rights people: I'm looking for arguments that go either way. If you think the exceptions I've listed in the title are still too much, go for it. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Other than the NICS or the NFA w.r.t. automatic weapons, gun control does more harm than good. I've done quite a bit of internet research on gun control due to a couple persuasive essays I did on the topic when I was in college. My degree was in Aerospace Engineering, so understanding the math was never difficult for me. During my research, I couldn't find very many reasons that could explain why so many democrats are dead set against allowing regular people to have guns. Keeping felons from having guns I understand because they’re much more likely to commit a crime, hence my being okay with background checks. I've read about the problems with mob violence in the 30s, hence my being okay with restrictions on full-autos. The primary reason for gun control is to stop gun violence, but I haven't seen any statistically relevant difference in areas with heavy gun control compared to areas without. Chicago has extremely strict gun control, but is infamous for gun violence. (17.5/capita) Las Vegas for example, is mild by comparison, despite less stringent regulations. (8.1/capita) Now of course you can get the opposite if you pick two different cities, but that's part of my point. The data is all over the place when you try to correlate gun control to homicide rate, and you use a statistically relevant number of cities or states. It’s not consistent enough to prove causation. However, race, population density, and poverty correlate much closer to violent crimes, but I don't see that being talked about except by hard-line gun rights people. Now I know what you're thinking, "Gun violence is way lower in Australia and Europe, so let’s do what they do!" The problem here is that it's way higher in South American countries, despite similarly strict gun control, once again damaging the claim that gun availability is the primary contributing factor. Violence in Europe/Australia was also lower than the U.S. before the major gun control legislation went through. Their violent crime rates were also going down before the bans, and the rate of change didn’t alter much after the bans. I think the U.S. has so much extra violence due to the increased gang cultures in our cities, not because it's easier to get a gun. The culture in western nations keep it low, despite guns being legal still. I think expanded background checks for purchases are fine because it doesn’t deny anyone without a serious criminal record. Everything else (may issue states, magazine capacity limits, assault weapon bans, approved handgun list, silencer regulations, SBR/SBS regulations, gun free zones, etc.) just limit people’s rights + ability to protect themselves and distract us from the problems that actually have significant impact on violent crime rates. I get my statistics from the FBI crime statistics located here: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime/violentcrimemain_final To gun rights people: I'm looking for arguments that go either way. If you think the exceptions I've listed in the title are still too much, go for it.

t3_3mrizv

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product).

Patents currently give firms a way to attack each other over abstruse rules, wasting resources on lawyers that could be better spent on R&D. Patents now apply to DNA and software, instead of just cogs and wheel machines like in the day when the rules were set in place, and the bureaucrats that issue them do not have the expertise to do it optimally. As a result the court system is unnecessarily burdened (also due to other factors) and patent trolls thrive. Giving inventors the benefit of exclusive advertising would not solve all these problems, but it would reduce the stakes so there would probably be less court battles, and they would be less acrimonious and costly.

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). Patents currently give firms a way to attack each other over abstruse rules, wasting resources on lawyers that could be better spent on R&D. Patents now apply to DNA and software, instead of just cogs and wheel machines like in the day when the rules were set in place, and the bureaucrats that issue them do not have the expertise to do it optimally. As a result the court system is unnecessarily burdened (also due to other factors) and patent trolls thrive. Giving inventors the benefit of exclusive advertising would not solve all these problems, but it would reduce the stakes so there would probably be less court battles, and they would be less acrimonious and costly.

t3_5nb9l5

CMV: The Burkha is not a choice.

Obviously, you have the societal pressures, e.g family pressure, and social ostracism. But my main argument is that it is not a choice, because the wearer of the Burka has been raised religiously. With little exposure on behalf of the parents, to other aspects of life. The idea that failing to wear the burkha will "displease" Allah is what I am talking about. Being raised your whole life to believe that, and do this, isn't a choice. I think my argument does not apply as much to women in Western secular countries, where exposure to much more liberal cultures is inevitable. However, I still think my view is applicable to many women in western countries. When I say majority, I'm chiefly talking about women who live in Middle Eastern countries. I wholly understand that this view could be complete folly, and I welcome people to try, and change it, provided I find their arguments adequate. _____ > *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 Burkha is not a choice. Obviously, you have the societal pressures, e.g family pressure, and social ostracism. But my main argument is that it is not a choice, because the wearer of the Burka has been raised religiously. With little exposure on behalf of the parents, to other aspects of life. The idea that failing to wear the burkha will "displease" Allah is what I am talking about. Being raised your whole life to believe that, and do this, isn't a choice. I think my argument does not apply as much to women in Western secular countries, where exposure to much more liberal cultures is inevitable. However, I still think my view is applicable to many women in western countries. When I say majority, I'm chiefly talking about women who live in Middle Eastern countries. I wholly understand that this view could be complete folly, and I welcome people to try, and change it, provided I find their arguments adequate.

t3_1ktrbd

I think that "bodily autonomy", by itself, is a horrible reason to justify abortion. CMV.

Bodily autonomy, the idea that everyone has the right to control what happens in their own body, even if it results in a person's death, is a flawed concept. I would like to claim that if: 1. A fetus is a person with full rights, and 2. A parent has an obligation to care for their offspring earlier than the age of 18, then **bodily autonomy is irrelevant to the discussion**. Note: I personally do not oppose abortion; I disagree with premise \#1. --- [Here's the Violinist Thought Experiment, which is a thorough introduction to the topic of bodily auonomy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion). **The basic claim behind the "bodily autonomy" argument is that even if a fetus were considered a full person with rights, it would still be ethical to abort him, just like it's ethical to disconnect a famous violinist from your kidneys if you don't want your body being used for his life support.** First criticism: Suppose you're holding a knife at an adult's chest. Would it be ethical to make your brain send a signal to your arms, telling them to expand and push the knife through the person's chest? If not, then there is no inherent right to bodily autonomy if exercising it would violate other people's rights. Second criticism: Do people have the right to not support their family, and not ensure that their children are fed? Can someone claim "bodily autonomy" as a defense if their own offspring starve to death from neglect? To wrap this all up under the abortion discussion, I'm essentially claiming that **even if we grant people the right to bodily autonomy, then we still have to make people suffer the consequences of exercising their bodily autonomy**. --- What this means is that a woman is not responsible for getting a famous violinist sick, so she is not primarily responsible for killing him if she disconnects herself from his life support. However, if she *made* the violinist sick by having sex, then she is ultimately responsible for the violinists' death, regardless of the presence or absence of parasitic life support. **Essentially, saying that "I have a right to bodily autonomy, and hence abortion" is akin to saying "I don't care for the consequences of my actions".** A more persuasive argument for abortion would be: * Jeremy Singer's utilitarian argument: A fetus has far less consciousness than a living mother, so the lifelong convenience of the mother matters far more than the life of the fetus. * Steven Levitt's Freakonomics argument: Abortion reduces crime and improves society. * The economic argument: Real wages in the U.S. have been falling for decades in this country. A child cannot be raised in an environment where the parents haven't been working for at least 5 years with good careers. **Of all the possible arguments for abortion, "bodily autonomy" is nothing more than an appeal to selfishness.**

I think that "bodily autonomy", by itself, is a horrible reason to justify abortion. CMV. Bodily autonomy, the idea that everyone has the right to control what happens in their own body, even if it results in a person's death, is a flawed concept. I would like to claim that if: 1. A fetus is a person with full rights, and 2. A parent has an obligation to care for their offspring earlier than the age of 18, then **bodily autonomy is irrelevant to the discussion**. Note: I personally do not oppose abortion; I disagree with premise \#1. --- [Here's the Violinist Thought Experiment, which is a thorough introduction to the topic of bodily auonomy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion). **The basic claim behind the "bodily autonomy" argument is that even if a fetus were considered a full person with rights, it would still be ethical to abort him, just like it's ethical to disconnect a famous violinist from your kidneys if you don't want your body being used for his life support.** First criticism: Suppose you're holding a knife at an adult's chest. Would it be ethical to make your brain send a signal to your arms, telling them to expand and push the knife through the person's chest? If not, then there is no inherent right to bodily autonomy if exercising it would violate other people's rights. Second criticism: Do people have the right to not support their family, and not ensure that their children are fed? Can someone claim "bodily autonomy" as a defense if their own offspring starve to death from neglect? To wrap this all up under the abortion discussion, I'm essentially claiming that **even if we grant people the right to bodily autonomy, then we still have to make people suffer the consequences of exercising their bodily autonomy**. --- What this means is that a woman is not responsible for getting a famous violinist sick, so she is not primarily responsible for killing him if she disconnects herself from his life support. However, if she *made* the violinist sick by having sex, then she is ultimately responsible for the violinists' death, regardless of the presence or absence of parasitic life support. **Essentially, saying that "I have a right to bodily autonomy, and hence abortion" is akin to saying "I don't care for the consequences of my actions".** A more persuasive argument for abortion would be: * Jeremy Singer's utilitarian argument: A fetus has far less consciousness than a living mother, so the lifelong convenience of the mother matters far more than the life of the fetus. * Steven Levitt's Freakonomics argument: Abortion reduces crime and improves society. * The economic argument: Real wages in the U.S. have been falling for decades in this country. A child cannot be raised in an environment where the parents haven't been working for at least 5 years with good careers. **Of all the possible arguments for abortion, "bodily autonomy" is nothing more than an appeal to selfishness.**

t3_18dom1

I think that arming more people along with more strict regulations when buying guns will help stop more mass shootings. CMV

Although there are cases where mass shootings have happened, arming more people has historically proven to stop them. [For example](http://www.policymic.com/articles/20891/oregon-gun-owner-stops-clackamas-shooting-spree-proving-guns-save-lives) this person was a smart gun owner that stopped what could have been a **terrible** mass shooting. [School shooting stopped.](http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-armed-asst-principal-stopped-school.html#.URpbgqW3f-s)[One final one](http://www.wktv.com/news/local/95032689.html)

I think that arming more people along with more strict regulations when buying guns will help stop more mass shootings. CMV. Although there are cases where mass shootings have happened, arming more people has historically proven to stop them. [For example](http://www.policymic.com/articles/20891/oregon-gun-owner-stops-clackamas-shooting-spree-proving-guns-save-lives) this person was a smart gun owner that stopped what could have been a **terrible** mass shooting. [School shooting stopped.](http://rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/2012/12/how-armed-asst-principal-stopped-school.html#.URpbgqW3f-s)[One final one](http://www.wktv.com/news/local/95032689.html)

t3_6r9uom

CMV:Lincoln should've been ruthless and shown absolutely no mercy, and ordered Sherman and the rest of the Union's generals, to burn the South to the ground, as one last F-you to the Confederacy

My argument is simple: Lincoln let the South off far too easily, and his fuckup (along with Andrew Johnson, Rutherford B. Hayes, and to some extent Grant, screwing up Reconstruction) in not fully punishing the South is partly the reason why race relations have never fully healed and why America as a whole has never fully confronted its racial past (unlike Germany after WW2). To put it bluntly, Sherman didn't go far enough. The Confederacy itself was an institution and government of evil almost to the level of the fascist dictatorships of Europe in the early 20th century (some would argue worse, but I don't personally think so). There should've been nothing left. NOTHING. Not only were they traitors of the worst kind, but they betrayed the USA to keep the institution of slavery, which in my eyes is a special kind of evil (and just because humans have did it in the past doesn't mean what they did was right either. This was entirely different tier of institutionalized slavery based on skin color) Before you argue "Oh, that would've made the South resent the Union forever." Oh, so like the current South did despite appeasing the racist assholes, both during, before, and after reconstruction? Hell, there's still resentment to this day! Dozens upon dozens of slave-owners and Confederate officers just walked away after the war LITERALLY scott-free despite their atrocities, when they should've been executed. I'm of the opinion that the Union should've occupied the South until well into the early 1900s, forcefully making the region compliant, putting down any form of dissent, the whole culture of the Confederate flag and the "south will rise again!" would never have taken fruit. If it meant that the Confederacy would be a wasteland akin to some firebombed cities in WW2, and they still would've tried to resist change, fuck em. They'd just rule over ashes.

CMV:Lincoln should've been ruthless and shown absolutely no mercy, and ordered Sherman and the rest of the Union's generals, to burn the South to the ground, as one last F-you to the Confederacy. My argument is simple: Lincoln let the South off far too easily, and his fuckup (along with Andrew Johnson, Rutherford B. Hayes, and to some extent Grant, screwing up Reconstruction) in not fully punishing the South is partly the reason why race relations have never fully healed and why America as a whole has never fully confronted its racial past (unlike Germany after WW2). To put it bluntly, Sherman didn't go far enough. The Confederacy itself was an institution and government of evil almost to the level of the fascist dictatorships of Europe in the early 20th century (some would argue worse, but I don't personally think so). There should've been nothing left. NOTHING. Not only were they traitors of the worst kind, but they betrayed the USA to keep the institution of slavery, which in my eyes is a special kind of evil (and just because humans have did it in the past doesn't mean what they did was right either. This was entirely different tier of institutionalized slavery based on skin color) Before you argue "Oh, that would've made the South resent the Union forever." Oh, so like the current South did despite appeasing the racist assholes, both during, before, and after reconstruction? Hell, there's still resentment to this day! Dozens upon dozens of slave-owners and Confederate officers just walked away after the war LITERALLY scott-free despite their atrocities, when they should've been executed. I'm of the opinion that the Union should've occupied the South until well into the early 1900s, forcefully making the region compliant, putting down any form of dissent, the whole culture of the Confederate flag and the "south will rise again!" would never have taken fruit. If it meant that the Confederacy would be a wasteland akin to some firebombed cities in WW2, and they still would've tried to resist change, fuck em. They'd just rule over ashes.

t3_6sel7d

CMV: Companies should be banned from using religion in their advertisements in any way

Note that my examples are all of Christian religions, but the law should apply to all religions. There are multiple companies in my area that advertise themselves as Christian companies. They say it outright in advertising, tell you when speaking to them, use religious symbols on company vehicles, menus, or other company documents, or use various dog whistles. The entire goal is to earn your business because of their stated religion. This should not be allowed. By saying, "Spend your money at a Christian business" you are also effectively saying "don't spend your money at a non-Christian business" which is discriminatory in nature and is not too far removed from "don't spend money at (insert religion here) businesses. In addition, it would he nearly impossible to have hiring practices that aren't discriminating if you declare a religion associated with the business. Even if you do hire people of other religions, how do you think they feel handing out document with crosses and fish? Finally, if a business wants you to support them because they are a particular religion, there is a good chance that they are picking their vendors based on religion and further perpetuating the cycle of discrimination. The federal government should pass a law barring all religious symbols and speech that associates a business with a religion. _____ > *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: Companies should be banned from using religion in their advertisements in any way. Note that my examples are all of Christian religions, but the law should apply to all religions. There are multiple companies in my area that advertise themselves as Christian companies. They say it outright in advertising, tell you when speaking to them, use religious symbols on company vehicles, menus, or other company documents, or use various dog whistles. The entire goal is to earn your business because of their stated religion. This should not be allowed. By saying, "Spend your money at a Christian business" you are also effectively saying "don't spend your money at a non-Christian business" which is discriminatory in nature and is not too far removed from "don't spend money at (insert religion here) businesses. In addition, it would he nearly impossible to have hiring practices that aren't discriminating if you declare a religion associated with the business. Even if you do hire people of other religions, how do you think they feel handing out document with crosses and fish? Finally, if a business wants you to support them because they are a particular religion, there is a good chance that they are picking their vendors based on religion and further perpetuating the cycle of discrimination. The federal government should pass a law barring all religious symbols and speech that associates a business with a religion.

t3_3aqi67

CMV: Scrubs season 6 is far worse than season 9

It's a popular opinion on Reddit that scrubs season 9 is terrible and should never even be remembered as part of Scrubs great legacy and that it's better to not even watch it. However I feel people expressing these views are forgetting about season 6, particularly the episode "My Perspective." This episode may be one of the worst episodes of TV I've ever seen and this is coming from a big fan of scrubs. In the episode JD discovers that he has a disorder where he passes out whenever he poops. It doesn't make any sense and the toilet humor seemed so out of line from the show's typical humor. There is also a story line where the Janitor is tormenting JD with a wolf he trained. Once again it just makes no sense and really isn't that funny. This brings us to a more general point. People who go on and on about season 9 forget that scrubs really took a downturn in its later seasons. There was the fact that JD got back with Elliot despite seasons earlier them both declaring that they no longer had feelings for each other. JD should've stayed with Kim and Elliot with Keith. There was also the multi-episode long private Dancer story line which in my opinion never got particularly funny and didn't really get the emotional depth they were going for. This brings me to season 9. While season 9 was not perfect and was not nearly as good as early scrubs. It was not as terrible as everyone makes it out to be. First of all it was clearly a new show. I don't know how this is unclear to people but there's three new protagonists and so I feel the seasosn should stand on it's own. Also there were some legitimately funny moments in there, again not as good as early scrubs but not nearly as bad as later scrubs, and I found the new characters and story lines to be a nice change, since Scrubs had gone eight years at this point. _ So don't let nostalgia fool you. While season 8 may have been OK due to the show trying to return to basics. Season 6 and seaosn 7 of scrubs were much worse than season 9, and now hopefully I can see less of this opinion on reddit.

CMV: Scrubs season 6 is far worse than season 9. It's a popular opinion on Reddit that scrubs season 9 is terrible and should never even be remembered as part of Scrubs great legacy and that it's better to not even watch it. However I feel people expressing these views are forgetting about season 6, particularly the episode "My Perspective." This episode may be one of the worst episodes of TV I've ever seen and this is coming from a big fan of scrubs. In the episode JD discovers that he has a disorder where he passes out whenever he poops. It doesn't make any sense and the toilet humor seemed so out of line from the show's typical humor. There is also a story line where the Janitor is tormenting JD with a wolf he trained. Once again it just makes no sense and really isn't that funny. This brings us to a more general point. People who go on and on about season 9 forget that scrubs really took a downturn in its later seasons. There was the fact that JD got back with Elliot despite seasons earlier them both declaring that they no longer had feelings for each other. JD should've stayed with Kim and Elliot with Keith. There was also the multi-episode long private Dancer story line which in my opinion never got particularly funny and didn't really get the emotional depth they were going for. This brings me to season 9. While season 9 was not perfect and was not nearly as good as early scrubs. It was not as terrible as everyone makes it out to be. First of all it was clearly a new show. I don't know how this is unclear to people but there's three new protagonists and so I feel the seasosn should stand on it's own. Also there were some legitimately funny moments in there, again not as good as early scrubs but not nearly as bad as later scrubs, and I found the new characters and story lines to be a nice change, since Scrubs had gone eight years at this point. _ So don't let nostalgia fool you. While season 8 may have been OK due to the show trying to return to basics. Season 6 and seaosn 7 of scrubs were much worse than season 9, and now hopefully I can see less of this opinion on reddit.

t3_1qfqj6

I don't believe that the conquest of the Americas by Europe was wrong. CMV

Yes, most of the Native Americans died when the Europeans took over, but that's just a consequence of conquest. What makes this conquest different than other ones? Did the Ottoman Turks ever pay the Byzantines? Did the Mongols pay the hundreds of countries and cities that they invaded? Why can't our government and our society as a whole just let this go, like every other nation in the world did after they conquered a surrounding territory. Without conquest and military expansion, the world and civilization as a whole would not have expanded as quickly and efficiently as it did, and the cultures of different countries couldn't have mixed to inspire new ideas and methods of technological advancement. Yes you could argue that such a feat is achievable through trade, but the process would be much slower, and the full affects of some cultures may not be completely absorbed or even shared with other cultures. Had Columbus turned back at the first sign of inhabitants, Europe would not have benefitted from crops like potatoes(a crop that played a major role in the European 19th century population boom), and corn. The introduction of the New world as a trading hub also facilitated international trade, not only to the new world, but to places like Java and the Ottoman Empire. Western Europe was transformed from a somewhat economically isolated area, into a trading hub for the entire known world. All in all, I believe that the conquest of the Americas was not only justified, but beneficial, despite the incredible loss of Native American life. CMV

I don't believe that the conquest of the Americas by Europe was wrong. CMV. Yes, most of the Native Americans died when the Europeans took over, but that's just a consequence of conquest. What makes this conquest different than other ones? Did the Ottoman Turks ever pay the Byzantines? Did the Mongols pay the hundreds of countries and cities that they invaded? Why can't our government and our society as a whole just let this go, like every other nation in the world did after they conquered a surrounding territory. Without conquest and military expansion, the world and civilization as a whole would not have expanded as quickly and efficiently as it did, and the cultures of different countries couldn't have mixed to inspire new ideas and methods of technological advancement. Yes you could argue that such a feat is achievable through trade, but the process would be much slower, and the full affects of some cultures may not be completely absorbed or even shared with other cultures. Had Columbus turned back at the first sign of inhabitants, Europe would not have benefitted from crops like potatoes(a crop that played a major role in the European 19th century population boom), and corn. The introduction of the New world as a trading hub also facilitated international trade, not only to the new world, but to places like Java and the Ottoman Empire. Western Europe was transformed from a somewhat economically isolated area, into a trading hub for the entire known world. All in all, I believe that the conquest of the Americas was not only justified, but beneficial, despite the incredible loss of Native American life. CMV

t3_3gz930

CMV: /r/hiphopheads shouldn't have ban on discussions or posts regarding Lil Dicky.

Lil Dicky’s debut album, *Professional Rapper*, debuted atop the Billboard Rap Album chart, and at number 7 on the Billboard 200, with sales of 22,000. It features guest spots from Snoop Dogg, Fetta Wap, Rich Homie Quan, Jace (from Two-9), and T-Pain. Yet /r/hiphopheads, arguably the best place to discuss rap & hip-hop on the internet, forbids all discussion (whether it be links or even discussion threads) regarding his music. If I’m not mistaken, there are two reasons for the ban: * Someone in his camp posted one of his videos to Reddit, and either LD or that someone asked their friends to upvote the video. This was claimed to be vote manipulation a or publicity stunt. * LD is making a mockery of the genre (a hip-hop Weird Al, so to speak) and isn’t a “real” rapper. First, there’s never been proof (from what I can tell) that LD or his camp took part in malicious vote manipulation. It doesn’t seem at all like he’s rap’s /u/Unidan. Second, /r/HHH allows links and discussion threads for The Lonely Island. That alone should indicate at least a slight bias against LD’s music. I’m not an LD Stan or anything; if anything I lean towards some of [Fantano’s critisicms of him]( http://www.theneedledrop.com/articles/2015/8/lil-dicky-professional-rapper). I’m just saying that the dude’s got the best-selling rap album in the country until Dre’s numbers come in for *Compton*. He clearly has fans, probably a bunch on /r/HHH, and obviously a bunch on Reddit as a whole. If you want to karma-earning links because of “vote manipulation,” I disagree because of a lack of proof but I suppose that’s not ***that*** outrageous. But a complete ban (including discussion threads for fresh releases and albums) is overkill and unnecessary. _____ > *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: /r/hiphopheads shouldn't have ban on discussions or posts regarding Lil Dicky. Lil Dicky’s debut album, *Professional Rapper*, debuted atop the Billboard Rap Album chart, and at number 7 on the Billboard 200, with sales of 22,000. It features guest spots from Snoop Dogg, Fetta Wap, Rich Homie Quan, Jace (from Two-9), and T-Pain. Yet /r/hiphopheads, arguably the best place to discuss rap & hip-hop on the internet, forbids all discussion (whether it be links or even discussion threads) regarding his music. If I’m not mistaken, there are two reasons for the ban: * Someone in his camp posted one of his videos to Reddit, and either LD or that someone asked their friends to upvote the video. This was claimed to be vote manipulation a or publicity stunt. * LD is making a mockery of the genre (a hip-hop Weird Al, so to speak) and isn’t a “real” rapper. First, there’s never been proof (from what I can tell) that LD or his camp took part in malicious vote manipulation. It doesn’t seem at all like he’s rap’s /u/Unidan. Second, /r/HHH allows links and discussion threads for The Lonely Island. That alone should indicate at least a slight bias against LD’s music. I’m not an LD Stan or anything; if anything I lean towards some of [Fantano’s critisicms of him]( http://www.theneedledrop.com/articles/2015/8/lil-dicky-professional-rapper). I’m just saying that the dude’s got the best-selling rap album in the country until Dre’s numbers come in for *Compton*. He clearly has fans, probably a bunch on /r/HHH, and obviously a bunch on Reddit as a whole. If you want to karma-earning links because of “vote manipulation,” I disagree because of a lack of proof but I suppose that’s not ***that*** outrageous. But a complete ban (including discussion threads for fresh releases and albums) is overkill and unnecessary. > *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_2f8dm3

CMV: Atheism as it is represented on the internet is more an attack on the Christian God than the idea of God/gods in and of itself, and the most reasonable non-religious position is Deism.

First off, I will say forthright that I am a liberal Christian Universalist. I've been around on the internet for a while, and atheism seems to be a prevalent position of many people. However, the astoundingly common reasoning for this belief is more or less a conflict of morality with the Christian God. Most atheists that I've seen see religion as a manmade entity that purposefully limits man's freedom to do many things that are for all intents and purposes natural urges. To an extent, I agree that religion is a limiting factor when it is forced on people, but when it is a choice made by a person through their own sense of judgement, it can be freeing. It seems in my view that a lot of the people involved in the new atheist movement see their choices as a binary: Follow their parents' religion, or abandon it completely for atheism. I will tell you that the choice isn't binary. But why is Deism more reasonable than Atheism, you may be asking. I believe that Deism allows room for science, God and a sense of imperfection to coexist perfectly. Basically, Deism is the clock analogy, in that God/the gods made the universe, and the scientific laws that govern the universe, and then left the universe to its own devices. It's the position that Einstein took, among others, and I have no idea why the idea isn't more popular. It allows for you to develop your own sense of morality, while also acknowledging the possibility of a higher power, an idea that I think is really hard to refute, due to a lot of factors, like the scale of the universe, multiple dimensions etc. Anyway, I'd love to hear more about your personal reasoning for accepting atheism, despite how absolute it is. Please CMV. (Also, universalism is really cool. It isn't the most logical religion, but I like it because it makes you nice to everybody if you do it right) EDIT: Well this was a fun discussion. I've been convinced that atheism is a fair choice because it's impossible to know for sure whether or not a deity/deities exist. While I myself am far more comfortable with the idea of God, feel free to not believe in him. Besides, if you all live good lives, I'm sure if God turns out to be real, you'll get into heaven a-okay! If not, we can all enjoy the endless void together. Or reincarnation. That's also a good option. _____ > *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: Atheism as it is represented on the internet is more an attack on the Christian God than the idea of God/gods in and of itself, and the most reasonable non-religious position is Deism. First off, I will say forthright that I am a liberal Christian Universalist. I've been around on the internet for a while, and atheism seems to be a prevalent position of many people. However, the astoundingly common reasoning for this belief is more or less a conflict of morality with the Christian God. Most atheists that I've seen see religion as a manmade entity that purposefully limits man's freedom to do many things that are for all intents and purposes natural urges. To an extent, I agree that religion is a limiting factor when it is forced on people, but when it is a choice made by a person through their own sense of judgement, it can be freeing. It seems in my view that a lot of the people involved in the new atheist movement see their choices as a binary: Follow their parents' religion, or abandon it completely for atheism. I will tell you that the choice isn't binary. But why is Deism more reasonable than Atheism, you may be asking. I believe that Deism allows room for science, God and a sense of imperfection to coexist perfectly. Basically, Deism is the clock analogy, in that God/the gods made the universe, and the scientific laws that govern the universe, and then left the universe to its own devices. It's the position that Einstein took, among others, and I have no idea why the idea isn't more popular. It allows for you to develop your own sense of morality, while also acknowledging the possibility of a higher power, an idea that I think is really hard to refute, due to a lot of factors, like the scale of the universe, multiple dimensions etc. Anyway, I'd love to hear more about your personal reasoning for accepting atheism, despite how absolute it is. Please CMV. (Also, universalism is really cool. It isn't the most logical religion, but I like it because it makes you nice to everybody if you do it right) EDIT: Well this was a fun discussion. I've been convinced that atheism is a fair choice because it's impossible to know for sure whether or not a deity/deities exist. While I myself am far more comfortable with the idea of God, feel free to not believe in him. Besides, if you all live good lives, I'm sure if God turns out to be real, you'll get into heaven a-okay! If not, we can all enjoy the endless void together. Or reincarnation. That's also a good option.

t3_1c5e54

I think that it's next to impossible to be racially insensitive to white Americans. CMV.

I am speaking of modern era caucasian americans in the US broadly. I don't understand how someone can be racially insensitive to this group. I can see how someone could make an generalization about the white majority that could be a stereotype or offensive. But I guess I don't understand who would get offended? There is no white community. I do think it is possible for someone to be prejudice towards white people, but not racist or racially insensitive. For the record, I am a biracial individual. CMV. EDIT: Thank you for all of your discussion. I have come to realize that on an individual level it is entirely possible for "a minority" to be racist toward "a majority". I do still maintain, however that the majority at large is not in a position to listen should they not want to. I now recognize that this subject is much more nuanced than I initially put forward. I've been looking for scholarly sources that pick-apart minority & majority race relationships in the US and discuss the definition of racism and how it is used among the minority & majority. I have found several sources that could be useful. [this book](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HAQBj8UohDAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Loury,+G.C.+%282002%29.+The+anatomy+of+racial+inequality&ots=pfQifyOva8&sig=UeOhvmmuhAKkU32Uybkd0SO0fX4#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Glenn C Loury and [this](http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/march09/) by David Pilgrim, curator of the Jim Crow museum. This isn't scholarly, but I think he examines this topic very effectively. Thanks for the discussion!

I think that it's next to impossible to be racially insensitive to white Americans. CMV. I am speaking of modern era caucasian americans in the US broadly. I don't understand how someone can be racially insensitive to this group. I can see how someone could make an generalization about the white majority that could be a stereotype or offensive. But I guess I don't understand who would get offended? There is no white community. I do think it is possible for someone to be prejudice towards white people, but not racist or racially insensitive. For the record, I am a biracial individual. CMV. EDIT: Thank you for all of your discussion. I have come to realize that on an individual level it is entirely possible for "a minority" to be racist toward "a majority". I do still maintain, however that the majority at large is not in a position to listen should they not want to. I now recognize that this subject is much more nuanced than I initially put forward. I've been looking for scholarly sources that pick-apart minority & majority race relationships in the US and discuss the definition of racism and how it is used among the minority & majority. I have found several sources that could be useful. [this book](http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HAQBj8UohDAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Loury,+G.C.+%282002%29.+The+anatomy+of+racial+inequality&ots=pfQifyOva8&sig=UeOhvmmuhAKkU32Uybkd0SO0fX4#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Glenn C Loury and [this](http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/march09/) by David Pilgrim, curator of the Jim Crow museum. This isn't scholarly, but I think he examines this topic very effectively. Thanks for the discussion!

t3_1qkn1b

Labor Unions should be illegal CMV

Unions act as a monopoly in industries that are unionized. Like monopolistic corporations unions strangle competition by raising their wages above their competitive level. Unions are bad for everybody except people in them. They are bad for corporations because they get less labor for a higher price. They are bad for non-unionized workers in the same industry because they get less pay for the same work they are more likely to be laid-off because firing union workers is more difficult. Unions are bad for the consumer because they cause increased costs. Unions are bad for the unemployed because they make it harder to find a job. We don't let corporations engage in anti-competitive practices, why should we let unions?

Labor Unions should be illegal CMV. Unions act as a monopoly in industries that are unionized. Like monopolistic corporations unions strangle competition by raising their wages above their competitive level. Unions are bad for everybody except people in them. They are bad for corporations because they get less labor for a higher price. They are bad for non-unionized workers in the same industry because they get less pay for the same work they are more likely to be laid-off because firing union workers is more difficult. Unions are bad for the consumer because they cause increased costs. Unions are bad for the unemployed because they make it harder to find a job. We don't let corporations engage in anti-competitive practices, why should we let unions?

t3_4mphva

CMV: Veganism halts evolutionism.

After watching jurassic park for the first time today, it reminded me of the importance of asserting our dominance over other species. The dinosaurs eating of the human flesh signifies a dominance over humans in the food chain. By not challenging other species we risk that someday in the course of evolution we will not be relevant because if we hold the ideal flesh should not be consumed which is the root of Veganism.

CMV: Veganism halts evolutionism. After watching jurassic park for the first time today, it reminded me of the importance of asserting our dominance over other species. The dinosaurs eating of the human flesh signifies a dominance over humans in the food chain. By not challenging other species we risk that someday in the course of evolution we will not be relevant because if we hold the ideal flesh should not be consumed which is the root of Veganism.

t3_3t2x40

CMV: College is a place for inclusion and discussion of all cultures, not a safe space for people's ideas to be coddled

I believe that what happened at Yale was completely a shame. College is not the place for ideas to be shot down and for professors to have to conform to a few students' beliefs. I personally think that cultural appropriation is ignorant in many cases, however I don't think that it is wrong for a professor/master to openly challenge that notion. I am a liberal too, which makes this funny to me - the fact that people can actually be more liberal than me in this sense. I just find it incredibly disheartening that people at an institution as prestigious as Yale would actually think that college is supposed to be a place to be hidden from opposing viewpoints. A discussion about things such as race, in the case of cultural appropriation, is incredibly important and it is vital that the smartest kids in our country have that discussion openly and without bias. To just immediately shoot down a conversation or discussion because it conflicts with your preconceived notions and makes you uncomfortable is both sad and scary. It is sad, because some people are so incredibly scared to think critically and be challenged that they can't have a discussion. It is scary, because these kids are the future of the intellectual branch of the country. I think that the idea of trigger warnings also relate here. I completely understand the idea of a trigger warning for something like rape. If you have been raped before or have been a victim of any kind of sexual abuse, then getting an exemption from reading a book that graphically depicts rape is completely acceptable to me. On the other hand, getting an exemption from reading a book about slavery, because you don't want to be challenged or think it is disturbing is unacceptable. College is a place to take in all sides and to learn about everything the world has to offer - all viewpoints. Unless there is legitimate trauma that could be caused because of a book, there should not be an exemption from reading the book. I'll also mention, this is not my opinion cause I'm mad kids aren't doing their homework and want an out. I couldn't care less about that. It is because going to college isn't some a la carte menu of reading and assignments. There is a curriculum for a reason. You can't just pick and choose your readings because you disagree with them or are disturbed by them. That's not how real life works. Anyway, change my view because most people seem to disagree with me, and seem to think for this reason, that I am a bad liberal. _____ > *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: College is a place for inclusion and discussion of all cultures, not a safe space for people's ideas to be coddled. I believe that what happened at Yale was completely a shame. College is not the place for ideas to be shot down and for professors to have to conform to a few students' beliefs. I personally think that cultural appropriation is ignorant in many cases, however I don't think that it is wrong for a professor/master to openly challenge that notion. I am a liberal too, which makes this funny to me - the fact that people can actually be more liberal than me in this sense. I just find it incredibly disheartening that people at an institution as prestigious as Yale would actually think that college is supposed to be a place to be hidden from opposing viewpoints. A discussion about things such as race, in the case of cultural appropriation, is incredibly important and it is vital that the smartest kids in our country have that discussion openly and without bias. To just immediately shoot down a conversation or discussion because it conflicts with your preconceived notions and makes you uncomfortable is both sad and scary. It is sad, because some people are so incredibly scared to think critically and be challenged that they can't have a discussion. It is scary, because these kids are the future of the intellectual branch of the country. I think that the idea of trigger warnings also relate here. I completely understand the idea of a trigger warning for something like rape. If you have been raped before or have been a victim of any kind of sexual abuse, then getting an exemption from reading a book that graphically depicts rape is completely acceptable to me. On the other hand, getting an exemption from reading a book about slavery, because you don't want to be challenged or think it is disturbing is unacceptable. College is a place to take in all sides and to learn about everything the world has to offer - all viewpoints. Unless there is legitimate trauma that could be caused because of a book, there should not be an exemption from reading the book. I'll also mention, this is not my opinion cause I'm mad kids aren't doing their homework and want an out. I couldn't care less about that. It is because going to college isn't some a la carte menu of reading and assignments. There is a curriculum for a reason. You can't just pick and choose your readings because you disagree with them or are disturbed by them. That's not how real life works. Anyway, change my view because most people seem to disagree with me, and seem to think for this reason, that I am a bad liberal.

t3_1tvfjy

I believe the song "Hurt" by NIN (covered by Johnny Cash) has juvenile lyrics and I cringe every time I hear a grown man sing it.

[Here are the lyrics.](http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnnycash/hurt.html) [Here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aF9AJm0RFc) is Johnny Cash's version, which everybody acclaims and it seems to be heralded as the best song to ever come out of the music business any time it comes on the speakers at a bar. It makes me cringe and it sounds like a sad 14-year old wrote the lyrics. For example: >I hurt myself today >To see if I still feel. >I focus on the pain >The only thing that's real. To me, it sounds like the anthem of emo high school kids. Who the hell injures themselves because they don't know whether or not they still have physical sensation? It's painfully melodramatic, and this notion that pain is "the only thing that's real" in life is just absurd. What is that supposed to MEAN, "the only thing that's real"? What, like the entire world around you is a figment of your imagination except pain and suffering? Please. *edit*: I understand that the song is about depression. I think perhaps it is just the simplicity of the song that turns me off from it. I just don't think it's ~~good~~ original poetry (it's trite), but I understand how people can relate to another person who has suffered from depression. I just believe there are a lot of better songs out there which explore the topic of depression and loneliness. *edit II*: I should have just created an unpopular opinion puffin.

I believe the song "Hurt" by NIN (covered by Johnny Cash) has juvenile lyrics and I cringe every time I hear a grown man sing it. [Here are the lyrics.](http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnnycash/hurt.html) [Here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aF9AJm0RFc) is Johnny Cash's version, which everybody acclaims and it seems to be heralded as the best song to ever come out of the music business any time it comes on the speakers at a bar. It makes me cringe and it sounds like a sad 14-year old wrote the lyrics. For example: >I hurt myself today >To see if I still feel. >I focus on the pain >The only thing that's real. To me, it sounds like the anthem of emo high school kids. Who the hell injures themselves because they don't know whether or not they still have physical sensation? It's painfully melodramatic, and this notion that pain is "the only thing that's real" in life is just absurd. What is that supposed to MEAN, "the only thing that's real"? What, like the entire world around you is a figment of your imagination except pain and suffering? Please. *edit*: I understand that the song is about depression. I think perhaps it is just the simplicity of the song that turns me off from it. I just don't think it's ~~good~~ original poetry (it's trite), but I understand how people can relate to another person who has suffered from depression. I just believe there are a lot of better songs out there which explore the topic of depression and loneliness. *edit II*: I should have just created an unpopular opinion puffin.

t3_72tb3a

CMV: Cleaning kitchen sink w/ scrub brush makes the brush clean as well

So my wife and I are having an argument. I've got a bristle scrub brush w/ built in soap dispenser (oxo) and use it to wipe out the inside of the kitchen sink and rinse w/ water/soap/chemicals. Think: raw meat juice from food prep, junk and grime, grease from pans, etc. She's grossed out, saying that the sink is dirty and now the brush is dirty, which will then transfer to dishes. Isn't that the point? Using soap and water (and possibly stronger stuff like baking soda or bleach) and then scrubbing makes the sink clean and wouldn't the brush be clean as well? Plus, its a bristle brush made of plastic that dries out. I imagine bacteria can't really live long on it anyway, unlike a sponge that holds moisture and surface area for bacteria. So CMV? Is it ok to clean out the kitchen sink w/ a bristle brush and then wash and rinse and then use that to clean other dishes?

CMV: Cleaning kitchen sink w/ scrub brush makes the brush clean as well. So my wife and I are having an argument. I've got a bristle scrub brush w/ built in soap dispenser (oxo) and use it to wipe out the inside of the kitchen sink and rinse w/ water/soap/chemicals. Think: raw meat juice from food prep, junk and grime, grease from pans, etc. She's grossed out, saying that the sink is dirty and now the brush is dirty, which will then transfer to dishes. Isn't that the point? Using soap and water (and possibly stronger stuff like baking soda or bleach) and then scrubbing makes the sink clean and wouldn't the brush be clean as well? Plus, its a bristle brush made of plastic that dries out. I imagine bacteria can't really live long on it anyway, unlike a sponge that holds moisture and surface area for bacteria. So CMV? Is it ok to clean out the kitchen sink w/ a bristle brush and then wash and rinse and then use that to clean other dishes?

t3_1fy1j2

I think it is better to not try at all then to try and face the shame of failure. CMV.

I think that trying and failing is only a negative thing that lowers everyone around you's opinion of you. I think all failing should be done in private if at all. If you see yourself falling short and you feel you cannot achieve something it is better not to do it at all; lest you should reveal yourself week to those around you. Please, for the love of God, change my view.

I think it is better to not try at all then to try and face the shame of failure. CMV. I think that trying and failing is only a negative thing that lowers everyone around you's opinion of you. I think all failing should be done in private if at all. If you see yourself falling short and you feel you cannot achieve something it is better not to do it at all; lest you should reveal yourself week to those around you. Please, for the love of God, change my view.

t3_3y8mpd

CMV:Maths, beyond its rudiments, should not be a component of compulsary education

I've heard nearly all/all the arguments concerning Maths education but I have left the podium of debate unaltered in most cases and with a feeling that my reasoning is deficient somewhere along the line. So I was hoping you guys can set me straight by telling me how I am wrong. Here is my internal dialogue when I see such claims(I'm sorry if I phrase some arguments in a strawman-ish way): "Having a strong grasp of Maths will almost always lead to strong reasoning skills"- If critical thinking is what you wish to bestow upon the youth of this nation, then why not just teach them how to critically think- what is the need for the foreplay that is maths. Heck, if rigour in reasoning is what we're after then why don't we divulge the credo's of logic and epistemology? (discourse concerning the ins and outs of such a curriculum should be shelved for another day) At this point I can already feel the aura of the "they're too young" idea hatching in your minds, to this I have to say: How do you know? how do you know that one is too young? How would we gauge the maturity of someone's mind? *I don't think the masses can honestly say that they have A.) 'properly' understood maths or B.) can use maths in unconventional settings- being able to succesfully manipulate axioms in weird scenarios appears to be the hallmark of any 'mathematician' it shows that they can identify the harbinger for a given mathematical tool- even when the tides of pattern and convention would suggest otherwise. (personally I think that all/almost all mathematicans relish awkward questions and have an innately intimate understanding for maths.) Not only this, but only a select few understand the how's and why's of proof. It seems to me that we have tricked ourselves into thinking that a grand portion of the general public can actually 'do' maths, when all we can really do is derivitavely manipulate some symbols- which is not really maths, is it? The second claim I usually have a problem with is "maths is remarkably useful, and therefore it is an indispensable skill" - other than arithmetic what does the average Joe need in his day-to-day life? Yeah sure, he might encounter the need to chart the growth of his wage in the coming years and lucky for him he has a vague understanding of calculus. But if you are positing this argument then surely you must also think that pretty much every field of enquiry ever should be taught in school? Since that knowledge may prove to be useful one day. And if you're going to go down the path of “mathematical problems are far more abundant in everyday life” then I will greet you with a smug “how do you know?” followed by a disingenuous “Can you show me some numbers that would corroborate your claim?” These two arguments usually steal the show, but recently I have witnessed the neuroplasticity argument gain a following amongst the pro-maths-ed people. If what these folks say is true then what stops me from impugning brain science by bringing up the age-old controlled conditions argument? I hope I have not antagonised any of you guys, and I look forward to hearing your responses.

CMV:Maths, beyond its rudiments, should not be a component of compulsary education. I've heard nearly all/all the arguments concerning Maths education but I have left the podium of debate unaltered in most cases and with a feeling that my reasoning is deficient somewhere along the line. So I was hoping you guys can set me straight by telling me how I am wrong. Here is my internal dialogue when I see such claims(I'm sorry if I phrase some arguments in a strawman-ish way): "Having a strong grasp of Maths will almost always lead to strong reasoning skills"- If critical thinking is what you wish to bestow upon the youth of this nation, then why not just teach them how to critically think- what is the need for the foreplay that is maths. Heck, if rigour in reasoning is what we're after then why don't we divulge the credo's of logic and epistemology? (discourse concerning the ins and outs of such a curriculum should be shelved for another day) At this point I can already feel the aura of the "they're too young" idea hatching in your minds, to this I have to say: How do you know? how do you know that one is too young? How would we gauge the maturity of someone's mind? *I don't think the masses can honestly say that they have A.) 'properly' understood maths or B.) can use maths in unconventional settings- being able to succesfully manipulate axioms in weird scenarios appears to be the hallmark of any 'mathematician' it shows that they can identify the harbinger for a given mathematical tool- even when the tides of pattern and convention would suggest otherwise. (personally I think that all/almost all mathematicans relish awkward questions and have an innately intimate understanding for maths.) Not only this, but only a select few understand the how's and why's of proof. It seems to me that we have tricked ourselves into thinking that a grand portion of the general public can actually 'do' maths, when all we can really do is derivitavely manipulate some symbols- which is not really maths, is it? The second claim I usually have a problem with is "maths is remarkably useful, and therefore it is an indispensable skill" - other than arithmetic what does the average Joe need in his day-to-day life? Yeah sure, he might encounter the need to chart the growth of his wage in the coming years and lucky for him he has a vague understanding of calculus. But if you are positing this argument then surely you must also think that pretty much every field of enquiry ever should be taught in school? Since that knowledge may prove to be useful one day. And if you're going to go down the path of “mathematical problems are far more abundant in everyday life” then I will greet you with a smug “how do you know?” followed by a disingenuous “Can you show me some numbers that would corroborate your claim?” These two arguments usually steal the show, but recently I have witnessed the neuroplasticity argument gain a following amongst the pro-maths-ed people. If what these folks say is true then what stops me from impugning brain science by bringing up the age-old controlled conditions argument? I hope I have not antagonised any of you guys, and I look forward to hearing your responses.

t3_4bygds

CMV: I think torture is a valid method to get information out of known and captured terrorists, and that terrorists should not have human rights.

Okay, so I'm absolutely not arguing for terrorist suspects to be interrogated on bs grounds such as they are muslim in the US and said "__" which loosely can mean this. I'm talking about terrorists we capture overseas, in America, or get from other countries. KNOWN TERRORISTS WITHOUT A DOUBT BASICALLY. Yeah, I understand occasionally there will be red herring but for the most part of we find definite proof of activity or maybe have visual proof, they should be tortured to find out what the know. Additionally, they should not be given basic human rights until they begin to cooperate and spill information. Btw I'm a liberal, but not too left, so please none of that Drumpf garbage I get from other forums. This would help protect thousands of others who could maybe die at the cost of a few scum. Edit: Hey so I am seeing many comments about torture not being effective, and I would like to add that we could easily feed the terrorists questions that they may know, but we already do know, intel that we may have. If they are blatantly lying to get us out of their hair then we know how its going to be. I believe that the potential to find real information alone is good enough cause to do whatever. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think torture is a valid method to get information out of known and captured terrorists, and that terrorists should not have human rights. Okay, so I'm absolutely not arguing for terrorist suspects to be interrogated on bs grounds such as they are muslim in the US and said "__" which loosely can mean this. I'm talking about terrorists we capture overseas, in America, or get from other countries. KNOWN TERRORISTS WITHOUT A DOUBT BASICALLY. Yeah, I understand occasionally there will be red herring but for the most part of we find definite proof of activity or maybe have visual proof, they should be tortured to find out what the know. Additionally, they should not be given basic human rights until they begin to cooperate and spill information. Btw I'm a liberal, but not too left, so please none of that Drumpf garbage I get from other forums. This would help protect thousands of others who could maybe die at the cost of a few scum. Edit: Hey so I am seeing many comments about torture not being effective, and I would like to add that we could easily feed the terrorists questions that they may know, but we already do know, intel that we may have. If they are blatantly lying to get us out of their hair then we know how its going to be. I believe that the potential to find real information alone is good enough cause to do whatever.

t3_2c3rtv

CMV: Here is how I view the current situation between Israel and Palestine.

EDIT: Ok guys I messed up the title. Here is what it's suppose to be. **CMV: The reason the US media supports Israel, even after their brutal methods, is because Palestinians are seen as thugs and backwards people due to their culture and because they're represented by Hamas.** So correct me if I wrong, but here is how I see the situation. Palestinians are seen as thugs and backwards people by the whole world due to their culture and because they're being represented by Hamas. Israel continues push them around without consequences because the world thinks that Palestine is an irrational and a dangerous republic anyways. Why are they seen as thugs? I saw a video recently on Reddit about a Muslim man beating a foreign working maid because he had a cell phone. For some reason I can't find it now. It might have been fake or misleading, idk. But in general the fundamentalist there make everyone look crazy. Its like if Japan decided to occupy North Korea, nobody would give a shit (well except for China) because NK sucks in the first place. I'm not saying its morally right, I'm just saying that is probably ~~what would happen~~ how people would feel. _____ > *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: Here is how I view the current situation between Israel and Palestine. EDIT: Ok guys I messed up the title. Here is what it's suppose to be. **CMV: The reason the US media supports Israel, even after their brutal methods, is because Palestinians are seen as thugs and backwards people due to their culture and because they're represented by Hamas.** So correct me if I wrong, but here is how I see the situation. Palestinians are seen as thugs and backwards people by the whole world due to their culture and because they're being represented by Hamas. Israel continues push them around without consequences because the world thinks that Palestine is an irrational and a dangerous republic anyways. Why are they seen as thugs? I saw a video recently on Reddit about a Muslim man beating a foreign working maid because he had a cell phone. For some reason I can't find it now. It might have been fake or misleading, idk. But in general the fundamentalist there make everyone look crazy. Its like if Japan decided to occupy North Korea, nobody would give a shit (well except for China) because NK sucks in the first place. I'm not saying its morally right, I'm just saying that is probably ~~what would happen~~ how people would feel.

t3_6arrxg

CMV: Using CSS or other means to disable the downvote button is just another form of vote manipulation and should be stopped.

Vote manipulation to me means any method of changing the vote count on a post other than a legitimate user having an opinion on a post and voting accordingly. This can be done in any direction, up or down. By preventing people from clicking the downvote button in subreddits with CSS, you are causing some people to not vote because they do not want to upvote, and they can't downvote due to the button missing. This is clearly changing the vote count and therefore is vote manipulation in the positive direction, but still vote manipulation. I'm sure some people will say "but they can disable CSS or user mobile!". This is true and I will admit it is a solution, but to me it's not good enough. I'm sure a certain amount of people (myself included) disable CSS on subreddits simply for the ability to downvote. But since a large amount of people don't want to lose CSS permanently, a large amount of would-be downvotes are lost. It just seems unethical and almost "safe space"-esque to disable the downvote button in any way. What, if any, legitimate reason could a subreddit have for disabling the downvote button? _____ > *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: Using CSS or other means to disable the downvote button is just another form of vote manipulation and should be stopped. Vote manipulation to me means any method of changing the vote count on a post other than a legitimate user having an opinion on a post and voting accordingly. This can be done in any direction, up or down. By preventing people from clicking the downvote button in subreddits with CSS, you are causing some people to not vote because they do not want to upvote, and they can't downvote due to the button missing. This is clearly changing the vote count and therefore is vote manipulation in the positive direction, but still vote manipulation. I'm sure some people will say "but they can disable CSS or user mobile!". This is true and I will admit it is a solution, but to me it's not good enough. I'm sure a certain amount of people (myself included) disable CSS on subreddits simply for the ability to downvote. But since a large amount of people don't want to lose CSS permanently, a large amount of would-be downvotes are lost. It just seems unethical and almost "safe space"-esque to disable the downvote button in any way. What, if any, legitimate reason could a subreddit have for disabling the downvote button?

t3_735ogu

CMV: I believe Hef, and Playboy, don’t the get credit that he/they deserve for attempting to use their popularity to bring to light many important social issues that have helped to shape and define our culture.

I believe Playboy was more than just sexy photos of women embracing (and profiting from) their sexuality, as it attracted the like of [famous authors](http://ew.com/books/playboy-hugh-hefner-famous-authors) that not only [shaped our culture, ](http://s3.amazonaws.com/CopaceticOldSchool/Kerouac.html), but [history itself.](https://genius.com/Alex-haley-1965-playboy-interview-part-1-annotated). Yet, it can still be argued that Playboy’s publication allows for the pervasiveness of misogyny in our culture that permits the objectification of women.

CMV: I believe Hef, and Playboy, don’t the get credit that he/they deserve for attempting to use their popularity to bring to light many important social issues that have helped to shape and define our culture. I believe Playboy was more than just sexy photos of women embracing (and profiting from) their sexuality, as it attracted the like of [famous authors](http://ew.com/books/playboy-hugh-hefner-famous-authors) that not only [shaped our culture, ](http://s3.amazonaws.com/CopaceticOldSchool/Kerouac.html), but [history itself.](https://genius.com/Alex-haley-1965-playboy-interview-part-1-annotated). Yet, it can still be argued that Playboy’s publication allows for the pervasiveness of misogyny in our culture that permits the objectification of women.

t3_2285e7

CMV: Superman is the most boring and worst superhero.

_____ He simply has nothing interesting about him. Infinite powers, 1 super weakness. His motives are simple, they don't teach much. Also in my eyes, every superman hardcore fan is a glory seeker. You don't like him because of an intriguing backstory, because of a unique set of skills or because of amazing equipment, but due to the fact he's stupidly powerful and you won't be ashamed of him losing, because he won't. But when he is defeated, in a multiverse or not, his fans get upsettingly butthurt saying that it doesn't count, because the fight wasn't fair, he didn't die etc. EDIT: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1xgnra/i_think_superman_is_probably_the_worst_concept/ Right as I move to the next page of this subreddit after creating this, I find the exact same thing, just wow. I'm still keepi g this up, unless mods dont want me to. EDIT2: There was a scene in Kill Bill where Bill talks about superman. How while others wake up normal and become superheroes when putting on the mask, it's the other way around for superman, and that his cowardly and not perfect human side : Clark Kent, is his critique on humanity. This did kind of made me think, but the main issue I have with superman is his kit if I may say so (the overpowerness) and him being quite plain with a very basic concept of justice. (R)EDIT3: My view hasn't been totally overthrown, but I've learnt new things 'bout superman. Seems like might not be so bad at all, but yet, when I look at superman, he's a guy I'd respect and honour, but he's not a hero that feels so relatable, which I guess is another thing I don't like about the idea of god, is this extreme power and idealism. While other superheroes have something unique about them, heck, be it even the ability to teleport max 3 feet, it's a unique thing that make this superhero who he is, and it's interesting to see how he uses the power to defeat his enemies and how he it differs him from other superheroes and I feel like Superman lacks that. But apart from that, he as a character, is done pretty well in the media, his story and character is good, but that's not where the problem resides. > *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: Superman is the most boring and worst superhero. _____ He simply has nothing interesting about him. Infinite powers, 1 super weakness. His motives are simple, they don't teach much. Also in my eyes, every superman hardcore fan is a glory seeker. You don't like him because of an intriguing backstory, because of a unique set of skills or because of amazing equipment, but due to the fact he's stupidly powerful and you won't be ashamed of him losing, because he won't. But when he is defeated, in a multiverse or not, his fans get upsettingly butthurt saying that it doesn't count, because the fight wasn't fair, he didn't die etc. EDIT: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1xgnra/i_think_superman_is_probably_the_worst_concept/ Right as I move to the next page of this subreddit after creating this, I find the exact same thing, just wow. I'm still keepi g this up, unless mods dont want me to. EDIT2: There was a scene in Kill Bill where Bill talks about superman. How while others wake up normal and become superheroes when putting on the mask, it's the other way around for superman, and that his cowardly and not perfect human side : Clark Kent, is his critique on humanity. This did kind of made me think, but the main issue I have with superman is his kit if I may say so (the overpowerness) and him being quite plain with a very basic concept of justice. (R)EDIT3: My view hasn't been totally overthrown, but I've learnt new things 'bout superman. Seems like might not be so bad at all, but yet, when I look at superman, he's a guy I'd respect and honour, but he's not a hero that feels so relatable, which I guess is another thing I don't like about the idea of god, is this extreme power and idealism. While other superheroes have something unique about them, heck, be it even the ability to teleport max 3 feet, it's a unique thing that make this superhero who he is, and it's interesting to see how he uses the power to defeat his enemies and how he it differs him from other superheroes and I feel like Superman lacks that. But apart from that, he as a character, is done pretty well in the media, his story and character is good, but that's not where the problem resides. > *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!*

t3_22ywy4

CMV: College should be free for at least 2, maybe 4, years, like high school.

I've made a few generalizations below, of course there are some people who dropped out of high school and are millionaires, and some people that graduated from medical school and have no job. However all of you know just as well as I do, that these generalizations are mostly true. (just don't even bother arguing this part, don't post if you're going to say they're not) Sure, you can possibly make a living with just a high school degree. But it'll be absolute crap and the best most of them can hope for is to live in a small, run-down apartment in the highest crime rate neighborhood in the entire city. You might even be lucky to live in the projects. Even if you get a basic 2 year degree, if you get an almost/full time job, you could probably buy a small house in a suburb or rural area. It might not be nice, but you could probably own it and not live in fear of the crime outside your door. It's a significant step up, and even in the US it should be considered a basic right in the same way public high school education is. Note that this isn't coming from someone who's butthurt that they don't have money to pay for college, I've been put through it with absolutely no debt thanks to my very generous parents. I just think it would improve just about every aspect of society in every way. Edit: I thought of another reason for it. When I was in high school, the kids that didn't care about graduating mostly did it because they knew they couldn't pay for college even if they did end up graduating. If you give them another 2 years to look forward to, which ends up in them getting a somewhat reasonable job, they might actually try to complete high school without getting into serious trouble.

CMV: College should be free for at least 2, maybe 4, years, like high school. I've made a few generalizations below, of course there are some people who dropped out of high school and are millionaires, and some people that graduated from medical school and have no job. However all of you know just as well as I do, that these generalizations are mostly true. (just don't even bother arguing this part, don't post if you're going to say they're not) Sure, you can possibly make a living with just a high school degree. But it'll be absolute crap and the best most of them can hope for is to live in a small, run-down apartment in the highest crime rate neighborhood in the entire city. You might even be lucky to live in the projects. Even if you get a basic 2 year degree, if you get an almost/full time job, you could probably buy a small house in a suburb or rural area. It might not be nice, but you could probably own it and not live in fear of the crime outside your door. It's a significant step up, and even in the US it should be considered a basic right in the same way public high school education is. Note that this isn't coming from someone who's butthurt that they don't have money to pay for college, I've been put through it with absolutely no debt thanks to my very generous parents. I just think it would improve just about every aspect of society in every way. Edit: I thought of another reason for it. When I was in high school, the kids that didn't care about graduating mostly did it because they knew they couldn't pay for college even if they did end up graduating. If you give them another 2 years to look forward to, which ends up in them getting a somewhat reasonable job, they might actually try to complete high school without getting into serious trouble.

t3_1bg8nz

I believe America is the least "free" of the G8 nations. CMV

I see a lot of talk about how America is the land of the free and how it is the greatest democracy in the world, but I rarely see any examples of it. However, I do hear about: 1) American workers only getting 10 paid days vacation per year in my industry 2) American citizens being told they cannot get on an Aeroplane with no reason other than they are on a no-fly list 3) People being detained indefinitely and without regard for their human rights because they are considered terrorists. 4) The inability to edit and control technology devices like mobile phones despite the fact they've been paid for by the user These are just things that I've seen prominently on reddit recently, I'm sure there are other examples. I'd love to hear some example on the contrary.

I believe America is the least "free" of the G8 nations. CMV. I see a lot of talk about how America is the land of the free and how it is the greatest democracy in the world, but I rarely see any examples of it. However, I do hear about: 1) American workers only getting 10 paid days vacation per year in my industry 2) American citizens being told they cannot get on an Aeroplane with no reason other than they are on a no-fly list 3) People being detained indefinitely and without regard for their human rights because they are considered terrorists. 4) The inability to edit and control technology devices like mobile phones despite the fact they've been paid for by the user These are just things that I've seen prominently on reddit recently, I'm sure there are other examples. I'd love to hear some example on the contrary.

t3_6r6e4y

CMV: If you're a gay man, you shouldn't need to take estrogen.

It seems to me like the only reason to take estrogen would be to increase your attraction to men and to make yourself more feminine. Why would this be necessary if you're a gay man? If you're gay then you're already attracted to men so why do you need to take something that makes you more attracted to them? The only reason I can think of is if you're only partially gay, in which case why don't you just go for women? If you're so straight that you have to take estrogen to make yourself attracted to women then why bother living as gay? Also, why would you need to make yourself more feminine? Presumably you're looking to date another gay man, so why make yourself more feminine? He'll be looking for a man, not a woman, so why feminize yourself unless your date isn't fully gay? I'm not trying to be homophobic here, I'm just trying to understand why a gay man would want to take estrogen. There seems to be no reason to me other than that either he or his date aren't fully gay. EDIT: My view has officially been changed and my argument proved invalid.

CMV: If you're a gay man, you shouldn't need to take estrogen. It seems to me like the only reason to take estrogen would be to increase your attraction to men and to make yourself more feminine. Why would this be necessary if you're a gay man? If you're gay then you're already attracted to men so why do you need to take something that makes you more attracted to them? The only reason I can think of is if you're only partially gay, in which case why don't you just go for women? If you're so straight that you have to take estrogen to make yourself attracted to women then why bother living as gay? Also, why would you need to make yourself more feminine? Presumably you're looking to date another gay man, so why make yourself more feminine? He'll be looking for a man, not a woman, so why feminize yourself unless your date isn't fully gay? I'm not trying to be homophobic here, I'm just trying to understand why a gay man would want to take estrogen. There seems to be no reason to me other than that either he or his date aren't fully gay. EDIT: My view has officially been changed and my argument proved invalid.

t3_32ypuv

CMV: Governments ought to abide by John Rawls' principles of justice as laid out in A Theory of Justice to the best of their abilities.

Hey guys! This is my first CMV, so I'm sorry if I mess up the general format in any way. I've seen some discussions on philosophy here in the past, but none on Rawls' principles in particular, and I've recently come around to agree with his views so I'd like to see where other people can poke holes in my version of the argument for his conception of justice. Thanks for having this discussion with me! Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to concisely explain Rawls' entire philosophy within one reddit post. I'm assuming that anyone responding has a good understanding of the original position and Rawls' principles of justice as fairness. Anyone who wants to learn about his ideas [can read about them here.](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/) The most basic, core idea of his philosophy is that governments ought to act in a way that guarantees everyone a basic amount of liberty and tries to benefit the least well-off members of society whenever possible. This is because someone who didn't know information about themselves, like their race, gender, and socioeconomic status would want a government that guarantees themselves some basic level of happiness and freedom. My particular version of the argument is mostly inspired by chapter 40 of the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, "The Kantian Interpretation of Justice as Fairness." I'll now lay out my own logical syllogism leading to his two principles of justice: 1. Morality is subjective. All rational people live up to their own conceptions of their own identity and of the good. 2. Without a government, conflict inevitably arises when people pursue conflicting goals (In other words, life is nasty, brutish, and short within the state of nature). 3. All rational people have an interest in creating a government that allows them to autonomously pursue their own conceptions of their own identity and of the good. 4. An ideal government would have to consider all of its citizens to be free and equal. Free because they're all forming a government in order to freely pursue their own goals, equal because none of its citizens has a more morally valuable claim than the other. 5. John Rawls' original position best situates people as free and equal citizens. Everyone behind the veil of ignorance has an equal amount of information about society and an equal say in choosing principles to govern society, and everyone freely chooses principles to govern society. 6. Behind the veil of ignorance, people would want to guarantee themselves some basic amount of liberty and happiness. This is because they wouldn't want to gamble away their ability to pursue their own conception of the good. 7. John Rawls' two principles best guarantee all people a basic amount of liberty and happiness. 8. Governments ought to abide by those principles as best as possible. There ya go. Time to hope there's a philosophy major or two out there. Edit: Not sure if I can stay awake much longer, I've already typed out several paragraphs of stuff, I've been here for several hours, and I've got stuff to do tomorrow. I might check again in a little while. Thanks for responding guys, you've definitely given me a lot to think about. _____ > *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: Governments ought to abide by John Rawls' principles of justice as laid out in A Theory of Justice to the best of their abilities. Hey guys! This is my first CMV, so I'm sorry if I mess up the general format in any way. I've seen some discussions on philosophy here in the past, but none on Rawls' principles in particular, and I've recently come around to agree with his views so I'd like to see where other people can poke holes in my version of the argument for his conception of justice. Thanks for having this discussion with me! Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to concisely explain Rawls' entire philosophy within one reddit post. I'm assuming that anyone responding has a good understanding of the original position and Rawls' principles of justice as fairness. Anyone who wants to learn about his ideas [can read about them here.](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/) The most basic, core idea of his philosophy is that governments ought to act in a way that guarantees everyone a basic amount of liberty and tries to benefit the least well-off members of society whenever possible. This is because someone who didn't know information about themselves, like their race, gender, and socioeconomic status would want a government that guarantees themselves some basic level of happiness and freedom. My particular version of the argument is mostly inspired by chapter 40 of the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, "The Kantian Interpretation of Justice as Fairness." I'll now lay out my own logical syllogism leading to his two principles of justice: 1. Morality is subjective. All rational people live up to their own conceptions of their own identity and of the good. 2. Without a government, conflict inevitably arises when people pursue conflicting goals (In other words, life is nasty, brutish, and short within the state of nature). 3. All rational people have an interest in creating a government that allows them to autonomously pursue their own conceptions of their own identity and of the good. 4. An ideal government would have to consider all of its citizens to be free and equal. Free because they're all forming a government in order to freely pursue their own goals, equal because none of its citizens has a more morally valuable claim than the other. 5. John Rawls' original position best situates people as free and equal citizens. Everyone behind the veil of ignorance has an equal amount of information about society and an equal say in choosing principles to govern society, and everyone freely chooses principles to govern society. 6. Behind the veil of ignorance, people would want to guarantee themselves some basic amount of liberty and happiness. This is because they wouldn't want to gamble away their ability to pursue their own conception of the good. 7. John Rawls' two principles best guarantee all people a basic amount of liberty and happiness. 8. Governments ought to abide by those principles as best as possible. There ya go. Time to hope there's a philosophy major or two out there. Edit: Not sure if I can stay awake much longer, I've already typed out several paragraphs of stuff, I've been here for several hours, and I've got stuff to do tomorrow. I might check again in a little while. Thanks for responding guys, you've definitely given me a lot to think about.

t3_2gf3at

CMV: The term "survivor" to refer to victims of sexual assault is inappropriate.

These people are definitely "victims," but in my opinion, referring to them as "survivors" is in many cases overly dramatic. They might be referred to as "survivors" if their lives legitimately came into jeopardy (if they were held at gunpoint, if they were severely physically assaulted, etc.), but most instances of rape (unwanted sexual advances isolated to a single instance) do not come attached with a serious possibility of death. Rape is definitely one of the worst things that can happen to somebody, but I think that "survivor" suggests that what happened to them was on the same level as living through a genocidal campaign, a terminal illness, a plane crash, or something else of the sort. The former is bad, but the latter are almost certainly worse. Rape victims calling themselves "survivors" takes attention away from more serious issues in which death is on the line. Again, rape is a very serious issue, but not as serious as issues that consistently result in death. _____ > *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 term "survivor" to refer to victims of sexual assault is inappropriate. These people are definitely "victims," but in my opinion, referring to them as "survivors" is in many cases overly dramatic. They might be referred to as "survivors" if their lives legitimately came into jeopardy (if they were held at gunpoint, if they were severely physically assaulted, etc.), but most instances of rape (unwanted sexual advances isolated to a single instance) do not come attached with a serious possibility of death. Rape is definitely one of the worst things that can happen to somebody, but I think that "survivor" suggests that what happened to them was on the same level as living through a genocidal campaign, a terminal illness, a plane crash, or something else of the sort. The former is bad, but the latter are almost certainly worse. Rape victims calling themselves "survivors" takes attention away from more serious issues in which death is on the line. Again, rape is a very serious issue, but not as serious as issues that consistently result in death.

t3_1lwxa3

I don't see tomorrow as worth the efforts of today, cmv

I've always had an inherent sadness which has come to define me. There's certain things that happen in our lives which alter us indefinitely. No matter the delusions we lead ourselves into, the fact remains, the world is just as indifferent to our existence as is any God or deity. Time will pass and the world will end, the stars will explode and life will continue to exists in the far off reaches of the universe and there will be no one to mourn and/or remember the feats of the human race circa earth. The sky is slowly falling and we live our entire lives deluding ourselves into believing we can hold it up. We are not the masters of this world, we are hardly the masters of ourselves. Flawed beings in a flawed world. So what's the sense of this great struggle which is our lives? Is to struggle against great odds so beautiful that it's worth the price paid. Is that what makes us sympathetic creatures: however pathetic? Is it worth it?

I don't see tomorrow as worth the efforts of today, cmv. I've always had an inherent sadness which has come to define me. There's certain things that happen in our lives which alter us indefinitely. No matter the delusions we lead ourselves into, the fact remains, the world is just as indifferent to our existence as is any God or deity. Time will pass and the world will end, the stars will explode and life will continue to exists in the far off reaches of the universe and there will be no one to mourn and/or remember the feats of the human race circa earth. The sky is slowly falling and we live our entire lives deluding ourselves into believing we can hold it up. We are not the masters of this world, we are hardly the masters of ourselves. Flawed beings in a flawed world. So what's the sense of this great struggle which is our lives? Is to struggle against great odds so beautiful that it's worth the price paid. Is that what makes us sympathetic creatures: however pathetic? Is it worth it?

t3_62bcue

CMV: I think a ridiculously high flat tax could save the USA

I mean ridiculous. 95% (20-30% can stay in state) of all income earned by anyone and anything by doing anything. All of it goes to the government. That money is then given back as a flat income at the poverty line to everyone. Any social services (SNAP, healthcare, Financial Aid, literally everything) is cut immediately, including the bureaucracies. The entire federal gov is just slashed to pieces. Trump wants to gut it all, but we're one good tax plan away from saving the USA. Any money left over by this plan gets to be distributed to: fbi/cia/defense, research grants/science, infrastructure, government salaries/state aid. People who can't work because of illness have their necessities met. People who can't work more than 10-20 hours get a few commodities/luxuries. There's no bureaucracy to corrupt at the national level. Any salary boosting is met with serious and substantial diminishing returns. If being too rich/too poor is one of the biggest problems associated with: crime, contaminating the environment, abuse/mental health problems, then maintaining the minimum for absolutely no reason should seriously impact everyone's lives? So many conservatives here in WV bemoan being taxed, but we're facing a HUGE budget shortfall--we didn't have plows or salt trucks this last winter.....at all. We're cutting essential services at the state level, and the majority of our citizens need medicaid through the ACA because they're too impoverished to afford a healthy standard of living. McDowell country has some of the highest rates of drug abuse in the country. There are places in the state where pills are as accepted as currency. How would guaranteeing all of them a basic income through this flat tax NOT save them? Save us all? Edit:: Thank you all for the great conversations. I'm pretty thoroughly convinced now. For those of you curious, our GDP is at 56k if you include the top 1%. If you remove them it sinks to right below 30k. So a guaranteed income of around that mark seems plausible still. Such a prohibitive tax as a flat tax won't seem to work. My original thought was that small-medium sized businesses would fill in the spaces left if mega-corps leave. I didn't take into consideration exports, globalized systems, and startup capital, and I feel that while far more people would be interested in starting a business, the net result would be diminished. That said, Only one person really tried to address the bureaucracy problem, but failed to provide anything that convinced me that it's a net positive. If we all get SOME level of GI or food, housing (up to a certain amount), and healthcare are tax deductable instead of implementing huge bureaucracies to negotiate much of these industries, it still seems beneficial to me.

CMV: I think a ridiculously high flat tax could save the USA. I mean ridiculous. 95% (20-30% can stay in state) of all income earned by anyone and anything by doing anything. All of it goes to the government. That money is then given back as a flat income at the poverty line to everyone. Any social services (SNAP, healthcare, Financial Aid, literally everything) is cut immediately, including the bureaucracies. The entire federal gov is just slashed to pieces. Trump wants to gut it all, but we're one good tax plan away from saving the USA. Any money left over by this plan gets to be distributed to: fbi/cia/defense, research grants/science, infrastructure, government salaries/state aid. People who can't work because of illness have their necessities met. People who can't work more than 10-20 hours get a few commodities/luxuries. There's no bureaucracy to corrupt at the national level. Any salary boosting is met with serious and substantial diminishing returns. If being too rich/too poor is one of the biggest problems associated with: crime, contaminating the environment, abuse/mental health problems, then maintaining the minimum for absolutely no reason should seriously impact everyone's lives? So many conservatives here in WV bemoan being taxed, but we're facing a HUGE budget shortfall--we didn't have plows or salt trucks this last winter.....at all. We're cutting essential services at the state level, and the majority of our citizens need medicaid through the ACA because they're too impoverished to afford a healthy standard of living. McDowell country has some of the highest rates of drug abuse in the country. There are places in the state where pills are as accepted as currency. How would guaranteeing all of them a basic income through this flat tax NOT save them? Save us all? Edit:: Thank you all for the great conversations. I'm pretty thoroughly convinced now. For those of you curious, our GDP is at 56k if you include the top 1%. If you remove them it sinks to right below 30k. So a guaranteed income of around that mark seems plausible still. Such a prohibitive tax as a flat tax won't seem to work. My original thought was that small-medium sized businesses would fill in the spaces left if mega-corps leave. I didn't take into consideration exports, globalized systems, and startup capital, and I feel that while far more people would be interested in starting a business, the net result would be diminished. That said, Only one person really tried to address the bureaucracy problem, but failed to provide anything that convinced me that it's a net positive. If we all get SOME level of GI or food, housing (up to a certain amount), and healthcare are tax deductable instead of implementing huge bureaucracies to negotiate much of these industries, it still seems beneficial to me.

t3_44x762

CMV: US defense spending is a sacred cow that needs killing.

1. The $682 billion spent by the U.S. in 2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget, was more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil. 2. In an era where the majority of the US' conflicts are police actions in states without advanced military capabilities, frequently against insurgents, this is little more than a hangover from the cold war. 3. The US public have been conditioned to believe that this is not the case, and that if anything accounting for 40% of the world's defense spending is insufficient. 4. This is a lie. Politicians at the national level should be considering deep cuts to defense budgets in an effort to make available the option to commit to capital spend projects, which will palpably improve the lives of the average citizen. My first point is a fact- I'd be happy to treat the latter three as distinct views, or aspects of one view: US defense spending is a sacred cow that needs killing. > *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: US defense spending is a sacred cow that needs killing. 1. The $682 billion spent by the U.S. in 2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget, was more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil. 2. In an era where the majority of the US' conflicts are police actions in states without advanced military capabilities, frequently against insurgents, this is little more than a hangover from the cold war. 3. The US public have been conditioned to believe that this is not the case, and that if anything accounting for 40% of the world's defense spending is insufficient. 4. This is a lie. Politicians at the national level should be considering deep cuts to defense budgets in an effort to make available the option to commit to capital spend projects, which will palpably improve the lives of the average citizen. My first point is a fact- I'd be happy to treat the latter three as distinct views, or aspects of one view: US defense spending is a sacred cow that needs killing. > *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_5xxz94

CMV: Losing a leg is not as bad as losing an arm

Most CMVs are about controversial politics, so I thought I'd spice things up with a ridiculous hypothetical situation. I had this conversation with a few friends today and was surprised at how many disagreed with me. Here are the pertinent circumstances: Were you required to have either an arm or leg (of your choice) amputated in a safe medical environment, with enough stump left to make prosthetics viable, which appendage would you say goodbye to? My logic for preferring the leg amputation is as follows: - A prosthetic leg is more concealable. - A prosthetic leg seems cheaper and closer to a real leg than a prosthetic arm. - A prosthetic leg holds more potential for fun tinkering. For example, I'd love to use its greater size to store my wallet, contain a portable charger, as a gun-holster...etc - Real arms and especially hands have much more complicated everyday uses than legs. Modern prosthetics don't make delicate finger motions easy. - Arms are better tattoo real estate than legs. - A sense of touch and temperature is more valuable in one's hands than their feet. - Pirate costumes on Halloween will be THAT much more realistic. If anyone here is actually missing a limb, or knows someone who is, I'd appreciate your feedback especially, and hope I haven't been too insensitive!

CMV: Losing a leg is not as bad as losing an arm. Most CMVs are about controversial politics, so I thought I'd spice things up with a ridiculous hypothetical situation. I had this conversation with a few friends today and was surprised at how many disagreed with me. Here are the pertinent circumstances: Were you required to have either an arm or leg (of your choice) amputated in a safe medical environment, with enough stump left to make prosthetics viable, which appendage would you say goodbye to? My logic for preferring the leg amputation is as follows: - A prosthetic leg is more concealable. - A prosthetic leg seems cheaper and closer to a real leg than a prosthetic arm. - A prosthetic leg holds more potential for fun tinkering. For example, I'd love to use its greater size to store my wallet, contain a portable charger, as a gun-holster...etc - Real arms and especially hands have much more complicated everyday uses than legs. Modern prosthetics don't make delicate finger motions easy. - Arms are better tattoo real estate than legs. - A sense of touch and temperature is more valuable in one's hands than their feet. - Pirate costumes on Halloween will be THAT much more realistic. If anyone here is actually missing a limb, or knows someone who is, I'd appreciate your feedback especially, and hope I haven't been too insensitive!

t3_1t1egm

I believe estate and inheritances taxes should be illegal CMV

First, the money has already been taxed by the government at least once, depending on how it was earned. Why should it be taxed again? If they had lived another ten years and spent it all on lavish food and donations, then it would only have been taxed once, at a lesser rate rather than for the estate/inheritance and then again when spent by those inheriting money. Why should they be penalized for dying at a point where they had money/property to leave for their loved ones? You can't always know when you are going to die. Additionally, I inherited a bit of money as a child and was shocked to learn that after inheriting the money I was taxed at my parent's income rate for years despite the fact that they could not touch the money. I couldn't either until I turned 18. It just seems like blatant theft on the part of the government. I feel like these taxes are just a money grab aimed at grieving people...how is this an acceptable/good thing?

I believe estate and inheritances taxes should be illegal CMV. First, the money has already been taxed by the government at least once, depending on how it was earned. Why should it be taxed again? If they had lived another ten years and spent it all on lavish food and donations, then it would only have been taxed once, at a lesser rate rather than for the estate/inheritance and then again when spent by those inheriting money. Why should they be penalized for dying at a point where they had money/property to leave for their loved ones? You can't always know when you are going to die. Additionally, I inherited a bit of money as a child and was shocked to learn that after inheriting the money I was taxed at my parent's income rate for years despite the fact that they could not touch the money. I couldn't either until I turned 18. It just seems like blatant theft on the part of the government. I feel like these taxes are just a money grab aimed at grieving people...how is this an acceptable/good thing?

t3_5ziav6

[Mod Post] DeltaBot should now, in theory, never miss a delta. If this happens, it'll be a crash or bug, so please alert us.

Hello, In my [last mod post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5ojqie/mod_post_deltabot_now_checks_edited_comments_for/) about /u/DeltaBot, I announced that edited comments are now scanned for deltas, except for the issue of comments not appearing as 'edited' for the first 3 minutes. **This has now been resolved**, and it was the last remaining thing that prevented DeltaBot from catching all deltas. In theory, DeltaBot should never miss any deltas now. I say in theory because it's possible there's a bug or the bot crashes, in which case we'd like to be made aware in order to prevent them from happening again. Thanks for your patience on DeltaBot. It's been a long process trying to make it watertight, and we're very close now. [There are still some issues remaining on GitHub](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three/issues). If you're familiar with node.js, we'd be grateful if you had a look. Thank you.

[Mod Post] DeltaBot should now, in theory, never miss a delta. If this happens, it'll be a crash or bug, so please alert us. Hello, In my [last mod post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5ojqie/mod_post_deltabot_now_checks_edited_comments_for/) about /u/DeltaBot, I announced that edited comments are now scanned for deltas, except for the issue of comments not appearing as 'edited' for the first 3 minutes. **This has now been resolved**, and it was the last remaining thing that prevented DeltaBot from catching all deltas. In theory, DeltaBot should never miss any deltas now. I say in theory because it's possible there's a bug or the bot crashes, in which case we'd like to be made aware in order to prevent them from happening again. Thanks for your patience on DeltaBot. It's been a long process trying to make it watertight, and we're very close now. [There are still some issues remaining on GitHub](https://github.com/MystK/delta-bot-three/issues). If you're familiar with node.js, we'd be grateful if you had a look. Thank you.

t3_220rim

CMV: Lack of retraction damages the Internet

We learn by making mistakes. If you make the penalty for making mistakes too high, we stop learning. By being so public and sensationalist, the Internet drives us to blind partisanship, where we follow the platforms of our parties rather than risk being scolded for expressing something that we can be individually blamed for. This came about after having a comment argument on Facebook - after I expressed an unpopular opinion, countless friends took up arms against me. One brave soul finally took the time to actually explain how I was wrong, which changed my opinion - but now I've learned my lesson: expressing non-standard opinions online is simply too risky and not worth it, because people are quick to hate you and slow to help you.

CMV: Lack of retraction damages the Internet. We learn by making mistakes. If you make the penalty for making mistakes too high, we stop learning. By being so public and sensationalist, the Internet drives us to blind partisanship, where we follow the platforms of our parties rather than risk being scolded for expressing something that we can be individually blamed for. This came about after having a comment argument on Facebook - after I expressed an unpopular opinion, countless friends took up arms against me. One brave soul finally took the time to actually explain how I was wrong, which changed my opinion - but now I've learned my lesson: expressing non-standard opinions online is simply too risky and not worth it, because people are quick to hate you and slow to help you.

t3_1k4g9o

The Duggar parents are disgusting and their lifestyle is horrible. CMV.

There is no way for their children to receive adequate parental attention. Jim bob and Michelle have manufactured essentially a cult, sheltering their children from outside influence and controlling every facet of their lives and what they are allowed to learn and believe. They are isolated and indoctrinated. Her children essentially raise eachother. The older daughters do the majority of the cooking, cleaning and child care. Their "buddy system" assigns each new child to one of the existing children, who are responsible for the new child even to the extent of feeding, cleaning and educating them. They demand complete obedience and submission, using the Pearl's discipline method, which encourages physical punishment as early as 6 months and considers so much as a negative attitude to be disobedience. The Duggars are big fans of Bill Gothard and are enrolled in his Institutes for Basic Life Principles. Outside of the circle of his followers, Bill Gothard is frequently regarded as a cult leader. He teaches, for instance, that troll dolls delay labor, that cabbage patch dolls are possessed by demons, and that Christians today must follow Old Testament sexual purity codes, including abstaining from sex the evening before weekly worship. Also he teaches that tampons take girls’ virginity, among other ideas ranging from silly to outrageously stupid. Their principles also teach children that the ONLY acceptable emotion is happy, and if they publicly show anything less it is a personal insult to the parents and direct disobedience, for which they are punished. If any disobedience continues, it results in physical punishment. They embrace the Quiverfull ideal, which uses children as "arrows" to be sent out into the world to spread the beliefs of the parents, and that if any child decides to embrace a way of life or a belief system any different from their parents, the child is a failure. The expectations placed on children are enormous and unfair. They teach that crushes and romance and kisses before marriage are permanently damaging and sexual thoughts are forbidden. They teach that the man of the house has absolute control and unquestionable authority. They teach that their children should follow parent-guided "courtships" and that dating and choosing their own spouse is practice for divorce. There is no freedom and no choice. Their older children spend their teen years taking care of the other children. Nobody is allowed to choose friends outside of a small pre-approved group of other families. Even their adult daughters are expected o follow their father's will to the letter, and that their only acceptable role in life is that of a mother and house maker, so is god's will. There is no such thing as privacy. No questions. No choices. All children follow a parent prescribed path and are quickly corrected if they drift the slightest bit. The Duggars are child abusers.

The Duggar parents are disgusting and their lifestyle is horrible. CMV. There is no way for their children to receive adequate parental attention. Jim bob and Michelle have manufactured essentially a cult, sheltering their children from outside influence and controlling every facet of their lives and what they are allowed to learn and believe. They are isolated and indoctrinated. Her children essentially raise eachother. The older daughters do the majority of the cooking, cleaning and child care. Their "buddy system" assigns each new child to one of the existing children, who are responsible for the new child even to the extent of feeding, cleaning and educating them. They demand complete obedience and submission, using the Pearl's discipline method, which encourages physical punishment as early as 6 months and considers so much as a negative attitude to be disobedience. The Duggars are big fans of Bill Gothard and are enrolled in his Institutes for Basic Life Principles. Outside of the circle of his followers, Bill Gothard is frequently regarded as a cult leader. He teaches, for instance, that troll dolls delay labor, that cabbage patch dolls are possessed by demons, and that Christians today must follow Old Testament sexual purity codes, including abstaining from sex the evening before weekly worship. Also he teaches that tampons take girls’ virginity, among other ideas ranging from silly to outrageously stupid. Their principles also teach children that the ONLY acceptable emotion is happy, and if they publicly show anything less it is a personal insult to the parents and direct disobedience, for which they are punished. If any disobedience continues, it results in physical punishment. They embrace the Quiverfull ideal, which uses children as "arrows" to be sent out into the world to spread the beliefs of the parents, and that if any child decides to embrace a way of life or a belief system any different from their parents, the child is a failure. The expectations placed on children are enormous and unfair. They teach that crushes and romance and kisses before marriage are permanently damaging and sexual thoughts are forbidden. They teach that the man of the house has absolute control and unquestionable authority. They teach that their children should follow parent-guided "courtships" and that dating and choosing their own spouse is practice for divorce. There is no freedom and no choice. Their older children spend their teen years taking care of the other children. Nobody is allowed to choose friends outside of a small pre-approved group of other families. Even their adult daughters are expected o follow their father's will to the letter, and that their only acceptable role in life is that of a mother and house maker, so is god's will. There is no such thing as privacy. No questions. No choices. All children follow a parent prescribed path and are quickly corrected if they drift the slightest bit. The Duggars are child abusers.

t3_61vpmu

CMV: School protocols for lockdowns are bad and should be changed

In American schools, protocol for a lockdown (when someone has entered the school that shouldn't, be they with a weapon or without) typically involves locking the doors, turning off lights...and then *huddling in a corner*. How is this going to protect anyone from a shooter? Usually, if there was a shooter, you wouldn't want to gather in a handy-dandy corner, you'd flip over desks and whatnot, prepared to actually defend yourself. This is even worse if you aren't in your classroom when you go on lockdown, because students are usually instructed to go to the main office. Yeah...just wander around towards an easily accessable and visible room, possibly through several hallways? It seems counteractive to what the protocol is trying to accomplish. _____ > *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: School protocols for lockdowns are bad and should be changed. In American schools, protocol for a lockdown (when someone has entered the school that shouldn't, be they with a weapon or without) typically involves locking the doors, turning off lights...and then *huddling in a corner*. How is this going to protect anyone from a shooter? Usually, if there was a shooter, you wouldn't want to gather in a handy-dandy corner, you'd flip over desks and whatnot, prepared to actually defend yourself. This is even worse if you aren't in your classroom when you go on lockdown, because students are usually instructed to go to the main office. Yeah...just wander around towards an easily accessable and visible room, possibly through several hallways? It seems counteractive to what the protocol is trying to accomplish.

t3_1m9t2u

People are making excuses or think they are too good for minimum wage jobs when they say they can't find a job CMV.

I am 22 and have been employed in 5 different jobs moving up each time since I was 16. If you can't find a job you are not trying hard enough. My parents have had jobs since the day they were old enough to work. My dad had work since he was 12. Every member of my extended family has some sort of job or is retired. Be it work that requires a major or a crappy McJob a job is a job. If you are unemployed do some leg work and get a job. stop making excuses. sure you went to school for 4 years for a job but you don't have it. Get off your high horse and get a job. My cousin has a masters in Electrical engineering and he is currently delivering pizzas until he gets a job for his major. After all isn't a little money better than no money? It's your own fault you can't get a job. Edit: Just some clarification If you are happy being unemployed or are taking a break from working to pursue a hobby of some sort I am perfectly fine with that, it is the people that complain and whine that bother me. Edit 2: Thanks everyone for your input. I now realize how selfish my thought process was.

People are making excuses or think they are too good for minimum wage jobs when they say they can't find a job CMV. I am 22 and have been employed in 5 different jobs moving up each time since I was 16. If you can't find a job you are not trying hard enough. My parents have had jobs since the day they were old enough to work. My dad had work since he was 12. Every member of my extended family has some sort of job or is retired. Be it work that requires a major or a crappy McJob a job is a job. If you are unemployed do some leg work and get a job. stop making excuses. sure you went to school for 4 years for a job but you don't have it. Get off your high horse and get a job. My cousin has a masters in Electrical engineering and he is currently delivering pizzas until he gets a job for his major. After all isn't a little money better than no money? It's your own fault you can't get a job. Edit: Just some clarification If you are happy being unemployed or are taking a break from working to pursue a hobby of some sort I am perfectly fine with that, it is the people that complain and whine that bother me. Edit 2: Thanks everyone for your input. I now realize how selfish my thought process was.

t3_5r98xe

CMV: There is no way of changing someone's mind unless they're willing to change it

So to start with I'd like to just say I'm looking for people to point out either specific places in time or specific ideas that show a person changing their mind or disavowing a previous viewpoint despite being adamant or infuriated previously. I call it the "Dawkin's Paradox". Named after Richard Dawkins who, though very intelligent and historically correct on most points, presents himself in a way that makes him out to be a total asshole. Most people who disagree with him don't disagree with his viewpoints but seek to actively disagree with him. The Dawkin's Paradox is when you're completely and unequivocally correct but there is a disagreement based on you presenting yourself like a total prat. I first noticed this when I was younger and got into arguments with my brother. I, being younger, found myself being wrong pretty often and it would just irritate me to no end when my brother would mock my point of view and disqualify me as "stupid". After hours of arguing I'd understand that I was wrong but would still be blue-faced trying to scream about what I was right about, even if that wasn't even the initial argument. As I got older, I noticed myself doing the same thing to others: Disavowing their point of view, calling them stupid, and poisoning the well for others. What I noticed shortly after that is the people I did that to would take up contrarian positions simply to defy me. Sometimes it would be trolling, but sometimes they'd be stuck in the same petulant conundrum I was in when I argued with my brother: I just didn't want him to be right. After a few failed interactions where I did nothing but reinforce my opponents viewpoint I decided to try a "same team" mentality whereupon we both were discovering new things and their viewpoint was simply a starting point which I could use to lead them to the right place. In many situations this worked wonderfully; I was able to get people to understand my point of view and accept the facts that I presented them. But then the wrench got put in the works. Since it worked so well with things before I tried to pull the same thing with some people who believed ideas I found flat out appalling. I've argued with flat-earthers, intelligent designers, pizzagaters, chemical conspiracy theorists, and a variety of other particularly ludicrous ideas. All of these conversations didn't end well and despite my attempts to be even gratuitously pleasant and understanding I was called everything from "brainwashed" to a "government shill" to just a plain "idiot". Despite these people being painfully ignorant they stood their ground and tried to instead convince me I was wrong. Each time I went down the rabbit hole with them, trying to use their own logic against them and pointing out things that just flat out are hard to believe. Each time they rebutted my points with either canned statements or an appeal to the unknown. After all these conversations I kept saying to myself, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Then in an effort to try to not be completely defeatist at a time when the ability to change a radicalized opinion is important, I'm offering, please, 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: There is no way of changing someone's mind unless they're willing to change it. So to start with I'd like to just say I'm looking for people to point out either specific places in time or specific ideas that show a person changing their mind or disavowing a previous viewpoint despite being adamant or infuriated previously. I call it the "Dawkin's Paradox". Named after Richard Dawkins who, though very intelligent and historically correct on most points, presents himself in a way that makes him out to be a total asshole. Most people who disagree with him don't disagree with his viewpoints but seek to actively disagree with him. The Dawkin's Paradox is when you're completely and unequivocally correct but there is a disagreement based on you presenting yourself like a total prat. I first noticed this when I was younger and got into arguments with my brother. I, being younger, found myself being wrong pretty often and it would just irritate me to no end when my brother would mock my point of view and disqualify me as "stupid". After hours of arguing I'd understand that I was wrong but would still be blue-faced trying to scream about what I was right about, even if that wasn't even the initial argument. As I got older, I noticed myself doing the same thing to others: Disavowing their point of view, calling them stupid, and poisoning the well for others. What I noticed shortly after that is the people I did that to would take up contrarian positions simply to defy me. Sometimes it would be trolling, but sometimes they'd be stuck in the same petulant conundrum I was in when I argued with my brother: I just didn't want him to be right. After a few failed interactions where I did nothing but reinforce my opponents viewpoint I decided to try a "same team" mentality whereupon we both were discovering new things and their viewpoint was simply a starting point which I could use to lead them to the right place. In many situations this worked wonderfully; I was able to get people to understand my point of view and accept the facts that I presented them. But then the wrench got put in the works. Since it worked so well with things before I tried to pull the same thing with some people who believed ideas I found flat out appalling. I've argued with flat-earthers, intelligent designers, pizzagaters, chemical conspiracy theorists, and a variety of other particularly ludicrous ideas. All of these conversations didn't end well and despite my attempts to be even gratuitously pleasant and understanding I was called everything from "brainwashed" to a "government shill" to just a plain "idiot". Despite these people being painfully ignorant they stood their ground and tried to instead convince me I was wrong. Each time I went down the rabbit hole with them, trying to use their own logic against them and pointing out things that just flat out are hard to believe. Each time they rebutted my points with either canned statements or an appeal to the unknown. After all these conversations I kept saying to myself, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Then in an effort to try to not be completely defeatist at a time when the ability to change a radicalized opinion is important, I'm offering, please, CMV.

t3_1f4oud

I believe that abortion or intentional premature birth should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy CMV

If the woman waits until the fetus becomes viable, instead of performing a true abortion labor should be induced. If the fetus survives it can then be adopted out to a family that wants it. If it is previability, then the woman should be allowed to abort it, no matter how far along she is. It is her body, and previability a fetus is not a person IMO.

I believe that abortion or intentional premature birth should be allowed at any stage of pregnancy CMV. If the woman waits until the fetus becomes viable, instead of performing a true abortion labor should be induced. If the fetus survives it can then be adopted out to a family that wants it. If it is previability, then the woman should be allowed to abort it, no matter how far along she is. It is her body, and previability a fetus is not a person IMO.

t3_23doac

CMV:I believe society is assbackwards. I believe the human race has been manipulated and controlled over the course of the past 5000-10000 years.

I just find it hard to wrap my head around society? BUTTHURT WARNING: I personally feel as though society was designed to keep people distracted. This idea that we MUST work our entire lives away doing something most of us would rather not be doing (I understand there are people out there who absolutely love their job) in the hopes that someday we might have enough money saved up to retire to do all the things we wanted to do when we were in our 20s and 30s and thats IF you can retire. Some folks with todays economy save their entire lives just to have their pension or retirement funds taken from them. I know everyone is different and every situation is different. This is just what I notice during the day to day. Please for the love of god dont tell me "life and/or society is what you make it". EDIT: Well aparently a majority of Reddit believes that Society is just peachy and needs nothing added or taken away. My view has not been changed on this topic, but lets be honest I didnt really think it could have been changed, but thank you all who answered and tried to change my view! I really appreciated everyones input on this topic!! Thank you all!! Editx2: My argument in a nutshell is that Humans are natural to this planet, natural to nature. Society takes us away from our roots (nature) with work, television, cell phones and whatever else is used to distract people and hold their attention. I'm not saying take all of our human innovation and technology and throw it to become a tree hugging hippy, Im just saying think about what you are and why you are on this planet, The idea that you are alive and conscious is incredibly awe inspiring in itself and most take life for granted.

CMV:I believe society is assbackwards. I believe the human race has been manipulated and controlled over the course of the past 5000-10000 years. I just find it hard to wrap my head around society? BUTTHURT WARNING: I personally feel as though society was designed to keep people distracted. This idea that we MUST work our entire lives away doing something most of us would rather not be doing (I understand there are people out there who absolutely love their job) in the hopes that someday we might have enough money saved up to retire to do all the things we wanted to do when we were in our 20s and 30s and thats IF you can retire. Some folks with todays economy save their entire lives just to have their pension or retirement funds taken from them. I know everyone is different and every situation is different. This is just what I notice during the day to day. Please for the love of god dont tell me "life and/or society is what you make it". EDIT: Well aparently a majority of Reddit believes that Society is just peachy and needs nothing added or taken away. My view has not been changed on this topic, but lets be honest I didnt really think it could have been changed, but thank you all who answered and tried to change my view! I really appreciated everyones input on this topic!! Thank you all!! Editx2: My argument in a nutshell is that Humans are natural to this planet, natural to nature. Society takes us away from our roots (nature) with work, television, cell phones and whatever else is used to distract people and hold their attention. I'm not saying take all of our human innovation and technology and throw it to become a tree hugging hippy, Im just saying think about what you are and why you are on this planet, The idea that you are alive and conscious is incredibly awe inspiring in itself and most take life for granted.

t3_4oztar

CMV: esports should not be considered sports.

I recently read that Russia has officially recognized esports as an official sport, and other countries around the world are doing the same. ESPN is discussing deals to stream League of Legends on their channel. In Greek culture, sport was hugely emphasized for the physical benefits it gave. Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all agreed that sport, or "gymnastics" was an essential part of a well educated individual, the point being that physical activity was beneficial to the overall mind and psyche. They had games of strategy in those days as well, yet never referred to them as "sport." I think by calling esports actual sports, we are undermining the importance of physical activity. Why not just simply call it what it is: "gaming?" Video game players are likening themselves to elite athletes without the same amount of training it takes to become a true athlete. The mental training may be similar, but in actual sports, mental *and* physical training are emphasized. Esports do not demonstrate physical skill, only mental skill. Their maneuvers with the mouse and keyboard or controller are not impressive at all to me.

CMV: esports should not be considered sports. I recently read that Russia has officially recognized esports as an official sport, and other countries around the world are doing the same. ESPN is discussing deals to stream League of Legends on their channel. In Greek culture, sport was hugely emphasized for the physical benefits it gave. Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all agreed that sport, or "gymnastics" was an essential part of a well educated individual, the point being that physical activity was beneficial to the overall mind and psyche. They had games of strategy in those days as well, yet never referred to them as "sport." I think by calling esports actual sports, we are undermining the importance of physical activity. Why not just simply call it what it is: "gaming?" Video game players are likening themselves to elite athletes without the same amount of training it takes to become a true athlete. The mental training may be similar, but in actual sports, mental *and* physical training are emphasized. Esports do not demonstrate physical skill, only mental skill. Their maneuvers with the mouse and keyboard or controller are not impressive at all to me.

t3_1c8ym3

I think that the Men's Rights and Feminism subreddits do more harm than good. CMV

I thought about posting this in Men's Rights (since it's three times bigger than Feminism and seems a lot more active), but I don't think I'd get the kind of open-minded discussion I'm looking for there. Whenever I'm reading through a thread linking to an article that depicts one sex in a negative light (rape, domestic abuse, false rape accusations, etc.), it seems inevitable that I come across some MRA/feminism discussion somewhere in the comments. The first few times I saw this happening, I tried to follow the discussion for any compelling arguments, but it always somehow spiraled into absurdity. I started skipping over most of those sections whenever I came across them, writing them off as a waste of time. Until one day when I was reading one of these threads, I came across someone who said, "I really only read the Men's Rights sub when I'm on reddit." A quick look in his comment history proved his statement to be true. Then I started doing that whenever I came across a sexism discussion on a thread I was reading. I'd say 7 out of 10 times, the user's comment history had 80% of their comments in either /r/mensrights, /r/feminism, or /r/shitredditsays... (usually the former two subs, as SRS comments are always downvoted to the bottom of most threads). I've looked through several threads on both subreddits, and aside from links to interesting articles, I guess I just don't see the good that they're doing. The rational, intelligent conversations in those places are few and far in between... name-calling and berating seem to be commonplace, and this definitely spills out into the rest of reddit. Have I misinterpretted the point of these places? I see them as a little destructive and somewhat counter-productive to their cause. Some of these users seem like impressionable people who have spent so much time in these places that their views are completely shaped by them. As a disclaimer: I'm not gonna pretend I know what it's like as a man in this day and age, just as I don't think it's possible for a man to know what it's like to be a woman. I acknowledge there are assholes, idiots, and all-around terrible examples of both sexes and that these people do not represent either sex as a whole. I kind of see these subs the same way as I see /r/atheism now... they've lost sight of the big picture and have almost become parodies of the things they're supposed to be against. Where hivemind mentality breeds and overrides any sort of outside influence. And where there seems to be a common theme of users who tend to obsess over these issues above all else. Tell me why these subreddits are more than just circlejerks for bitching about the opposite sex. I'd like to know if there's some kind of positive influence that I'm missing. And I'd like to know if I'm being narrow-minded for seeing those subreddits that way. Maybe I'm just as judgemental as I'm accusing them of being? Change my view. -------------------------------------------- **edit** - Holy crap this thread has exploded within minutes. So many good points and discussion on both sides of the coin. I have since changed my position and realize that the gender issues subs of reddit can have just as many positive influences on people as negative. The first two deltas awarded to [this post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c8ym3/i_think_that_the_mens_rights_and_feminism/c9e9ga5) by /u/HeyLookItsThatGuy and [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c8ym3/i_think_that_the_mens_rights_and_feminism/c9e9zzx) post by /u/MyMRAccount. I'll continue to read and reply as the thread progresses. Thanks everyone.

I think that the Men's Rights and Feminism subreddits do more harm than good. CMV. I thought about posting this in Men's Rights (since it's three times bigger than Feminism and seems a lot more active), but I don't think I'd get the kind of open-minded discussion I'm looking for there. Whenever I'm reading through a thread linking to an article that depicts one sex in a negative light (rape, domestic abuse, false rape accusations, etc.), it seems inevitable that I come across some MRA/feminism discussion somewhere in the comments. The first few times I saw this happening, I tried to follow the discussion for any compelling arguments, but it always somehow spiraled into absurdity. I started skipping over most of those sections whenever I came across them, writing them off as a waste of time. Until one day when I was reading one of these threads, I came across someone who said, "I really only read the Men's Rights sub when I'm on reddit." A quick look in his comment history proved his statement to be true. Then I started doing that whenever I came across a sexism discussion on a thread I was reading. I'd say 7 out of 10 times, the user's comment history had 80% of their comments in either /r/mensrights, /r/feminism, or /r/shitredditsays... (usually the former two subs, as SRS comments are always downvoted to the bottom of most threads). I've looked through several threads on both subreddits, and aside from links to interesting articles, I guess I just don't see the good that they're doing. The rational, intelligent conversations in those places are few and far in between... name-calling and berating seem to be commonplace, and this definitely spills out into the rest of reddit. Have I misinterpretted the point of these places? I see them as a little destructive and somewhat counter-productive to their cause. Some of these users seem like impressionable people who have spent so much time in these places that their views are completely shaped by them. As a disclaimer: I'm not gonna pretend I know what it's like as a man in this day and age, just as I don't think it's possible for a man to know what it's like to be a woman. I acknowledge there are assholes, idiots, and all-around terrible examples of both sexes and that these people do not represent either sex as a whole. I kind of see these subs the same way as I see /r/atheism now... they've lost sight of the big picture and have almost become parodies of the things they're supposed to be against. Where hivemind mentality breeds and overrides any sort of outside influence. And where there seems to be a common theme of users who tend to obsess over these issues above all else. Tell me why these subreddits are more than just circlejerks for bitching about the opposite sex. I'd like to know if there's some kind of positive influence that I'm missing. And I'd like to know if I'm being narrow-minded for seeing those subreddits that way. Maybe I'm just as judgemental as I'm accusing them of being? Change my view. -------------------------------------------- **edit** - Holy crap this thread has exploded within minutes. So many good points and discussion on both sides of the coin. I have since changed my position and realize that the gender issues subs of reddit can have just as many positive influences on people as negative. The first two deltas awarded to [this post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c8ym3/i_think_that_the_mens_rights_and_feminism/c9e9ga5) by /u/HeyLookItsThatGuy and [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c8ym3/i_think_that_the_mens_rights_and_feminism/c9e9zzx) post by /u/MyMRAccount. I'll continue to read and reply as the thread progresses. Thanks everyone.

t3_64k5xl

CMV:The doctor that was removed from the United flight is fully responsible for his injuries

Here's a news article about it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/nation-now/2017/04/10/man-forcibly-removed-united-flight/100276054/ There have been a lot of threads on Reddit and Twitter about this, and it seems to me there is a large majority of people saying that the man was unreasonably subjected to violence by the police. I disagree. Rules and laws need to be enforced. The actual time that the situation happens is almost never the time to disobey a police officer, except perhaps in extreme circumstances, like unusual life and death situations. This was not a life and death situation- it was an unfair bump from his flight. If you believe the officer was wrong, or if you believe the flight attendants were wrong, grievances should be given later in the court of law. In fact, the man said he was calling his lawyer. This is the appropriate response. Instead, when the man was confronted by police and ordered to get off the plane, he refused and physically resisted the officer. This is what ultimately caused him to be injured, it seems by being pulled into an armrest by the officer. The actions of the officer- grabbing him by the arms and pulling him out, seems to me to be the minimal amount of force that would have moved him, given his (illegal) resistance. Another point to make is that he was making a scene and resisting by screaming and pulling away from the officer. This often makes the officer look like an aggressor and the criminal a victim. This often garners a lot of sympathy from people who watch the video, even if the person is breaking the law and resisting the officer. But if we believe people should be allowed to break the law if they make a big enough scene or resist hard enough, that only encourages people to resist officers and make scenes, which is certain to lead to more violent altercations between officers and civilians. Once you are ordered by an officer to disembark, you *will* disembark either peacefully or by force. And if you are injured in the process of physically resisting an officer, you are fully responsible for those injuries. _____ > *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 doctor that was removed from the United flight is fully responsible for his injuries. Here's a news article about it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/nation-now/2017/04/10/man-forcibly-removed-united-flight/100276054/ There have been a lot of threads on Reddit and Twitter about this, and it seems to me there is a large majority of people saying that the man was unreasonably subjected to violence by the police. I disagree. Rules and laws need to be enforced. The actual time that the situation happens is almost never the time to disobey a police officer, except perhaps in extreme circumstances, like unusual life and death situations. This was not a life and death situation- it was an unfair bump from his flight. If you believe the officer was wrong, or if you believe the flight attendants were wrong, grievances should be given later in the court of law. In fact, the man said he was calling his lawyer. This is the appropriate response. Instead, when the man was confronted by police and ordered to get off the plane, he refused and physically resisted the officer. This is what ultimately caused him to be injured, it seems by being pulled into an armrest by the officer. The actions of the officer- grabbing him by the arms and pulling him out, seems to me to be the minimal amount of force that would have moved him, given his (illegal) resistance. Another point to make is that he was making a scene and resisting by screaming and pulling away from the officer. This often makes the officer look like an aggressor and the criminal a victim. This often garners a lot of sympathy from people who watch the video, even if the person is breaking the law and resisting the officer. But if we believe people should be allowed to break the law if they make a big enough scene or resist hard enough, that only encourages people to resist officers and make scenes, which is certain to lead to more violent altercations between officers and civilians. Once you are ordered by an officer to disembark, you *will* disembark either peacefully or by force. And if you are injured in the process of physically resisting an officer, you are fully responsible for those injuries.

t3_3lx76u

CMV: If the NFL banned the use of helmets, there would be a great deal less brain disease (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).

I don't believe that it would eliminate CTE in football, only reduce it significantly. CTE occurs as well in soccer, rugby, baseball and wrestlers, but it seems that it is to a lot lesser extent. The reasoning behind this is that there will be much less head-to-head contact, especially on the offensive and defensive lines. Players will instinctively protect their heads rather than have them repeatedly bash into another person's head. The same reasoning can be said for removing the use of gloves in boxing. I don't have a firm belief in this, honestly. And I'm not saying that the NFL should adopt this rule, I'm just saying that it would greatly reduce CTE. I'm just curious about the counterarguments.

CMV: If the NFL banned the use of helmets, there would be a great deal less brain disease (chronic traumatic encephalopathy). I don't believe that it would eliminate CTE in football, only reduce it significantly. CTE occurs as well in soccer, rugby, baseball and wrestlers, but it seems that it is to a lot lesser extent. The reasoning behind this is that there will be much less head-to-head contact, especially on the offensive and defensive lines. Players will instinctively protect their heads rather than have them repeatedly bash into another person's head. The same reasoning can be said for removing the use of gloves in boxing. I don't have a firm belief in this, honestly. And I'm not saying that the NFL should adopt this rule, I'm just saying that it would greatly reduce CTE. I'm just curious about the counterarguments.

t3_29wdwj

CMV: People who play real-life DND and Magic: The Gathering have off-putting personalities. They also have filthy homes and their fathers smell of elderberries, but I'm willing to put those up for debate.

I actively avoiding the gaming scene for years because of some experiences I had in and after college. One was a DND group a friend invited me to. I was down for it, but the experience was really negative. The people weren't very friendly or interesting, and the game itself was played in a dank basement. Not exactly a fun atmosphere at all. On top of that, apparently there are hidden rules to DND. Everything I said I wanted to do, I was told "You can't do that" and instead the play went on around me. Boring. Another instance involved an overnight stay at a friend of a friend's. All the roommates (except the friend's friend) were avid MTGers. They wouldn't talk, merely grunted at us while they shuffled through their cards and played matches. They smelled and the house should have been condemned. The vision of their bathtub will haunt my days. Now, you will say, these are just anecdotes! But tell me truthfully: has any of you ever met an MTG player you didn't want to first smack upside the head, second shove into a hot shower, and third hired a home restoration team to clean and sanitize their house? That's right. You haven't. None of us have. Q. E. D.

CMV: People who play real-life DND and Magic: The Gathering have off-putting personalities. They also have filthy homes and their fathers smell of elderberries, but I'm willing to put those up for debate. I actively avoiding the gaming scene for years because of some experiences I had in and after college. One was a DND group a friend invited me to. I was down for it, but the experience was really negative. The people weren't very friendly or interesting, and the game itself was played in a dank basement. Not exactly a fun atmosphere at all. On top of that, apparently there are hidden rules to DND. Everything I said I wanted to do, I was told "You can't do that" and instead the play went on around me. Boring. Another instance involved an overnight stay at a friend of a friend's. All the roommates (except the friend's friend) were avid MTGers. They wouldn't talk, merely grunted at us while they shuffled through their cards and played matches. They smelled and the house should have been condemned. The vision of their bathtub will haunt my days. Now, you will say, these are just anecdotes! But tell me truthfully: has any of you ever met an MTG player you didn't want to first smack upside the head, second shove into a hot shower, and third hired a home restoration team to clean and sanitize their house? That's right. You haven't. None of us have. Q. E. D.

t3_1tx637

The Korean War Was a Loss For America. CMV

The US went into Korea thinking they could handle anything and that it was just another country. Instead they got their asses handed to them by the Chinese, only achieving a stalemate. Although they preserved the independence of South Korea, this was actually a major blow to the American government. Not only were they unable to defeat a country that devastated by war only 2 years prior, their top general McArthur resorted to the tactical advantage of atomic weaponry. Although they would surely have won the war by bombing China, this was completely unexpected, as the Chinese were thought to be poor soldiers and unable to protect themselves from Japan, which America defeated and essentially turned into their vassal country. America was economically, militarily, and scientifically superior to China, yet were unable to defeat them in conventional warfare. The Chinese didn't even have communication technology. Many Chinese units were left stranded by themselves for days and sometimes weeks. This was both a moral as well as military loss for America.

The Korean War Was a Loss For America. CMV. The US went into Korea thinking they could handle anything and that it was just another country. Instead they got their asses handed to them by the Chinese, only achieving a stalemate. Although they preserved the independence of South Korea, this was actually a major blow to the American government. Not only were they unable to defeat a country that devastated by war only 2 years prior, their top general McArthur resorted to the tactical advantage of atomic weaponry. Although they would surely have won the war by bombing China, this was completely unexpected, as the Chinese were thought to be poor soldiers and unable to protect themselves from Japan, which America defeated and essentially turned into their vassal country. America was economically, militarily, and scientifically superior to China, yet were unable to defeat them in conventional warfare. The Chinese didn't even have communication technology. Many Chinese units were left stranded by themselves for days and sometimes weeks. This was both a moral as well as military loss for America.

t3_2vzxy6

CMV: I think Racial Equality can be approximated by racial diversity in professional sports

Go back ten years and how many black people played in the NHL? Twenty years? More and more young black men are making it to the NHL. Not because, in my opinion, that black people are somehow physical specims. But instead because racial equality in the world today is changing for the better. The CMV is not about whether we have equality. Just whether we can look at the diversity of races and it will tell us about how equal (or unequal) we are. This doesn't just apply to racial equality either. Equality in general (think gay professional athletes). For hockey specifically, it is very expensive to pay for your child to play hockey. Since we do not live in a racially equal society, the races at disadvantages will not be able to pay for their child to play a sport as expensive as hockey. The NHL is dominated by white people, again not because they're inherently better but simply because there is no disadvantage to being white. There have been a very limited number of black and asian people to crack NHL rosters and very few first nations people to come close. On the other hand, the NBA was mostly (and still is) dominated by black men. I believe this is mostly because of the fact that basketball is cheaper and more disadvantaged families have an easier time allowing their children to play basketball. As time has gone on the number of white/asian players have increase (less so for asian people). It's not to say that now there are more poor white people, but that basketball is no longer seen as a "poor mans" game. Thanks to the equality movement, the diversity of races in professional sports are steadily increasing. Now some sports just happen to be wildly popular - soccer for instance - and their racial diversity is pretty much at a maximum. So if you'd like we can change this to a rate of change problem (woo calculus), and assert that racial equality can be approximated by the *change* in racial diversity in sports. More racial diversity=more equality Less racial diversity=less equality Anyways! CMV! Edit: speling I'd also like to add that there is substantial lag in terms of changes in racial diversity. When Martin Luther King made his speeches there weren't suddenly black men making the teams of professional sports. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think Racial Equality can be approximated by racial diversity in professional sports. Go back ten years and how many black people played in the NHL? Twenty years? More and more young black men are making it to the NHL. Not because, in my opinion, that black people are somehow physical specims. But instead because racial equality in the world today is changing for the better. The CMV is not about whether we have equality. Just whether we can look at the diversity of races and it will tell us about how equal (or unequal) we are. This doesn't just apply to racial equality either. Equality in general (think gay professional athletes). For hockey specifically, it is very expensive to pay for your child to play hockey. Since we do not live in a racially equal society, the races at disadvantages will not be able to pay for their child to play a sport as expensive as hockey. The NHL is dominated by white people, again not because they're inherently better but simply because there is no disadvantage to being white. There have been a very limited number of black and asian people to crack NHL rosters and very few first nations people to come close. On the other hand, the NBA was mostly (and still is) dominated by black men. I believe this is mostly because of the fact that basketball is cheaper and more disadvantaged families have an easier time allowing their children to play basketball. As time has gone on the number of white/asian players have increase (less so for asian people). It's not to say that now there are more poor white people, but that basketball is no longer seen as a "poor mans" game. Thanks to the equality movement, the diversity of races in professional sports are steadily increasing. Now some sports just happen to be wildly popular - soccer for instance - and their racial diversity is pretty much at a maximum. So if you'd like we can change this to a rate of change problem (woo calculus), and assert that racial equality can be approximated by the *change* in racial diversity in sports. More racial diversity=more equality Less racial diversity=less equality Anyways! CMV! Edit: speling I'd also like to add that there is substantial lag in terms of changes in racial diversity. When Martin Luther King made his speeches there weren't suddenly black men making the teams of professional sports.

t3_1udro6

If I say something that you don't believe, you should Google it, not me. CMV

So my overall reasoning is that it's annoying and you're most likely not going to read my link anyway. I've come to this conclusion by either linking studies that are only tangentially related with what I was saying without *actually* backing me up with nobody saying boo about it or even random news articles and only one out of I don't know how many people caught on. Secondly, you don't care. Outside of this subreddit, people are entirely too biased and no amount of data will change their minds. If you *really* cared about it, you'd Google it yourself, or (and this is only theoretical because it's never happened in the history of the internet) reply "No, you're wrong. Here's my source that says you're wrong." Thirdly, one word comments ("Source?") are a placeholder for your having nothing further to say, and if you were honest about it, the comment would say "I don't believe you, goodbye." Reader. How many times has someone asked you for a source and you've spent time looking it up, and you just never got a reply? Lastly, it just saves time. You damn well know that all I'm going to do is Google whatever I was talking about and post the top link *anyway*, and your empty reply just delays everything unnecessarily. In the time it takes for you to comment and for me to see the orange envelope, usually you've stopped caring. And I know, there are really esoteric situations where you can't prove a negative (Whether there's a God, whether Obama secretly hates America etc) or the definitive statement problem comes up. But if I say "Nikola Tesla used to spit on babies for luck", you can either believe me, not, or Google it yourself, but 9 times out of 10, asking for a source is a pointless, annoying waste of time.

If I say something that you don't believe, you should Google it, not me. CMV. So my overall reasoning is that it's annoying and you're most likely not going to read my link anyway. I've come to this conclusion by either linking studies that are only tangentially related with what I was saying without *actually* backing me up with nobody saying boo about it or even random news articles and only one out of I don't know how many people caught on. Secondly, you don't care. Outside of this subreddit, people are entirely too biased and no amount of data will change their minds. If you *really* cared about it, you'd Google it yourself, or (and this is only theoretical because it's never happened in the history of the internet) reply "No, you're wrong. Here's my source that says you're wrong." Thirdly, one word comments ("Source?") are a placeholder for your having nothing further to say, and if you were honest about it, the comment would say "I don't believe you, goodbye." Reader. How many times has someone asked you for a source and you've spent time looking it up, and you just never got a reply? Lastly, it just saves time. You damn well know that all I'm going to do is Google whatever I was talking about and post the top link *anyway*, and your empty reply just delays everything unnecessarily. In the time it takes for you to comment and for me to see the orange envelope, usually you've stopped caring. And I know, there are really esoteric situations where you can't prove a negative (Whether there's a God, whether Obama secretly hates America etc) or the definitive statement problem comes up. But if I say "Nikola Tesla used to spit on babies for luck", you can either believe me, not, or Google it yourself, but 9 times out of 10, asking for a source is a pointless, annoying waste of time.

t3_2keotr

CMV: Children should be taught that sexual orientation is a continuum

I was given the modern, "politically correct" version of sex-ed by my parents and teachers: That there are straight people and gay people, and sometimes occasionally bi people too, and that all of these were valid and equal and so on and so forth. I know the people who taught me that meant well and weren't homophobic or anything like that, but it still screwed me up a fair bit later. I (a male) was always fairly feminine as a child, played mainly with girls, liked cute things and stuffed toys, and even at one point wanted to wear nail polish. My parents were totally accepting of this (again, they were well-meaning, tolerant people) but probably suspected I was gay. I knew I wasn't gay though. I liked girls, I wanted to have a wife when I grew up, etcetra. Later on in late elementary and middle school I started acting less feminine, mainly because of the inevitable mockery by my peers, but I still sometimes let my hair grow down below my shoulders and wore brightly-coloured clothes and did other things boys in my class thought were effeminate. I still thought I was 100% straight, and in middle school and high school had various ordinary awkward relationships with girls. About halfway through high school, though, I fell in love with my male best friend, who was openly bisexual and himself fairly feminine. I felt terrible and weird and awkward because I knew I wasn't gay, but here I was having all kinds of sexual fantasies about men. In the end I ended up having a mainly sexual relationship with him, because I was incredibly attracted to him but also didn't believe I could fall in love with a man. He, however, was completely in love with me, and so I ended up being cruel to him and basically saying I only liked him sexually but not romantically, because I still wanted to marry a woman and so on, which in retrospect was incredibly cruel. I also felt extremely guilty because I thought I was just so horny that I was willing to have sex with men I was "actually" straight, and that this made me a pervert etc. Eventually I remembered my effeminacy as a child, and decided that even though I was still mainly attracted to women, that didn't preclude me ever having relationships with men. I think I'm hardly the only person who feels this way, and I think sex education should reflect it. Kids should be told something like "most people tend to like people of the other sex, but sometimes people like someone of the same sex, and sometimes they even marry people of the same sex, and that's also completely okay." That would encompass straight people, exclusively gay people, and people like me who are mostly one way or the other but make exceptions for certain people. **TL;DR despite what politically correct people want you to think, sexual orientation isn't a black and white biological thing, and telling kids that it is has the potential to mess them up later** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Children should be taught that sexual orientation is a continuum. I was given the modern, "politically correct" version of sex-ed by my parents and teachers: That there are straight people and gay people, and sometimes occasionally bi people too, and that all of these were valid and equal and so on and so forth. I know the people who taught me that meant well and weren't homophobic or anything like that, but it still screwed me up a fair bit later. I (a male) was always fairly feminine as a child, played mainly with girls, liked cute things and stuffed toys, and even at one point wanted to wear nail polish. My parents were totally accepting of this (again, they were well-meaning, tolerant people) but probably suspected I was gay. I knew I wasn't gay though. I liked girls, I wanted to have a wife when I grew up, etcetra. Later on in late elementary and middle school I started acting less feminine, mainly because of the inevitable mockery by my peers, but I still sometimes let my hair grow down below my shoulders and wore brightly-coloured clothes and did other things boys in my class thought were effeminate. I still thought I was 100% straight, and in middle school and high school had various ordinary awkward relationships with girls. About halfway through high school, though, I fell in love with my male best friend, who was openly bisexual and himself fairly feminine. I felt terrible and weird and awkward because I knew I wasn't gay, but here I was having all kinds of sexual fantasies about men. In the end I ended up having a mainly sexual relationship with him, because I was incredibly attracted to him but also didn't believe I could fall in love with a man. He, however, was completely in love with me, and so I ended up being cruel to him and basically saying I only liked him sexually but not romantically, because I still wanted to marry a woman and so on, which in retrospect was incredibly cruel. I also felt extremely guilty because I thought I was just so horny that I was willing to have sex with men I was "actually" straight, and that this made me a pervert etc. Eventually I remembered my effeminacy as a child, and decided that even though I was still mainly attracted to women, that didn't preclude me ever having relationships with men. I think I'm hardly the only person who feels this way, and I think sex education should reflect it. Kids should be told something like "most people tend to like people of the other sex, but sometimes people like someone of the same sex, and sometimes they even marry people of the same sex, and that's also completely okay." That would encompass straight people, exclusively gay people, and people like me who are mostly one way or the other but make exceptions for certain people. **TL;DR despite what politically correct people want you to think, sexual orientation isn't a black and white biological thing, and telling kids that it is has the potential to mess them up later**

t3_70zlh1

CMV: I believe that there is a difference between a state backed duty to work and state slavery.

I believe that there is a fundamental difference between a society that requires everyone to work, and a society that forces everyone to work. I'm curious if others agree with me, and what those who disagree with me have to say on the matter. Let me define some terms: State backed duty to work: All capable citizens have an obligation to work. Refusal to work simply restricts your rights as a citizen to the bare minimums, and you lose all access to social programs and public works. This is, however, your choice. You have the freedom to choose to not work, and the freedom to choose to pursue any job you choose. State slavery: All capable citizens are forced to work. Refusal to work is a crime punishable by fines or imprisonment. Any job mobility is by the discretion of your superiors. You can not quit - the best you could possibly do is request a different job. Neither of these systems say anything about the economic system (e.g. capitalism, communism, etc.), so let's leave those out of the picture just to simplify the discussion a bit. I believe that a state backed duty to work is different than state slavery because it maintains your freedom of choice. Yes, your rights and privileges may be restricted by refusing to work, but even then you maintain the ability to go where you please and do what you want (within the confines of the law). EDIT: Assume that everyone is assured basic necessities no matter what. Work or no work, you have access to food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, education, healthcare, etc. Also assume that actively pursuing work is counted as work (and if you fail to find work within a certain time period, you will be assured some line of menial labor for the government). _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that there is a difference between a state backed duty to work and state slavery. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between a society that requires everyone to work, and a society that forces everyone to work. I'm curious if others agree with me, and what those who disagree with me have to say on the matter. Let me define some terms: State backed duty to work: All capable citizens have an obligation to work. Refusal to work simply restricts your rights as a citizen to the bare minimums, and you lose all access to social programs and public works. This is, however, your choice. You have the freedom to choose to not work, and the freedom to choose to pursue any job you choose. State slavery: All capable citizens are forced to work. Refusal to work is a crime punishable by fines or imprisonment. Any job mobility is by the discretion of your superiors. You can not quit - the best you could possibly do is request a different job. Neither of these systems say anything about the economic system (e.g. capitalism, communism, etc.), so let's leave those out of the picture just to simplify the discussion a bit. I believe that a state backed duty to work is different than state slavery because it maintains your freedom of choice. Yes, your rights and privileges may be restricted by refusing to work, but even then you maintain the ability to go where you please and do what you want (within the confines of the law). EDIT: Assume that everyone is assured basic necessities no matter what. Work or no work, you have access to food, water, shelter, clothing, electricity, education, healthcare, etc. Also assume that actively pursuing work is counted as work (and if you fail to find work within a certain time period, you will be assured some line of menial labor for the government).

t3_3iz617

CMV: The hyper-rationality of our age is detrimental to humans.

Let me begin by defining what I mean when I say hyper-rationality. Hyper-rationality is the social expectation and pressure that every human action and institution must be teologically justified by rational means, rather than a mixture of reason, emotion, tradition, religion, evolutionary instinct etc. I will use one clear example, for the sake of focus, while knowing that there are other examples of this as well. I will talk about producing off-spring. In my experience, people against procreating articulate 3-4 arguments against having children. Firstly, that having children will detrimentally affect the environment (1). New humans means more consumers of the Earth's resources and more producers of waste. The long term viability of the earth with exponentially more consumers and producers is uncertain. Secondly, the cost of having children can be astronomical (2). Thirdly, you become isolated to your social circle and to your spouse due to the time need to take care of your child. I present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid. They are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true. However, in the pursuit of being rational, these arguments have contradicted one of the most basic and scientific principles of life, namely that animals produce off-spring to survive. It is basic evolutionary biology. We observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people's special fondness to babies (3). Yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference. This seems to play out on the societal level. Education levels and industrialization (a proxy for culture/rationality) correlate with lower birth rates (4). In conclusion, this is but one of many examples where hyper-rationality creates a social pressure that contradicts human instinct. _____ 1. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com//2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/ 2. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/ 3. reddit.com/r/aww 4. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13 > *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 hyper-rationality of our age is detrimental to humans. Let me begin by defining what I mean when I say hyper-rationality. Hyper-rationality is the social expectation and pressure that every human action and institution must be teologically justified by rational means, rather than a mixture of reason, emotion, tradition, religion, evolutionary instinct etc. I will use one clear example, for the sake of focus, while knowing that there are other examples of this as well. I will talk about producing off-spring. In my experience, people against procreating articulate 3-4 arguments against having children. Firstly, that having children will detrimentally affect the environment (1). New humans means more consumers of the Earth's resources and more producers of waste. The long term viability of the earth with exponentially more consumers and producers is uncertain. Secondly, the cost of having children can be astronomical (2). Thirdly, you become isolated to your social circle and to your spouse due to the time need to take care of your child. I present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid. They are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true. However, in the pursuit of being rational, these arguments have contradicted one of the most basic and scientific principles of life, namely that animals produce off-spring to survive. It is basic evolutionary biology. We observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people's special fondness to babies (3). Yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference. This seems to play out on the societal level. Education levels and industrialization (a proxy for culture/rationality) correlate with lower birth rates (4). In conclusion, this is but one of many examples where hyper-rationality creates a social pressure that contradicts human instinct. _____ 1. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com//2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/ 2. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/ 3. reddit.com/r/aww 4. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13 > *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_29l8om

CMV: If one nation is hostile to another nation, that nation in turn should respond with at least equal hostility.

The same applies on the individual level, as well, provided that the retaliation is legal or it is virtually guaranteed that you won't get caught for it. I often hear people say stuff like "we shouldn't stoop to their level", or "we're better than that", or "let's be the bigger man here", when one nation is unjustly hostile to another, or doesn't behave unfairly. For example, if X shoots missiles at Y and kills 50 people. Y has the right to retaliate with equal force, but Y is a civilized and decent nation and wants to be "better", so abstains from retaliating. X shoots them again, killing more people, and levies high taxes on imports from Y. Again, Y pretends to be the bigger man and prefers to hold diplomatic talks, prefers patience, prefers understanding, even though it may be a waste of time. I believe X now has a strategic advantage over Y because while Y is concerned with morality, X is concerned more earthly things, like conquest. I think the same holds on the individual level. Being the "better man" is bullshit. It sounds good, but it comes with a large gaping security hole that anyone can exploit. I was inspired to think about this when I thought about Saudi Arabia's global leverage. Their people can go almost anywhere in the world in burkas, and set up mosques. They can continue to express many of their Wahabist beliefs without being forced by law to assimilate. However, when entering Saudi Arabia, everyone is expected to immediately assimilate more or less to their standards, even on the expatriate compounds. This gives them an advantage of being able to slowly subvert another culture, while their's stands on the firm of ground of stubborness and closed-mindedness. No one will easily change their methods. This also lead me to notice a possible flaw in liberalism in general. The principle is similar, liberal societies must tolerate both liberal and conservative members. But conservative societies don't have to tolerate liberal members. Thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it's only allies are "education" and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations. The former is difficult to achieve. You can't simply "enlighten" people. The latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they didn't spawn more cons. I'm not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, I'm just trying to illustrate a flaw I see inherant in the above-mentioned mentality. edit: spelling, grammar, etc. Edit: Well. Ive just had my ass swiftly handed to me. I'll just take my paper bag and see myself out. > *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 one nation is hostile to another nation, that nation in turn should respond with at least equal hostility. The same applies on the individual level, as well, provided that the retaliation is legal or it is virtually guaranteed that you won't get caught for it. I often hear people say stuff like "we shouldn't stoop to their level", or "we're better than that", or "let's be the bigger man here", when one nation is unjustly hostile to another, or doesn't behave unfairly. For example, if X shoots missiles at Y and kills 50 people. Y has the right to retaliate with equal force, but Y is a civilized and decent nation and wants to be "better", so abstains from retaliating. X shoots them again, killing more people, and levies high taxes on imports from Y. Again, Y pretends to be the bigger man and prefers to hold diplomatic talks, prefers patience, prefers understanding, even though it may be a waste of time. I believe X now has a strategic advantage over Y because while Y is concerned with morality, X is concerned more earthly things, like conquest. I think the same holds on the individual level. Being the "better man" is bullshit. It sounds good, but it comes with a large gaping security hole that anyone can exploit. I was inspired to think about this when I thought about Saudi Arabia's global leverage. Their people can go almost anywhere in the world in burkas, and set up mosques. They can continue to express many of their Wahabist beliefs without being forced by law to assimilate. However, when entering Saudi Arabia, everyone is expected to immediately assimilate more or less to their standards, even on the expatriate compounds. This gives them an advantage of being able to slowly subvert another culture, while their's stands on the firm of ground of stubborness and closed-mindedness. No one will easily change their methods. This also lead me to notice a possible flaw in liberalism in general. The principle is similar, liberal societies must tolerate both liberal and conservative members. But conservative societies don't have to tolerate liberal members. Thus, liberalism has an uphill battle, and it's only allies are "education" and the high death rate of elderly conservative people in certain nations. The former is difficult to achieve. You can't simply "enlighten" people. The latter is easy, just wait for the old cons to die and hope that they didn't spawn more cons. I'm not arguing for or liberalism or conservatism, I'm just trying to illustrate a flaw I see inherant in the above-mentioned mentality. edit: spelling, grammar, etc. Edit: Well. Ive just had my ass swiftly handed to me. I'll just take my paper bag and see myself out. > *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_6trobu

CMV:I don't find an issue with Donald Trump threatening "Fire and Fury" to North Korea should they attack/threaten the US.

I am an avid Donald Trump critic. I dislike the man personally, and I absolutely hate his politics and what he represents. That being said, I don't have an issue with his threat of overwhelming military force should North Korea threaten or attack the US. Isn't the implication of having immense nuclear/military capability that you will use it should another country attack you? Isn't North Korea already deterred from attacking the US because of the threat of military action? What does Donald Trump saying that really do? Is threatening retaliation any worse than the propaganda that North Korea already spreads about the US? I just don't see how Trump's words will make us look any worse than we already do in the eyes of the North Koreans, and I don't see what's wrong politically with threatening force to prevent an attack. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I don't find an issue with Donald Trump threatening "Fire and Fury" to North Korea should they attack/threaten the US. I am an avid Donald Trump critic. I dislike the man personally, and I absolutely hate his politics and what he represents. That being said, I don't have an issue with his threat of overwhelming military force should North Korea threaten or attack the US. Isn't the implication of having immense nuclear/military capability that you will use it should another country attack you? Isn't North Korea already deterred from attacking the US because of the threat of military action? What does Donald Trump saying that really do? Is threatening retaliation any worse than the propaganda that North Korea already spreads about the US? I just don't see how Trump's words will make us look any worse than we already do in the eyes of the North Koreans, and I don't see what's wrong politically with threatening force to prevent an attack.

t3_2hb7rn

CMV: It is wrong to fly the Mexican (or any other) national flag in your yard in the US

I'm not one for blind nationalism but here is my thought. Some one from another country (using Mexico as an example from here on out) Immigrates here one way or another for a better life. Meaning that on some level you believe here to be better than where you came from. if so then why the nationalistic pride in the country that failed you? It doesn't make much sense to me hold ideals like "Viva Mexico!" when you and/or your family bailed from there to get a better life here. I know this may seem quazi-racist, but I don't feel that I am. I'm one for more open borders even. Set up a check in station on the border, give your name and any records you have, finger print, and here's you're citizen ship and SS Card. Just so we can workout census crap and taxes can be made sure to be paid. For example I wouldn't move to the UK if I felt this country was horrible then decorate my house with the US flag and blast the nation anthem out the window. Doesn't seem to make sense. EDIT: This is excludes job related moves where you still are happy with your home country but wanted to move based on work or marriage (spouse wants to live in their home country) situations _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rues](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 wrong to fly the Mexican (or any other) national flag in your yard in the US. I'm not one for blind nationalism but here is my thought. Some one from another country (using Mexico as an example from here on out) Immigrates here one way or another for a better life. Meaning that on some level you believe here to be better than where you came from. if so then why the nationalistic pride in the country that failed you? It doesn't make much sense to me hold ideals like "Viva Mexico!" when you and/or your family bailed from there to get a better life here. I know this may seem quazi-racist, but I don't feel that I am. I'm one for more open borders even. Set up a check in station on the border, give your name and any records you have, finger print, and here's you're citizen ship and SS Card. Just so we can workout census crap and taxes can be made sure to be paid. For example I wouldn't move to the UK if I felt this country was horrible then decorate my house with the US flag and blast the nation anthem out the window. Doesn't seem to make sense. EDIT: This is excludes job related moves where you still are happy with your home country but wanted to move based on work or marriage (spouse wants to live in their home country) situations

t3_3ilf8u

CMV: Sewage systems should work to accommodate flushable wipes

Edit: Delta awarded. See below. One thing that always struck me as odd is how we stop using baby wipes past a certain age. The moisture present in the wipe as well as the scent leaves me feeling more sanitary than toilet paper. I bought a pack of baby wipes the other day, however, I was disappointed to realize that these wipes aren't flushable. Now, I know that there are wipes labeled "flushable" and I used those off and on for years, but as I Google searched for what makes one wipe "flushable" and one wipe "not flushable" I started to gather that **flushing "flushable" wipes could be just as bad as non-flushable wipes for sewage systems.** And my whole point of view is, that I don't see any research of sewage systems *trying* to accommodate these wipes. They are simply telling us not to flush the wipes. This is not a solution for those of us who like the damn wipes. Why can't the manufacturers of these wipes and people responsible for our sewage work together to develop some kind of "standard" for a wipe that will not wreak havoc on the sewage systems? All I see are articles ([like this one](http://www.scrippsmedia.com/kgun9/news/Biodegradable-flushing-wipes-Waste-management-says-think-again-216089981.html)) lambasting the consumer for flushing these wipes. The average consumer reading packaging assumes that "flushable" and "biodegradable" are the go-ahead for flushing these wipes. Sure, blame us for wanting a superior clean over toilet paper! It sure is easier to blame us than to fix your own shitty (literally) system or work with manufacturers to develop specifications for a wipe that will degrade neatly. CMV. Edit: Delta awarded to /u/shinkouhyou for this comment: >The wipes get stuck together with other foreign objects and lumps of congealed cooking grease and god knows what, so blockages can occur at many points throughout the system. If these catching/churning devices could be developed, they'd have to be installed at frequent intervals (which means $). The moving parts or screens would require regular maintenance (which means $$) and failure of even one device could lead to an even more serious blockage (which means $$$). I can't even imagine what it would cost to implement something like this on a large scale. I'm changed my view based on the complexity (not the cost) of the proposed system. I still advocate for the wipes to be changed and believe that there should be standards for these wipes so that they can be flushed. "Just don't flush them" is NOT going 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: Sewage systems should work to accommodate flushable wipes. Edit: Delta awarded. See below. One thing that always struck me as odd is how we stop using baby wipes past a certain age. The moisture present in the wipe as well as the scent leaves me feeling more sanitary than toilet paper. I bought a pack of baby wipes the other day, however, I was disappointed to realize that these wipes aren't flushable. Now, I know that there are wipes labeled "flushable" and I used those off and on for years, but as I Google searched for what makes one wipe "flushable" and one wipe "not flushable" I started to gather that **flushing "flushable" wipes could be just as bad as non-flushable wipes for sewage systems.** And my whole point of view is, that I don't see any research of sewage systems *trying* to accommodate these wipes. They are simply telling us not to flush the wipes. This is not a solution for those of us who like the damn wipes. Why can't the manufacturers of these wipes and people responsible for our sewage work together to develop some kind of "standard" for a wipe that will not wreak havoc on the sewage systems? All I see are articles ([like this one](http://www.scrippsmedia.com/kgun9/news/Biodegradable-flushing-wipes-Waste-management-says-think-again-216089981.html)) lambasting the consumer for flushing these wipes. The average consumer reading packaging assumes that "flushable" and "biodegradable" are the go-ahead for flushing these wipes. Sure, blame us for wanting a superior clean over toilet paper! It sure is easier to blame us than to fix your own shitty (literally) system or work with manufacturers to develop specifications for a wipe that will degrade neatly. CMV. Edit: Delta awarded to /u/shinkouhyou for this comment: >The wipes get stuck together with other foreign objects and lumps of congealed cooking grease and god knows what, so blockages can occur at many points throughout the system. If these catching/churning devices could be developed, they'd have to be installed at frequent intervals (which means $). The moving parts or screens would require regular maintenance (which means $$) and failure of even one device could lead to an even more serious blockage (which means $$$). I can't even imagine what it would cost to implement something like this on a large scale. I'm changed my view based on the complexity (not the cost) of the proposed system. I still advocate for the wipes to be changed and believe that there should be standards for these wipes so that they can be flushed. "Just don't flush them" is NOT going to change my view.

t3_2bdf9k

CMV: I believe "The Male Gaze" is the product of a demand for sexual reassurance, and that without this lust for attention the gazer would not actively participate in this voyeur/exhibitionist relationship as often.

Feminist theory proposes the concept of a "Male Gaze" ([Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze)), essentially the idea that men visually objectify women primarily on screen but also in many instances off screen. "From the male perspective, a man possesses the gaze because he is a man, whereas a woman has the gaze only when she assumes the male gazer role — when she objectifies others by gazing at them like a man." Many of the staunch believers in this realm of feminist theory would like to paint a picture that in this social relationship men are the only active participants (because patriarchy of course) and that in the rare occasion when a women becomes the gazer, she is then temporarily taking the role of a male. The female in this instance is always a victim, subject to the forceful stare of male empowerment. I would like to argue that this is complete flim flam, that both men and women can act as the gazer and the gazed, the voyeur and the exhibitionist, and that this is completely separate from gender. For example a relationship consisting of two men or two women can have these same dynamics, and a movie made by females, for females, with a completely female cast, and only ever view by females can still have a voyeuristic audience (and in turn "male gaze") if the audience has an attraction to the actors. I would also like to note that even in the role of the gazed, this individual is not always a non participant victim. Often times the exact opposite is true and the empowerment lies in the hands of the person being lusted after. The relationship of voyeur/exhibitionist started and continues to exist for many reasons; if the experience of being lusted after, sexually appreciated, and noticed was not enjoyable by people they would make efforts to have it stop. EDIT: To simplify my view that could be changed- 'The Male Gaze is complete bullshit, CMV.'

CMV: I believe "The Male Gaze" is the product of a demand for sexual reassurance, and that without this lust for attention the gazer would not actively participate in this voyeur/exhibitionist relationship as often. Feminist theory proposes the concept of a "Male Gaze" ([Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaze)), essentially the idea that men visually objectify women primarily on screen but also in many instances off screen. "From the male perspective, a man possesses the gaze because he is a man, whereas a woman has the gaze only when she assumes the male gazer role — when she objectifies others by gazing at them like a man." Many of the staunch believers in this realm of feminist theory would like to paint a picture that in this social relationship men are the only active participants (because patriarchy of course) and that in the rare occasion when a women becomes the gazer, she is then temporarily taking the role of a male. The female in this instance is always a victim, subject to the forceful stare of male empowerment. I would like to argue that this is complete flim flam, that both men and women can act as the gazer and the gazed, the voyeur and the exhibitionist, and that this is completely separate from gender. For example a relationship consisting of two men or two women can have these same dynamics, and a movie made by females, for females, with a completely female cast, and only ever view by females can still have a voyeuristic audience (and in turn "male gaze") if the audience has an attraction to the actors. I would also like to note that even in the role of the gazed, this individual is not always a non participant victim. Often times the exact opposite is true and the empowerment lies in the hands of the person being lusted after. The relationship of voyeur/exhibitionist started and continues to exist for many reasons; if the experience of being lusted after, sexually appreciated, and noticed was not enjoyable by people they would make efforts to have it stop. EDIT: To simplify my view that could be changed- 'The Male Gaze is complete bullshit, CMV.'

t3_6x18pu

CMV: Dictatorships are sometimes better than democracy and should be tolerated

Our western education has propagated in our minds that democracy, direct or indirect, is **THE** only paradigm of government that should be followed. Dictatorships, even "benevolent dictatorships" where absolute power intentionally or inadvertently benefits the nation as a whole, are taught as repugnant and never acceptable. But is democracy always the governmental system every nation should strive for? Take, for example, the Duvalier 30-year dictatorship in Haiti. My grandmother says albeit Duvalier (Papa) silenced all opposition and no one was allowed to talk bad about him, under Duvalier, the market was stable and it was easy to feed a family of five, the Haitian Gourde had value, children went to school. Crime was at its lowest in the country. We had a functioning police force and strong military. The government was organized, functional and was got things done fast (as there was no opposition). Exit Duvalier and enter democracy: coup d'état after coup d'état, two out of the three elected presidents have resigned. *Extreme violence*, crime has soared, kidnappings and ransoms that were unimaginable during Duvalier are now a "normal" occurrence. Right after democracy entered in the 1990's, there was a mass pattern where masked men with guns would break into houses, steal all the money and valuable goods then line the women up and rape them. This was *unheard* of during Duvalier days. After democracy, the Haitian Gourde became worthless, and food unaffordable. Incompetent politicians sit in Parliament doing nothing. There are over 30 political parties and none can agree to get anything done. The military was abolished and the police inept. During Duvalier, national security guards (Tonton machetes) were *everywhere*, but now if you call the cops, you're lucky if they come within 2 days. The country has essentially gone *backwards* in the 30 years since democracy entered. The Haitian case would seem to contradict the western mantra and belief that democracy is always the answer. Democracy is praised for its fundamental tenets of natural rights such as freedom of speech, but we often overlook that democracy does not always converge with the development of a nation and a country's economy may grow much *slower* under democracy. I think dictatorships are better for some societies and dictatorships should be tolerated. Sure, the people will have minimal (if any) political participation and freedom of the press as well as freedom of speech will be suppressed, but to many people, those things are a small price to pay to have a growing economy, functioning government, to be able to feed their families, and to be able to live in peace without fear they will be murdered and their wives raped. _____ > *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: Dictatorships are sometimes better than democracy and should be tolerated. Our western education has propagated in our minds that democracy, direct or indirect, is **THE** only paradigm of government that should be followed. Dictatorships, even "benevolent dictatorships" where absolute power intentionally or inadvertently benefits the nation as a whole, are taught as repugnant and never acceptable. But is democracy always the governmental system every nation should strive for? Take, for example, the Duvalier 30-year dictatorship in Haiti. My grandmother says albeit Duvalier (Papa) silenced all opposition and no one was allowed to talk bad about him, under Duvalier, the market was stable and it was easy to feed a family of five, the Haitian Gourde had value, children went to school. Crime was at its lowest in the country. We had a functioning police force and strong military. The government was organized, functional and was got things done fast (as there was no opposition). Exit Duvalier and enter democracy: coup d'état after coup d'état, two out of the three elected presidents have resigned. *Extreme violence*, crime has soared, kidnappings and ransoms that were unimaginable during Duvalier are now a "normal" occurrence. Right after democracy entered in the 1990's, there was a mass pattern where masked men with guns would break into houses, steal all the money and valuable goods then line the women up and rape them. This was *unheard* of during Duvalier days. After democracy, the Haitian Gourde became worthless, and food unaffordable. Incompetent politicians sit in Parliament doing nothing. There are over 30 political parties and none can agree to get anything done. The military was abolished and the police inept. During Duvalier, national security guards (Tonton machetes) were *everywhere*, but now if you call the cops, you're lucky if they come within 2 days. The country has essentially gone *backwards* in the 30 years since democracy entered. The Haitian case would seem to contradict the western mantra and belief that democracy is always the answer. Democracy is praised for its fundamental tenets of natural rights such as freedom of speech, but we often overlook that democracy does not always converge with the development of a nation and a country's economy may grow much *slower* under democracy. I think dictatorships are better for some societies and dictatorships should be tolerated. Sure, the people will have minimal (if any) political participation and freedom of the press as well as freedom of speech will be suppressed, but to many people, those things are a small price to pay to have a growing economy, functioning government, to be able to feed their families, and to be able to live in peace without fear they will be murdered and their wives raped.

t3_4q5d68

CMV: Political adverts and campaigns should be held in the same contempt as adverts in regards to false advertising.

This view is based upon the recent Eu referendum/ Brexit where the leave campaigns used slogans like "we could save 350 million a week, which could go into the NHS". This was a big reason why many people voted to leave, but as soon as the result was announced Nigel Farrage went on the tv and said this wasn't actually true. I consider this False advertising which for companies is illegal in most countries but politicans constantly use similar techniques to win elections. False advertising is the use of false or misleading statements when promoting a product. Sorry if this isn't clear. A summary is that i believe that false advertising should be illegal for politicans as it is for adverts _____ > *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: Political adverts and campaigns should be held in the same contempt as adverts in regards to false advertising. This view is based upon the recent Eu referendum/ Brexit where the leave campaigns used slogans like "we could save 350 million a week, which could go into the NHS". This was a big reason why many people voted to leave, but as soon as the result was announced Nigel Farrage went on the tv and said this wasn't actually true. I consider this False advertising which for companies is illegal in most countries but politicans constantly use similar techniques to win elections. False advertising is the use of false or misleading statements when promoting a product. Sorry if this isn't clear. A summary is that i believe that false advertising should be illegal for politicans as it is for adverts

t3_3al6ag

CMV: America should ban guns for civilians.

I'll start this off by saying I'm English. Over here, after a school shooting in 1996 in Dunblane, gun control was majorly tightened, with all handguns, assault rifles etc banned outright. Only a select few have guns (I.E. Farmers can have shotguns to keep wild animals at bay, but only under strict license with regular checks). Members of shooting clubs etc can have guns, but again, only certain types, and the regulations on these are far stricter than in the U.S. Fast forward 19 years and massacres on the scale and regularity in which America is seeing them are unheard of here, and in most other developed countries with bans on guns. For context - a single teacher was stabbed to death not too long back by a pupil and the nation was horrified, it was major news for weeks. In the U.S. I don't believe this would raise an eyebrow. Our police officers can patrol pretty much unarmed, and because there's little to no threat of a thug pulling a gun, officers are a lot less jumpy and combatative toward the general population. This means far fewer people dying in police custody. As an outsider looking in, I can't wrap my head around how many lives need to be lost in mass shootings and police killings before Americans realise that guns have no place in the hands of the general population. Quite a few Americans would need a new hobby, but this would be a small price to pay to minimise these kind of events. It's fact that when guns are ridiculously hard to obtain that these types of crimes occur less than in places where most people can freely buy them. America should ban guns. CMV.

CMV: America should ban guns for civilians. I'll start this off by saying I'm English. Over here, after a school shooting in 1996 in Dunblane, gun control was majorly tightened, with all handguns, assault rifles etc banned outright. Only a select few have guns (I.E. Farmers can have shotguns to keep wild animals at bay, but only under strict license with regular checks). Members of shooting clubs etc can have guns, but again, only certain types, and the regulations on these are far stricter than in the U.S. Fast forward 19 years and massacres on the scale and regularity in which America is seeing them are unheard of here, and in most other developed countries with bans on guns. For context - a single teacher was stabbed to death not too long back by a pupil and the nation was horrified, it was major news for weeks. In the U.S. I don't believe this would raise an eyebrow. Our police officers can patrol pretty much unarmed, and because there's little to no threat of a thug pulling a gun, officers are a lot less jumpy and combatative toward the general population. This means far fewer people dying in police custody. As an outsider looking in, I can't wrap my head around how many lives need to be lost in mass shootings and police killings before Americans realise that guns have no place in the hands of the general population. Quite a few Americans would need a new hobby, but this would be a small price to pay to minimise these kind of events. It's fact that when guns are ridiculously hard to obtain that these types of crimes occur less than in places where most people can freely buy them. America should ban guns. CMV.

t3_1q4sao

CMV: I believe that celebrities that complain about their life being bad are full of shit.

While i am sure that celebrity status has its downsides, which are well known, like losing certain freedoms that common people have, having your life scrutinized down to every detail and dealing with insane stalkers that can't take no for an answer, the good aspects of being a celebrity such as being rich, being a part of epic projects, having a true VIP status everywhere they go and many more far outweigh the downsides. There's obviously exceptions of celebrities who might have gotten themselves into very specific situations, or celebrities that were mentally unbalanced to begin with, but the majority of celebrities are living a better life than most and their complaints are rather superfluous.

CMV: I believe that celebrities that complain about their life being bad are full of shit. While i am sure that celebrity status has its downsides, which are well known, like losing certain freedoms that common people have, having your life scrutinized down to every detail and dealing with insane stalkers that can't take no for an answer, the good aspects of being a celebrity such as being rich, being a part of epic projects, having a true VIP status everywhere they go and many more far outweigh the downsides. There's obviously exceptions of celebrities who might have gotten themselves into very specific situations, or celebrities that were mentally unbalanced to begin with, but the majority of celebrities are living a better life than most and their complaints are rather superfluous.

t3_2imckt

CMV: I support full-term abortions.

I believe that either due to god or evolution, the female was given the immense power and responsibility of creating life. And in addition to the creation, more often than not, she is also the primary caretaker of the child as it grows. Thus to the fetus , the mother is basically a god. Thus, as the creator and sustainer of a baby's life, it is also her prerogative to end a baby's life if she decides that it is not in her interests to continue creating the baby. And to clear up probably the first big question: No, I do not think human life is intrinsically precious. At least it is not more precious that an ant's life. If it was, we would be treating sperm and female eggs as gold and diamonds, extracting them daily and storing them safely in chilled medical refrigerators. But of course we don't. You can't argue that one thing precious(life), but then say the components that make up that thing are not so precious(sperm and eggs). That's like saying two baskets of 1/2 pound gold are nearly worthless but when the two baskets are combined together, the gold is suddenly worth $1212. This is especially tre when the process of combining the components is effortless and not a result of luck or skill. If a life is incredibly valuable, then so is one sperm and one egg. _____ > *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 support full-term abortions. I believe that either due to god or evolution, the female was given the immense power and responsibility of creating life. And in addition to the creation, more often than not, she is also the primary caretaker of the child as it grows. Thus to the fetus , the mother is basically a god. Thus, as the creator and sustainer of a baby's life, it is also her prerogative to end a baby's life if she decides that it is not in her interests to continue creating the baby. And to clear up probably the first big question: No, I do not think human life is intrinsically precious. At least it is not more precious that an ant's life. If it was, we would be treating sperm and female eggs as gold and diamonds, extracting them daily and storing them safely in chilled medical refrigerators. But of course we don't. You can't argue that one thing precious(life), but then say the components that make up that thing are not so precious(sperm and eggs). That's like saying two baskets of 1/2 pound gold are nearly worthless but when the two baskets are combined together, the gold is suddenly worth $1212. This is especially tre when the process of combining the components is effortless and not a result of luck or skill. If a life is incredibly valuable, then so is one sperm and one egg.

t3_45w3qv

CMV: In current state, my first world style living means suffering of others.

_____ Me and my dad had a conversation in a car concerning this problem. I thought in order for me to enjoy this way of living, it required other people in some place else to suffer in some way. Just like one organism cannot sustain itself alone(even plants require others to produce CO2), society cannot sustain easy and comfortable way of living without others' sacrifice. Well, my dad was trying to convince me otherwise, but I found it unconvincing. I hope to understand my father's argument more, see if it is really viable to have a society that is great on its own. Thanks in advance!

CMV: In current state, my first world style living means suffering of others. _____ Me and my dad had a conversation in a car concerning this problem. I thought in order for me to enjoy this way of living, it required other people in some place else to suffer in some way. Just like one organism cannot sustain itself alone(even plants require others to produce CO2), society cannot sustain easy and comfortable way of living without others' sacrifice. Well, my dad was trying to convince me otherwise, but I found it unconvincing. I hope to understand my father's argument more, see if it is really viable to have a society that is great on its own. Thanks in advance!

t3_1mj2qa

I left islam a couple of years ago, and don't currently affiliate with any religion. I think the religion is a load of bull. CMV.

I left islam do to it's positions on homosexuality, evolution, sexism, the normal stuff. I find many parts of the Quran and hadith absolutely horrible i.e. Aisha's marriage, slavery. Convince me that Islam's not all that bad. Edit to add stuff: I hold my view that Islam is not so nice of a religion because of it's conservative social views, and some anti scientific claims. I came to my current morality using rational thinking (and, okay, some humanistic ideas I learned and accepted, though I would argue that most of them are rational). Many muslims claim that Islam is a religion promoting gender equality, positive sexuality, accurate scientific information. Can anyone convince me of such (or convince me my ideas are wrong)?

I left islam a couple of years ago, and don't currently affiliate with any religion. I think the religion is a load of bull. CMV. I left islam do to it's positions on homosexuality, evolution, sexism, the normal stuff. I find many parts of the Quran and hadith absolutely horrible i.e. Aisha's marriage, slavery. Convince me that Islam's not all that bad. Edit to add stuff: I hold my view that Islam is not so nice of a religion because of it's conservative social views, and some anti scientific claims. I came to my current morality using rational thinking (and, okay, some humanistic ideas I learned and accepted, though I would argue that most of them are rational). Many muslims claim that Islam is a religion promoting gender equality, positive sexuality, accurate scientific information. Can anyone convince me of such (or convince me my ideas are wrong)?

t3_29g0q0

CMV: Any religion which recognizes one or more supreme beings with dominion over mankind is incompatible with democracy.

Democracy is, literally, "rule by the people", as we have all learned in elementary school civics or history. Implicitly, these people are mortal and human, and usually limited to citizens of the state. I cannot think of a single religion which promotes a supreme being with dominion over mankind (such as the God of Abraham, Zeus, Indra, Marduk or the Jade Emperor) whose position of dominion originates from the consent of the governed. In no mythology or religious tradition is any god I am aware of *elected*, be it by other spiritual beings or humanity, who may or may not be recognized as creations of the god. Regardless of if one believes in the existence of one or many godlike beings, acknowledging them as having control of the fate of humanity undermines the absolute underpinnings of democracy and republicanism, values which are at their heart literally humanist. I am open to any and all arguments from any religion that purports a spirit with dominion over mankind, not at all limited to Christian theology. _____ > *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: Any religion which recognizes one or more supreme beings with dominion over mankind is incompatible with democracy. Democracy is, literally, "rule by the people", as we have all learned in elementary school civics or history. Implicitly, these people are mortal and human, and usually limited to citizens of the state. I cannot think of a single religion which promotes a supreme being with dominion over mankind (such as the God of Abraham, Zeus, Indra, Marduk or the Jade Emperor) whose position of dominion originates from the consent of the governed. In no mythology or religious tradition is any god I am aware of *elected*, be it by other spiritual beings or humanity, who may or may not be recognized as creations of the god. Regardless of if one believes in the existence of one or many godlike beings, acknowledging them as having control of the fate of humanity undermines the absolute underpinnings of democracy and republicanism, values which are at their heart literally humanist. I am open to any and all arguments from any religion that purports a spirit with dominion over mankind, not at all limited to Christian theology.

t3_2nyg0c

CMV: Reddit's typical "so edgy" response to criticism of religion isn't a rebuttal, and should be viewed as an admission of the validity of the criticism.

Edit: By "so edgy response", I don't necessarily mean only that specific response. I'm talking more generally about any kind of off-handed dismissal that attacks the character of the person making the claim. Examples could be "you're just as preachy as the people you disagree with", "you shouldn't be so argumentative", "just let people believe what they want", etc. I only think this is the case so long as the criticism is attempting to make a serious point (even if it's a satirical criticism). I don't necessarily think that all anti-religious claims (like simple assertions such as "religion is for idiots") should be taken as serious criticisms, and as a result, aren't necessarily asking for a serious response. I think the "so edgy" response is basically an admission that you've got no real response to the criticism, so you'd rather attack the critic. I realize that the "so edgy" response if often made half-jokingly, which is completely fine. My only problem is that I get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms. Like it's a some magic bullet that defeats all anti-religious claims. I feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.

CMV: Reddit's typical "so edgy" response to criticism of religion isn't a rebuttal, and should be viewed as an admission of the validity of the criticism. Edit: By "so edgy response", I don't necessarily mean only that specific response. I'm talking more generally about any kind of off-handed dismissal that attacks the character of the person making the claim. Examples could be "you're just as preachy as the people you disagree with", "you shouldn't be so argumentative", "just let people believe what they want", etc. I only think this is the case so long as the criticism is attempting to make a serious point (even if it's a satirical criticism). I don't necessarily think that all anti-religious claims (like simple assertions such as "religion is for idiots") should be taken as serious criticisms, and as a result, aren't necessarily asking for a serious response. I think the "so edgy" response is basically an admission that you've got no real response to the criticism, so you'd rather attack the critic. I realize that the "so edgy" response if often made half-jokingly, which is completely fine. My only problem is that I get the feeling that people view it as a legitimate response to serious criticisms. Like it's a some magic bullet that defeats all anti-religious claims. I feel that in the end it kills the conversation, and makes fruitful discussion much less likely.

t3_1yk9ka

African American Vernacular English (Ebonics) is little more than slang and should not be considered a dialect. CMV.

African Americans, for much of their history, have not had access to the kind of education that white Americans have. It makes sense that many of them would speak with improper grammar through the years. Heck, most Americans speak with some sort of slang and improper grammar. However, especially now-a-days with relatively easy access to a wealth of information, demanding that AAVE be its own dialect and even taught in schools only encourages that an education is not to be treasured. African Americans fought long and hard for equal rights, it seems like a backwards step to say that they want mottled, improper English to be recognized as more than just street slang. Change my view.

African American Vernacular English (Ebonics) is little more than slang and should not be considered a dialect. CMV. African Americans, for much of their history, have not had access to the kind of education that white Americans have. It makes sense that many of them would speak with improper grammar through the years. Heck, most Americans speak with some sort of slang and improper grammar. However, especially now-a-days with relatively easy access to a wealth of information, demanding that AAVE be its own dialect and even taught in schools only encourages that an education is not to be treasured. African Americans fought long and hard for equal rights, it seems like a backwards step to say that they want mottled, improper English to be recognized as more than just street slang. Change my view.

t3_1r6p54

CMV Women enforce equality on places where it is more convenient for them.

I'm not sexist or anything but when I hear someone talking about equality between genders its usually about something like positions at work like they want a higher pay or a higher position there. They usually do not go through the struggle men usually go through starting from the bottom of a company. Men usually have to end up giving the females most of their stuff during divorces. If a man wants to be a stay at home dad he is usually "useless" to these women. I just think if women want to be more equal they should go through the struggles males go through rather than just get the things that make their lives more convenient. So CMV and tell me that most of the "equality" is not just for the good in the equality.

CMV Women enforce equality on places where it is more convenient for them. I'm not sexist or anything but when I hear someone talking about equality between genders its usually about something like positions at work like they want a higher pay or a higher position there. They usually do not go through the struggle men usually go through starting from the bottom of a company. Men usually have to end up giving the females most of their stuff during divorces. If a man wants to be a stay at home dad he is usually "useless" to these women. I just think if women want to be more equal they should go through the struggles males go through rather than just get the things that make their lives more convenient. So CMV and tell me that most of the "equality" is not just for the good in the equality.

t3_2pdwul

CMV: The "Barry" essays in Lena Dunham's memoir do not describe sexual assault

I am a left-wing feminist and all-around supporter of most of Lena Dunham's work. This has got nothing to do with a political divergence of views. I've read Dunham's memoir in its entirety and could not find anything in the way she herself tells this story that suggests she was sexually assaulted - they were both drunk, she invited him to her place, they had rough sex that she consented to and wasn't coerced in any particularly violent or manipulative way to consent to, he did penetrate her without a condom which was non-consensual and as soon as she realised that, she asked him to leave, and he did. So, ok, the condom thing was non-consensual. But does that on its own constitute sexual assault? And yes, he was rough, but she herself said she was acting as if she enjoyed that, maybe because she felt scared or intimidated but how could this guy have known that? I just don't get it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The "Barry" essays in Lena Dunham's memoir do not describe sexual assault. I am a left-wing feminist and all-around supporter of most of Lena Dunham's work. This has got nothing to do with a political divergence of views. I've read Dunham's memoir in its entirety and could not find anything in the way she herself tells this story that suggests she was sexually assaulted - they were both drunk, she invited him to her place, they had rough sex that she consented to and wasn't coerced in any particularly violent or manipulative way to consent to, he did penetrate her without a condom which was non-consensual and as soon as she realised that, she asked him to leave, and he did. So, ok, the condom thing was non-consensual. But does that on its own constitute sexual assault? And yes, he was rough, but she herself said she was acting as if she enjoyed that, maybe because she felt scared or intimidated but how could this guy have known that? I just don't get it.

t3_2gi6pc

CMV: I'm considering smoking weed, why shouldn't I?

So I have never smoked anything or taken anything except alcohol. Im eighteen and frequent parties and I have a bunch of friends that both smoke weed and take extacy. I used to be like "Meh, I dont need that to have fun" but lately I have been more and more interested in trying it out, I'm not really scared of becomming addicted because I believe I have a lot of self-controll and I dont fall for group pressure. I kinda like the idea of just chilling with some friends and smoking weed and chill.. _____

CMV: I'm considering smoking weed, why shouldn't I?. So I have never smoked anything or taken anything except alcohol. Im eighteen and frequent parties and I have a bunch of friends that both smoke weed and take extacy. I used to be like "Meh, I dont need that to have fun" but lately I have been more and more interested in trying it out, I'm not really scared of becomming addicted because I believe I have a lot of self-controll and I dont fall for group pressure. I kinda like the idea of just chilling with some friends and smoking weed and chill.. _____

t3_4to2fx

CMV: Self posts should not give karma.

As posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4tmb16/karma_for_textposts_aka_selfposts/), self posts now give karma to the poster when they are upvoted. To me, self posts were so successful because they didn't give karma, which prevented a large amount of shitposting in larger subreddits. Some subs even rely on this, such as /r/GlobalOffensive using it to limit the amount of spam that occurs when an amazing play happens during a game. This also messes with subreddits such as /r/whowouldwin, which I feel will now be inundated with clickbait and shitposting, looking for the tiniest bits of karma. Even if it doesn't make a huge apparent affect, it will also make the workload for moderators much larger, which isn't the best idea. I feel that at the very least, they should have told the moderators before hand, and talked with them about it. Maybe it would be better if moderators of the subreddits could choose to not give karma for self posts. Disclaimer: I know this is a fresh issue, and it will take time to see how it actually affects he site. This is just a preemptive opinion from me. _____ > *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: Self posts should not give karma. As posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4tmb16/karma_for_textposts_aka_selfposts/), self posts now give karma to the poster when they are upvoted. To me, self posts were so successful because they didn't give karma, which prevented a large amount of shitposting in larger subreddits. Some subs even rely on this, such as /r/GlobalOffensive using it to limit the amount of spam that occurs when an amazing play happens during a game. This also messes with subreddits such as /r/whowouldwin, which I feel will now be inundated with clickbait and shitposting, looking for the tiniest bits of karma. Even if it doesn't make a huge apparent affect, it will also make the workload for moderators much larger, which isn't the best idea. I feel that at the very least, they should have told the moderators before hand, and talked with them about it. Maybe it would be better if moderators of the subreddits could choose to not give karma for self posts. Disclaimer: I know this is a fresh issue, and it will take time to see how it actually affects he site. This is just a preemptive opinion from me.

t3_2ax77f

CMV: As long as it doesn't deliberately distress others, no one be judged or feel ashamed for their masturbation habits.

What someone else masturbates to, and how much they do it, as long as it doesn't involve disturbing others (i.e. masturbating in a public place), is 100% their business. People have every right masturbate to whatever they like, no matter how objectionable that content could be, as long they do not commit immoral actions in the real world. For example, masturbating to someone's picture on Facebook, as long as the person doing it does not disturb the other person by telling them about it, is perfectly acceptable. Masturbating to thoughts of friends is likewise acceptable. I anticipate this will be a common reply, so let me state that I do not think child-porn should be legal. Making it by definition involves the exploitation of children. However, I do not think that masturbating to thoughts of children, or even to pornography of children, is in itself an objectionable thing to do. If someone has pedophiliac desires, then they have every right to deal with them in a way that does not harm anyone else. EDIT: Accidentally a word. No one SHOULD be judged or feel ashamed for their masturbation habit. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: As long as it doesn't deliberately distress others, no one be judged or feel ashamed for their masturbation habits. What someone else masturbates to, and how much they do it, as long as it doesn't involve disturbing others (i.e. masturbating in a public place), is 100% their business. People have every right masturbate to whatever they like, no matter how objectionable that content could be, as long they do not commit immoral actions in the real world. For example, masturbating to someone's picture on Facebook, as long as the person doing it does not disturb the other person by telling them about it, is perfectly acceptable. Masturbating to thoughts of friends is likewise acceptable. I anticipate this will be a common reply, so let me state that I do not think child-porn should be legal. Making it by definition involves the exploitation of children. However, I do not think that masturbating to thoughts of children, or even to pornography of children, is in itself an objectionable thing to do. If someone has pedophiliac desires, then they have every right to deal with them in a way that does not harm anyone else. EDIT: Accidentally a word. No one SHOULD be judged or feel ashamed for their masturbation habit.

t3_6bcecc

CMV: Anyone with a moderate amount of singing talent can be a pop star.

This is, of course, assuming they have the drive, desire, and health to accommodate the pop star lifestyle without burning out. Oh, and are attractive enough. With today's advances in audio tech, ok singers can sound fantastic. The promotional studio, advertising, sound editors, the army of producers, writers, etc could be applied to any person with moderate singing talent and they could make it big. It seems as though the industry just picks and chooses a few vocally talented people with bodies them deem attractive, and then trumpets them to fame. Getting into that position has less to do with talent, and more to do with luck, good timing, and networking. (As well as a big label to make your rise to fame happen.) Not good at writing? Doesn't matter, there are professional song writiers for that. Not good at recording and balancing? Doesn't matter, there are professional producers for that. Sound a little pitchy at times? Doesn't matter, that's what the sound tech is for in post production. What else is there to singing professionally? Memorizing dance moves maybe? You don't even have to sing at your concerts, just play a recording. It seems to me that your only job as a pop star is 3 things: be good talking to media, sing ok once for a recording, and don't get sick. Everything else that makes it 'professional' is handled for you. Sadly, being a star singer has very little to do with actually singing well. EDIT: Featuring the fact that you must also be attractive, in the vast majority of cases. EDIT 2: By 'Star' I mean anyone that could, say, get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. EDIT 3: My primary concern is with vocal quality. Becoming a Pop Star is supposed to reserved for only the best of the best of the best singers, yet singing doesn't seem to matter that much at all in becoming a star. _____ > *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: Anyone with a moderate amount of singing talent can be a pop star. This is, of course, assuming they have the drive, desire, and health to accommodate the pop star lifestyle without burning out. Oh, and are attractive enough. With today's advances in audio tech, ok singers can sound fantastic. The promotional studio, advertising, sound editors, the army of producers, writers, etc could be applied to any person with moderate singing talent and they could make it big. It seems as though the industry just picks and chooses a few vocally talented people with bodies them deem attractive, and then trumpets them to fame. Getting into that position has less to do with talent, and more to do with luck, good timing, and networking. (As well as a big label to make your rise to fame happen.) Not good at writing? Doesn't matter, there are professional song writiers for that. Not good at recording and balancing? Doesn't matter, there are professional producers for that. Sound a little pitchy at times? Doesn't matter, that's what the sound tech is for in post production. What else is there to singing professionally? Memorizing dance moves maybe? You don't even have to sing at your concerts, just play a recording. It seems to me that your only job as a pop star is 3 things: be good talking to media, sing ok once for a recording, and don't get sick. Everything else that makes it 'professional' is handled for you. Sadly, being a star singer has very little to do with actually singing well. EDIT: Featuring the fact that you must also be attractive, in the vast majority of cases. EDIT 2: By 'Star' I mean anyone that could, say, get a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. EDIT 3: My primary concern is with vocal quality. Becoming a Pop Star is supposed to reserved for only the best of the best of the best singers, yet singing doesn't seem to matter that much at all in becoming a star.

t3_5p2umv

CMV: Narcos is a better show than The Sopranos

I know cmvs about artistic works are a pain in the ass but hear me out. Both shows portray a murderous criminal patriarch who tries to give a good life to his family while running a deadly criminal enterprise. Both shows are not only good but great; however, narcos presents a man who is both more murderous and also more sympathetic. Both guys are narcissists, both fuck around, both are mass murderers. Each shows builds sympathy for their respective monster, however, i think that minute for minute, Narcos is more tightly focused, better directed, more tense, and more gripping (per episode) than the Sopranos.

CMV: Narcos is a better show than The Sopranos. I know cmvs about artistic works are a pain in the ass but hear me out. Both shows portray a murderous criminal patriarch who tries to give a good life to his family while running a deadly criminal enterprise. Both shows are not only good but great; however, narcos presents a man who is both more murderous and also more sympathetic. Both guys are narcissists, both fuck around, both are mass murderers. Each shows builds sympathy for their respective monster, however, i think that minute for minute, Narcos is more tightly focused, better directed, more tense, and more gripping (per episode) than the Sopranos.

t3_1ngj8q

I believe the Epicurean Paradox (or, Problem of Evil) adequately disproves the existence of a Christian God. CMV (Seriously, please)!

I was raised in a Christian-ish home, but over the years (and after extensive collegiate studies in Philosophy) I can no longer bring myself to believe in a God that plays any sort of role in our existence here on earth. My personal belief is, at this point: 1) We don't know anything about the existence of a higher power. 2) I feel it would be rather audacious to believe that we are the end-all-be-all in terms of organisms- I think there is likely something far greater than we are (This mystical being is my "god"). 3) Life is either a divine coincidence (unfathomable, to me) or a construction by some 'thing'. So, if someone presented you with the [Epicurean Paradox](http://i.imgur.com/Gqd0TLR.jpg) how would you argue against them? I've heard some relatively good cases- but tbh, I can't remember their logic. Thank you in advance! **Here is some Wiki copypasta for the logical problem:** If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not exist. >As it is unclear precisely how the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God guarantees the non-existence of evil, it is unclear whether the first premise is true. To show that it is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on this premise, such as this modern example: God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then no evil exists. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

I believe the Epicurean Paradox (or, Problem of Evil) adequately disproves the existence of a Christian God. CMV (Seriously, please)!. I was raised in a Christian-ish home, but over the years (and after extensive collegiate studies in Philosophy) I can no longer bring myself to believe in a God that plays any sort of role in our existence here on earth. My personal belief is, at this point: 1) We don't know anything about the existence of a higher power. 2) I feel it would be rather audacious to believe that we are the end-all-be-all in terms of organisms- I think there is likely something far greater than we are (This mystical being is my "god"). 3) Life is either a divine coincidence (unfathomable, to me) or a construction by some 'thing'. So, if someone presented you with the [Epicurean Paradox](http://i.imgur.com/Gqd0TLR.jpg) how would you argue against them? I've heard some relatively good cases- but tbh, I can't remember their logic. Thank you in advance! **Here is some Wiki copypasta for the logical problem:** If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not. There is evil in the world. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not exist. >As it is unclear precisely how the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God guarantees the non-existence of evil, it is unclear whether the first premise is true. To show that it is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on this premise, such as this modern example: God exists. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then no evil exists. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

t3_1ew59l

I believe that Republican Presidents have been the more hawkish deficit spenders since Nixon.

And in 2008-2009 when national debt literally increased 2+ trillion dollars within 12 months mainstream and right wing media has placed it all on Obama's tab. Carter, Clinton and Obama have all been more conservative stewards of national debt than Nixon, Reagan, Bush. But it feels like the entire world sees it the other way around!?

I believe that Republican Presidents have been the more hawkish deficit spenders since Nixon. And in 2008-2009 when national debt literally increased 2+ trillion dollars within 12 months mainstream and right wing media has placed it all on Obama's tab. Carter, Clinton and Obama have all been more conservative stewards of national debt than Nixon, Reagan, Bush. But it feels like the entire world sees it the other way around!?

t3_36a3ug

CMV: Manchester United should not sell David de Gea to Real Madrid this summer

Manchester United's keeper, David de Gea, has been rumored to be going to Real Madrid this summer. He apparently wants to leave Manchester to go to Madrid, and with only a year remaining on his contract, a lot of people are suggesting that Manchester United should sell him now rather than risk losing him for nothing in a year. I think that would be a bad decision. First off, if Manchester United keep him and make him play out his contract, it gives them extra time to negotiate and try to convince him to say. Sometimes players change their minds, and having more time to convince him will increase the chances of him choosing to sign a new contract. Second, even if Manchester United were to sell him this summer, the money received wouldn't be that much. Real Madrid are rumored to be willing to pay £12-15 million, which is less than the £18 million paid for him initially, and only a drop in the bucket in the scheme of the £100-150 million that Manchester United is said to have available for spending this summer. Third, he's really good, and having him in goal for even just one more season would be worth it. He was the top goalkeeper in the Premier League this year, and without his performances, there's no way Manchester United would have finished in the top four and qualified for the Champions League (which is worth £100 million+). Although the team should hopefully be better next season with the expected spending this summer, having de Gea greatly increases the odds of finishing in the top four again next season or mounting a title challenge. Also, Manchester United will likely have to play a qualifying tie to get into the Champions League group. This two game qualification fixture will possibly be against a very good club from a top league like La Liga, Serie A, or the Bundesliga. Winning that fixture would be worth tens of millions (or more) in revenue for playing the Champions League, and the odds of winning are much better with de Gea in goal rather than a new signing or the current backup, Victor Valdes. TL;DR: There's not much to gain for Manchester United by selling de Gea now, but keeping him for the last year of his contract could be beneficial, especially as it gives you more time to try to resign him.

CMV: Manchester United should not sell David de Gea to Real Madrid this summer. Manchester United's keeper, David de Gea, has been rumored to be going to Real Madrid this summer. He apparently wants to leave Manchester to go to Madrid, and with only a year remaining on his contract, a lot of people are suggesting that Manchester United should sell him now rather than risk losing him for nothing in a year. I think that would be a bad decision. First off, if Manchester United keep him and make him play out his contract, it gives them extra time to negotiate and try to convince him to say. Sometimes players change their minds, and having more time to convince him will increase the chances of him choosing to sign a new contract. Second, even if Manchester United were to sell him this summer, the money received wouldn't be that much. Real Madrid are rumored to be willing to pay £12-15 million, which is less than the £18 million paid for him initially, and only a drop in the bucket in the scheme of the £100-150 million that Manchester United is said to have available for spending this summer. Third, he's really good, and having him in goal for even just one more season would be worth it. He was the top goalkeeper in the Premier League this year, and without his performances, there's no way Manchester United would have finished in the top four and qualified for the Champions League (which is worth £100 million+). Although the team should hopefully be better next season with the expected spending this summer, having de Gea greatly increases the odds of finishing in the top four again next season or mounting a title challenge. Also, Manchester United will likely have to play a qualifying tie to get into the Champions League group. This two game qualification fixture will possibly be against a very good club from a top league like La Liga, Serie A, or the Bundesliga. Winning that fixture would be worth tens of millions (or more) in revenue for playing the Champions League, and the odds of winning are much better with de Gea in goal rather than a new signing or the current backup, Victor Valdes. TL;DR: There's not much to gain for Manchester United by selling de Gea now, but keeping him for the last year of his contract could be beneficial, especially as it gives you more time to try to resign him.

t3_2miyay

CMV: Mac keyboards are superior to PC keyboards because the cmd (ctrl) keys are located to the immediate right and left of the space bar.

On PC keyboards, the ctrl key is located in the bottom lefthand corner of the keyboard, meaning either an awkward pinky stretch or a full hand shift is needed to access shortcuts (ctrl + c, v, a, etc.). On the Mac keyboard, however, the cmd keys are located to the immediate right and left of the space bar, meaning they can easily be accessed by tucking your thumb slightly under your hand, or, in other words, by moving your thumb approximately an inch to the right or left of its resting position. Because the cmd key can be reached without changing the resting position of the remaining digits, the user will intuitively know where to reach to complete given commands and will be able to complete those commands more easily. In this light, the piano raises an interesting parallel. The "thumb-under" technique is widely used to play keys on the opposite side of the index finger because the thumb offers such a wide range of motion. Conversely, there is no "pinky-stretch" technique (or at least it's not widely used) to skip a key with the pinky. Not only is this motion awkward, but it's difficulty is also compounded by the fact that the pinky is the weakest finger; a hand shift is typically advocated in these instances. Is there a good reason the ctrl key is where it is? CMV! Thanks in advance for your responses.

CMV: Mac keyboards are superior to PC keyboards because the cmd (ctrl) keys are located to the immediate right and left of the space bar. On PC keyboards, the ctrl key is located in the bottom lefthand corner of the keyboard, meaning either an awkward pinky stretch or a full hand shift is needed to access shortcuts (ctrl + c, v, a, etc.). On the Mac keyboard, however, the cmd keys are located to the immediate right and left of the space bar, meaning they can easily be accessed by tucking your thumb slightly under your hand, or, in other words, by moving your thumb approximately an inch to the right or left of its resting position. Because the cmd key can be reached without changing the resting position of the remaining digits, the user will intuitively know where to reach to complete given commands and will be able to complete those commands more easily. In this light, the piano raises an interesting parallel. The "thumb-under" technique is widely used to play keys on the opposite side of the index finger because the thumb offers such a wide range of motion. Conversely, there is no "pinky-stretch" technique (or at least it's not widely used) to skip a key with the pinky. Not only is this motion awkward, but it's difficulty is also compounded by the fact that the pinky is the weakest finger; a hand shift is typically advocated in these instances. Is there a good reason the ctrl key is where it is? CMV! Thanks in advance for your responses.

t3_1hsg9z

I Don't Believe Criminals Being Incarcerated Longer Than 5 Years Serves Any Purpose To Society, CMV

edits: As articulated by PixelOrange, my views are more clearly expressed as: **1. Punitive penalties do not benefit society and rehabilitative options would be preferrable.** **2. Not everyone is capable of being saved/worthy of being saved(up to 5 years of focused, intelligent effort).** **3. It is more humane to attempt to rehabilitate criminals rather than lock them away.** **4. I disagree that crime would be more violent in a system with a lighter initial punishment(rehab). Would a person kill to get out of therapy? I would hope not. Would they kill to get out of a punishment in the current system? I think so.** The system would work like this: 1. Violent* crime committed. 2. Trial and conviction 3. Up to 5 years of rehabilitation. 4. Evaluation by panel of psychologists. 5. Release to society. 6. Same violent crime committed. 7. Trial and conviction. 8. Evaluation by panel of psychologists. 9. Deemed likely to be a recidivist. 10. Execution. * Non violent crimes would be tolerated and always result in rehabilitation. Non violent crimes would never result in execution. Original post: **I do endorse a "greater penalty", the death penalty, in extreme cases such as sociopath serial killers. Not as a crime deterrent, but just as a solution to repeat offenders of heinous crimes.** With the exception of those who benefit from prison labor, I don't believe long prison sentences serve a tangible purpose to society. In the rare case that criminals are incapable of feeling remorse, **and** the person is a repeat offender, such as sociopath serial killers, execution may be employed. Otherwise, I believe that lengthy prison sentences serve the interests of big businesses whom profit from the cheap labor provided by prisoners. I would also say that better forms of incarceration could be used such as therapy, but I don't believe any such system would require more than 5 years of actual incarceration.

I Don't Believe Criminals Being Incarcerated Longer Than 5 Years Serves Any Purpose To Society, CMV. edits: As articulated by PixelOrange, my views are more clearly expressed as: **1. Punitive penalties do not benefit society and rehabilitative options would be preferrable.** **2. Not everyone is capable of being saved/worthy of being saved(up to 5 years of focused, intelligent effort).** **3. It is more humane to attempt to rehabilitate criminals rather than lock them away.** **4. I disagree that crime would be more violent in a system with a lighter initial punishment(rehab). Would a person kill to get out of therapy? I would hope not. Would they kill to get out of a punishment in the current system? I think so.** The system would work like this: 1. Violent* crime committed. 2. Trial and conviction 3. Up to 5 years of rehabilitation. 4. Evaluation by panel of psychologists. 5. Release to society. 6. Same violent crime committed. 7. Trial and conviction. 8. Evaluation by panel of psychologists. 9. Deemed likely to be a recidivist. 10. Execution. * Non violent crimes would be tolerated and always result in rehabilitation. Non violent crimes would never result in execution. Original post: **I do endorse a "greater penalty", the death penalty, in extreme cases such as sociopath serial killers. Not as a crime deterrent, but just as a solution to repeat offenders of heinous crimes.** With the exception of those who benefit from prison labor, I don't believe long prison sentences serve a tangible purpose to society. In the rare case that criminals are incapable of feeling remorse, **and** the person is a repeat offender, such as sociopath serial killers, execution may be employed. Otherwise, I believe that lengthy prison sentences serve the interests of big businesses whom profit from the cheap labor provided by prisoners. I would also say that better forms of incarceration could be used such as therapy, but I don't believe any such system would require more than 5 years of actual incarceration.

t3_6axldq

CMV: US citizens who support the Republican party are either profoundly ignorant or immoral

This is a view that I don't especially like having, but has existed for a while, and has grown over the course of the Trump administration. Especially after seeing how so many Republican politicans have either directly supported Trump and (what I see as) his constant lies, his anti-intellectualism, wannabe dictatorial behavior, and lack of concern for the law, or have enabled him through lack of resistance, I am left seeing nearly all Republican politicians as lying, self-interested and immoral, even traitorous. By extension, it's now hard for me to see anyone who can attach their name to the US Republican party as anything other than astoundingly ignorant, or part of the same club of reprehensible people as the Republican politicians, for them to accept leaders who are so openly contemptuous of intellectual honesty (which is the part that gets me the most). Yet these people make up a very large portion of the country. I've long joked that most people are just stupid, but I don't really want to believe that. Why am I wrong? _____ > *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: US citizens who support the Republican party are either profoundly ignorant or immoral. This is a view that I don't especially like having, but has existed for a while, and has grown over the course of the Trump administration. Especially after seeing how so many Republican politicans have either directly supported Trump and (what I see as) his constant lies, his anti-intellectualism, wannabe dictatorial behavior, and lack of concern for the law, or have enabled him through lack of resistance, I am left seeing nearly all Republican politicians as lying, self-interested and immoral, even traitorous. By extension, it's now hard for me to see anyone who can attach their name to the US Republican party as anything other than astoundingly ignorant, or part of the same club of reprehensible people as the Republican politicians, for them to accept leaders who are so openly contemptuous of intellectual honesty (which is the part that gets me the most). Yet these people make up a very large portion of the country. I've long joked that most people are just stupid, but I don't really want to believe that. Why am I wrong?

t3_1klnsh

I firmly believe that the only reason politicians want to ban gay marriage ISN'T because it's against the bible, but because they are homophobic and using religion as their excuse. CMV.

I live in America, and am a heterosexual, agnostic college student. As Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 state, if a man has sex with another man, not only have they committed a capitol offense, but they should be put to death. So why do politicians care if they get married? Shouldn't they be trying to make gay marriage punishable by death? Another point I'd like to make - call America whatever you want to call it. A democracy, capitalist state, socialist state, whatever. I'll tell you what America **isn't-** a theocracy. America's laws are not, and never have been, run off the 'rules' of a particular religion. So it's ridiculous to me that politicians want to ban gay marriage - among other things - simply because it is against Christianity. I do realize that marriage is a tradition of always being a man and a woman, but lets talk about civil rights for a second. [There are legal differences between Husband/Wife and Boyfriend/Girlfriend.](http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/?page_id=48) Do you think it is right, justifiable, to deny homosexuals these rights, for no reason other than than that are gay? I agree that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but homosexuals deserve the legal rights. Back to the topic. I firmly believe that the only reason politicians want to ban gay marriage is because they are homophobic, NOT because they are men/women of god. CMV. **EDIT:** I feel it is important to note, as of right now, I think very negatively of the politicians against gay marriage. I want to feel like their actions/motives are justified, but it just doesn't seem that way.

I firmly believe that the only reason politicians want to ban gay marriage ISN'T because it's against the bible, but because they are homophobic and using religion as their excuse. CMV. I live in America, and am a heterosexual, agnostic college student. As Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 state, if a man has sex with another man, not only have they committed a capitol offense, but they should be put to death. So why do politicians care if they get married? Shouldn't they be trying to make gay marriage punishable by death? Another point I'd like to make - call America whatever you want to call it. A democracy, capitalist state, socialist state, whatever. I'll tell you what America **isn't-** a theocracy. America's laws are not, and never have been, run off the 'rules' of a particular religion. So it's ridiculous to me that politicians want to ban gay marriage - among other things - simply because it is against Christianity. I do realize that marriage is a tradition of always being a man and a woman, but lets talk about civil rights for a second. [There are legal differences between Husband/Wife and Boyfriend/Girlfriend.](http://civilunions.aclu-il.org/?page_id=48) Do you think it is right, justifiable, to deny homosexuals these rights, for no reason other than than that are gay? I agree that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but homosexuals deserve the legal rights. Back to the topic. I firmly believe that the only reason politicians want to ban gay marriage is because they are homophobic, NOT because they are men/women of god. CMV. **EDIT:** I feel it is important to note, as of right now, I think very negatively of the politicians against gay marriage. I want to feel like their actions/motives are justified, but it just doesn't seem that way.

t3_5gcby9

CMV: Donald Trump Questioning Mexican-American Judge Curiel's Impartiality Was Not Racist

Let me first say that I voted for Hillary Clinton and that I find Trump, as an individual and as a leader, deeply troubling at best and outright dangerous at worst. I despise his rhetoric, his anti-intellectualism, and I believe he will reverse many of the strides Obama made toward making America a more respectable and responsible global power. That being said, recently John Oliver (of whom I'm a big fan), called Trump's questioning Mexican-American Judge Curiel's impariality "the dictionary definition of racism:" https://youtu.be/cBUeipXFisQ?t=187 Paul Ryan said almost exactly the same thing around the time of Trump's comments, but replaced "dictionary" with "textbook:" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/07/paul-ryan-rips-trump-comments-textbook-definition-racist/85548042/ A cursory Google search reveals a plethora of assenting opinions, here's one from the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-and-the-truth-the-mexican-judge This argument is as specious as it is ubiquitous. For starters, the way Ryan and Oliver frame the issue is disingenuous: "saying someone is unfit to do their job because of their race is the definition of racism." This is misleading; Trump was not saying Curiel was unfit as a judge because of his Mexican heritage, but that *he couldn't be impartial in this case* because of his Mexican heritage. Trump made it clear that this was not because of any deficit of Mexicans or even Curiel in particular, but because of his anti-Mexico stance and rhetoric. These are completely different things. If Trump was campaigning on blockading Britain and deporting thousands of British people, I would also think it a conflict of interest if one of the Judge's parents was British. I do not think, in any case, that *potential* conflicts of interest should automatically disqualify anyone for anything. However, decades of psychological research has shown that bias is ingrained into the human condition. Therefore, we should give no special exemption to race in scrutinizing every possible avenue of bias in our judges. The hypocrisy of Trump questioning this judge's conflicts of interest while refusing to acknowledge his own the business world, however, is another story entirely... So, **CMV: Trump's Questioning of Mexican-American Judge Curiel's Impartiality Was Not Racist** EDIT//////////// Want to address some common sentiments. **First,** it is common for judges to recuse themselves for having personal feelings about one of the parties, or even their lawyers. Source: http://www.law360.com/articles/816125/why-supreme-court-justices-recuse-themselves **Second** I don't agree with Trump that that Curiel should've recused himself, I just don't think it's racist to suggest he might have a conflict of interest.

CMV: Donald Trump Questioning Mexican-American Judge Curiel's Impartiality Was Not Racist. Let me first say that I voted for Hillary Clinton and that I find Trump, as an individual and as a leader, deeply troubling at best and outright dangerous at worst. I despise his rhetoric, his anti-intellectualism, and I believe he will reverse many of the strides Obama made toward making America a more respectable and responsible global power. That being said, recently John Oliver (of whom I'm a big fan), called Trump's questioning Mexican-American Judge Curiel's impariality "the dictionary definition of racism:" https://youtu.be/cBUeipXFisQ?t=187 Paul Ryan said almost exactly the same thing around the time of Trump's comments, but replaced "dictionary" with "textbook:" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/07/paul-ryan-rips-trump-comments-textbook-definition-racist/85548042/ A cursory Google search reveals a plethora of assenting opinions, here's one from the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-and-the-truth-the-mexican-judge This argument is as specious as it is ubiquitous. For starters, the way Ryan and Oliver frame the issue is disingenuous: "saying someone is unfit to do their job because of their race is the definition of racism." This is misleading; Trump was not saying Curiel was unfit as a judge because of his Mexican heritage, but that *he couldn't be impartial in this case* because of his Mexican heritage. Trump made it clear that this was not because of any deficit of Mexicans or even Curiel in particular, but because of his anti-Mexico stance and rhetoric. These are completely different things. If Trump was campaigning on blockading Britain and deporting thousands of British people, I would also think it a conflict of interest if one of the Judge's parents was British. I do not think, in any case, that *potential* conflicts of interest should automatically disqualify anyone for anything. However, decades of psychological research has shown that bias is ingrained into the human condition. Therefore, we should give no special exemption to race in scrutinizing every possible avenue of bias in our judges. The hypocrisy of Trump questioning this judge's conflicts of interest while refusing to acknowledge his own the business world, however, is another story entirely... So, **CMV: Trump's Questioning of Mexican-American Judge Curiel's Impartiality Was Not Racist** EDIT//////////// Want to address some common sentiments. **First,** it is common for judges to recuse themselves for having personal feelings about one of the parties, or even their lawyers. Source: http://www.law360.com/articles/816125/why-supreme-court-justices-recuse-themselves **Second** I don't agree with Trump that that Curiel should've recused himself, I just don't think it's racist to suggest he might have a conflict of interest.

t3_2l6pr0

CMV: I believe there is a lot more skill in learning classical guitar compared to learning electric guitar.

EDIT: Dear guitarists of Reddit, thank you for some amazing comments! Although I have realised my view is far too vague to be debated with good results, if I were to re-submit the same sort of view to this sub-reddit I would make it a lot more precise. Once again, a rude comment won't get you anything but reported. The whole point of this sub reddit is to do with debating something who thinks differently to you, just simply shouting out rude comments and being mean because I don't appreciate your little electric guitar fandom as much as you, isn't going to change my view. So tbh it means you would have failed in your attempt. In my opinion, as both an electric and classical guitar player (however a lot more classical than electric). I believe that it's a lot easier to play electric in pretty much every way. Classical guitar takes a lot more skill, time and technique to play to a good standard compared to most electric guitars do. I also believe that it is a lot more impressive to hear and see someone play a classical (Spanish) piece on guitar compared to seeing someone play something on an electric guitar. What's your opinions on what is harder to master and more impressive to play? _____ > *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 there is a lot more skill in learning classical guitar compared to learning electric guitar. EDIT: Dear guitarists of Reddit, thank you for some amazing comments! Although I have realised my view is far too vague to be debated with good results, if I were to re-submit the same sort of view to this sub-reddit I would make it a lot more precise. Once again, a rude comment won't get you anything but reported. The whole point of this sub reddit is to do with debating something who thinks differently to you, just simply shouting out rude comments and being mean because I don't appreciate your little electric guitar fandom as much as you, isn't going to change my view. So tbh it means you would have failed in your attempt. In my opinion, as both an electric and classical guitar player (however a lot more classical than electric). I believe that it's a lot easier to play electric in pretty much every way. Classical guitar takes a lot more skill, time and technique to play to a good standard compared to most electric guitars do. I also believe that it is a lot more impressive to hear and see someone play a classical (Spanish) piece on guitar compared to seeing someone play something on an electric guitar. What's your opinions on what is harder to master and more impressive to play?

t3_1xvyfu

I think life is pointless. CMV.

I don't think there's a point. No greater 'goal' or anything. I don't think anyone should ever read philosophy because it could just lead to someone feeling as empty and meaningless as me. I dabbled in existentialism for a bit (read Nausea by Sartre) but I don't think 'making your own meaning' actually has any meaning, or any merit, and simply, life is just, kind of, well, pointless. There is no god, no universal laws, no nothing. I'm trying to change this mindset but I can't. Can someone here on CMV change my view?

I think life is pointless. CMV. I don't think there's a point. No greater 'goal' or anything. I don't think anyone should ever read philosophy because it could just lead to someone feeling as empty and meaningless as me. I dabbled in existentialism for a bit (read Nausea by Sartre) but I don't think 'making your own meaning' actually has any meaning, or any merit, and simply, life is just, kind of, well, pointless. There is no god, no universal laws, no nothing. I'm trying to change this mindset but I can't. Can someone here on CMV change my view?

t3_48ngwe

CMV: A Bachelor's in Kinesiology should be the absolute minimum requirement for personal training certification

Howdy all. I am currently a PhD candidate in Exercise Physiology and have extensive cardiac rehabilitation and personal training experience. Being such, I see issues daily which lead to me holding this stance. With the ease of access to various certifications (looking at you ACE) we end up with a large number of unqualified trainers. I'm speaking of trainers who increase weight on squat before the client can even do a full 90 degrees, promote TRX and battle ropes as the foundation of a training program, and those who put their clients on the treadmill for 20 minutes to warm up for resistance training. The caveats of all the aforementioned problems are covered in depth through a Bachelor's in Kinesiology and, in my experience, educated trainers tend toward better exercise prescription. In addition, very few uneducated trainers can tell me what the minimum requirements of activity are (per ACSM) or even "why" they choose the exercises they do whereas educated trainers can provide at least base rationale for their prescriptions. To sum up, my view rests on a few main points: 1) Uneducated/Underqualified trainers do not know or understand ACSM guidelines 2) Uneducated/Underqualified trainers tend to prescribe improper routines 3) Uneducated/Underqualified trainers hold a place of "authority" in the exercise world which could be harmful to the general population 4) The ease of access to certifications is a function of making money rather than properly vetting candidates (pretty much any organization other than ACSM or NSCA) 3) _____ > *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 Bachelor's in Kinesiology should be the absolute minimum requirement for personal training certification. Howdy all. I am currently a PhD candidate in Exercise Physiology and have extensive cardiac rehabilitation and personal training experience. Being such, I see issues daily which lead to me holding this stance. With the ease of access to various certifications (looking at you ACE) we end up with a large number of unqualified trainers. I'm speaking of trainers who increase weight on squat before the client can even do a full 90 degrees, promote TRX and battle ropes as the foundation of a training program, and those who put their clients on the treadmill for 20 minutes to warm up for resistance training. The caveats of all the aforementioned problems are covered in depth through a Bachelor's in Kinesiology and, in my experience, educated trainers tend toward better exercise prescription. In addition, very few uneducated trainers can tell me what the minimum requirements of activity are (per ACSM) or even "why" they choose the exercises they do whereas educated trainers can provide at least base rationale for their prescriptions. To sum up, my view rests on a few main points: 1) Uneducated/Underqualified trainers do not know or understand ACSM guidelines 2) Uneducated/Underqualified trainers tend to prescribe improper routines 3) Uneducated/Underqualified trainers hold a place of "authority" in the exercise world which could be harmful to the general population 4) The ease of access to certifications is a function of making money rather than properly vetting candidates (pretty much any organization other than ACSM or NSCA) 3)

t3_2lbfp3

CMV: Oral contraceptives (birth control pills) should be available over the counter

There are many prescription medications that have recently been deemed safe enough to buy over the counter (such as Claritin, Allegra, and Nexium). While a few years ago, you required a doctors visit to obtain these medications, someone of any age can now walk into a pharmacy and purchase them. While I certainly don't think that all prescriptions should be available to anyone, birth control pills should be. It may be difficult for working women to make time for doctor visits. Younger women who are still reliant on their parents may be embarrassed or not allowed to take their reproductive health into their own hands. Where I live (not sure if this is the case everywhere) the morning after pill is available OTC, so I think it's ridiculous that oral contraceptives are not. Yes, you should discuss any new medications that you are taking with a doctor. But this holds true with any OTC medication currently available. Benadryl or sleeping aids containing diphenhydramine can be physically addictive. Pain relievers can cause liver damage when used long term. Literally any over the counter medication can be misused, or even used properly and still cause problems if you have pre-existing conditions. I'm sure that some women would not take the pills as indicated, or it may cause negative side effects in individuals who failed to read all of the directions/check in with their doctor regularly. However, if this is the only potential downside, then Advil should require a prescription as well.

CMV: Oral contraceptives (birth control pills) should be available over the counter. There are many prescription medications that have recently been deemed safe enough to buy over the counter (such as Claritin, Allegra, and Nexium). While a few years ago, you required a doctors visit to obtain these medications, someone of any age can now walk into a pharmacy and purchase them. While I certainly don't think that all prescriptions should be available to anyone, birth control pills should be. It may be difficult for working women to make time for doctor visits. Younger women who are still reliant on their parents may be embarrassed or not allowed to take their reproductive health into their own hands. Where I live (not sure if this is the case everywhere) the morning after pill is available OTC, so I think it's ridiculous that oral contraceptives are not. Yes, you should discuss any new medications that you are taking with a doctor. But this holds true with any OTC medication currently available. Benadryl or sleeping aids containing diphenhydramine can be physically addictive. Pain relievers can cause liver damage when used long term. Literally any over the counter medication can be misused, or even used properly and still cause problems if you have pre-existing conditions. I'm sure that some women would not take the pills as indicated, or it may cause negative side effects in individuals who failed to read all of the directions/check in with their doctor regularly. However, if this is the only potential downside, then Advil should require a prescription as well.

t3_2r4b8f

CMV: A teenager can be just as intelligent as an adult (on certain topics) because age and experience don't equal intelligence.

Okay so this is an argument I have all the time, being a teenager myself (17). usually what happens is I'll be discussing a topic with an adult (usually a family member or teacher), then we disagree, then they say something that infuriates me like "oh I thought the same thing when I was your age" or "you'll grow out of it." even online, there is this annoying stigma that all teens are idiots but at the same time think they know everything. sometimes, it makes sense. some subjects obviously require experience. Relationship advice, for example. I've never been in a relationship so if I were to try and give an adult, or anyone for that matter, relationship advice, it would make sense to tell me "you're too young"/"your opinion will change"/"you'll grow out of it". but when arguing about politics, religion, or any subject that really doesn't require experience to understand it better, saying something like "you're just a teen" or "I used to think like that" is an excuse and it usually means you have nothing more to say but aren't willing to "lose" this discussion to a stupid teen. personally I'm, unsurprisingly, an atheist. I come from a semi-religious Jewish family. me and my dad have this argument ALL THE TIME. you know the one. and it almost always ends with me bringing up an extremely valid point and him laughing and saying "oh its just a phase. you're just a teen. you're so young. you have no idea." it fucking pisses me off. A teenager can argue about politics or religion just as well as a 25 year old can and just as well as a 50 year old can. it only depends on the person and how much they are willing to put into learning about the subject. _____ > *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 teenager can be just as intelligent as an adult (on certain topics) because age and experience don't equal intelligence. Okay so this is an argument I have all the time, being a teenager myself (17). usually what happens is I'll be discussing a topic with an adult (usually a family member or teacher), then we disagree, then they say something that infuriates me like "oh I thought the same thing when I was your age" or "you'll grow out of it." even online, there is this annoying stigma that all teens are idiots but at the same time think they know everything. sometimes, it makes sense. some subjects obviously require experience. Relationship advice, for example. I've never been in a relationship so if I were to try and give an adult, or anyone for that matter, relationship advice, it would make sense to tell me "you're too young"/"your opinion will change"/"you'll grow out of it". but when arguing about politics, religion, or any subject that really doesn't require experience to understand it better, saying something like "you're just a teen" or "I used to think like that" is an excuse and it usually means you have nothing more to say but aren't willing to "lose" this discussion to a stupid teen. personally I'm, unsurprisingly, an atheist. I come from a semi-religious Jewish family. me and my dad have this argument ALL THE TIME. you know the one. and it almost always ends with me bringing up an extremely valid point and him laughing and saying "oh its just a phase. you're just a teen. you're so young. you have no idea." it fucking pisses me off. A teenager can argue about politics or religion just as well as a 25 year old can and just as well as a 50 year old can. it only depends on the person and how much they are willing to put into learning about the subject.

t3_4kr3bd

CMV: I believe potential job loss should not be a reason to reject potential governmental policies.

My reasoning is as such: 1. Looking at sole number of jobs created/lost does not take in account quality of jobs, which is in itself highly subjective having to take in account effort, unpleasantness (think moving large quantity's of bovine excrement), rewards whether financial or otherwise, hours worked, and personal or cultural preference and taboos. 2. The free market is under no obligation, instead incentivized to get rid of jobs for efficiency, which among other things allows free market entity's to create higher quality products for cheaper. 3. Universal employment is and always will be an unrealistic goal children, students, retirees/pensioners, the seriously ill, or simply Partners in relationships that choose to devote themselves full time to domestic work or child care that without without significant social change or regression (in the case of child workers) will create an fundamental bottom floor for conventional employment. 4. It is my belief that large scale unemployment only occurs during times of economic depression, while a healthy economy can withstand changes to the job market. 5. We are stuck with the idea of the 5 day 40 hour work week, that without it, decreases in the labor demand would be result in decreases in hours worked as apposed to decreases in actual jobs. 6. Taking #3 in mind along with future increased automation and efficiency intersecting with real world limiters to economic growth, a future where the vast majority of people are unemployed is not unrealistic. 7. As a continuation of 6, if the concern is that people will lack a means to live, an universal basic income seems to be the best option instead of limiting efficiency to serve a false ideal of universal employment. Edit: Sorry first post, and a bit of trouble with wording but, basically I hear a lot of people using the idea of job loss as a criticism against automation or changing getting rid of inefficiency in business or governments, like wise otherwise problematic things being praised if it creates jobs like the keystone pipeline. In summary I feel like its empty rhetoric that leverages the fear of unemployment, while not bringing to light any solutions, and using a metric that is in many ways fundamentally flawed. _____ > *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 potential job loss should not be a reason to reject potential governmental policies. My reasoning is as such: 1. Looking at sole number of jobs created/lost does not take in account quality of jobs, which is in itself highly subjective having to take in account effort, unpleasantness (think moving large quantity's of bovine excrement), rewards whether financial or otherwise, hours worked, and personal or cultural preference and taboos. 2. The free market is under no obligation, instead incentivized to get rid of jobs for efficiency, which among other things allows free market entity's to create higher quality products for cheaper. 3. Universal employment is and always will be an unrealistic goal children, students, retirees/pensioners, the seriously ill, or simply Partners in relationships that choose to devote themselves full time to domestic work or child care that without without significant social change or regression (in the case of child workers) will create an fundamental bottom floor for conventional employment. 4. It is my belief that large scale unemployment only occurs during times of economic depression, while a healthy economy can withstand changes to the job market. 5. We are stuck with the idea of the 5 day 40 hour work week, that without it, decreases in the labor demand would be result in decreases in hours worked as apposed to decreases in actual jobs. 6. Taking #3 in mind along with future increased automation and efficiency intersecting with real world limiters to economic growth, a future where the vast majority of people are unemployed is not unrealistic. 7. As a continuation of 6, if the concern is that people will lack a means to live, an universal basic income seems to be the best option instead of limiting efficiency to serve a false ideal of universal employment. Edit: Sorry first post, and a bit of trouble with wording but, basically I hear a lot of people using the idea of job loss as a criticism against automation or changing getting rid of inefficiency in business or governments, like wise otherwise problematic things being praised if it creates jobs like the keystone pipeline. In summary I feel like its empty rhetoric that leverages the fear of unemployment, while not bringing to light any solutions, and using a metric that is in many ways fundamentally flawed.