Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_4ooij8

CMV: I don't believe pelting Trump supporters with grocery is going to solve anything

I'm not Murrican and I'm not aware of the cultural significance of pelting people with tomatoes and eggs. But I find it Muslim-level intolerant. Sure, Trump has some screws loose but its supporters are not necessary crazy like him. Most of them are just riding along for fun, and only a small minority of them are crazy. Even if they were all crazy, you have to fight them with your votes, not eggs. I live in an authoritarian country where elections are jokes and I wish I had the power to change my country by voting the right person, say, a smart woman who's been in the politics since she was young and been the first lady for a while, instead of some loudmouth political pariah. Embrace your privileges people. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't believe pelting Trump supporters with grocery is going to solve anything. I'm not Murrican and I'm not aware of the cultural significance of pelting people with tomatoes and eggs. But I find it Muslim-level intolerant. Sure, Trump has some screws loose but its supporters are not necessary crazy like him. Most of them are just riding along for fun, and only a small minority of them are crazy. Even if they were all crazy, you have to fight them with your votes, not eggs. I live in an authoritarian country where elections are jokes and I wish I had the power to change my country by voting the right person, say, a smart woman who's been in the politics since she was young and been the first lady for a while, instead of some loudmouth political pariah. Embrace your privileges people.

t3_1oq63t

Being a mom is not the same as having a job. CMV

I'm sure it's equally difficult. But it's just an extension of taking care of yourself. You made those children, and you now have a moral obligation to spend your time keeping them alive and relatively happy. I'm not going to congratulate you for not being a scumbag. Again, I'm not suggesting that mothering is easy, or even arguing whether stay-at-home parenting is better or worse. I just hate seeing this bullshit suggesting we go out of our ways to thank all the moms for succumbing to biology, or correlating stay-at-home mothering to productive labor inside the workforce. Thank your own mothers to whatever degree you think they deserve. Be whatever kind of parent you want to be. Stay at home or go to work. Choose any life you want for you and your children. That's your prerogative. And maybe you struggle more than most. And I believe you then might deserve praise for being a strong individual. But you shouldn't expect anybody outside of your immediate family to congratulate you for doing something that you are now obligated to do, whether by choice or by circumstance.

Being a mom is not the same as having a job. CMV. I'm sure it's equally difficult. But it's just an extension of taking care of yourself. You made those children, and you now have a moral obligation to spend your time keeping them alive and relatively happy. I'm not going to congratulate you for not being a scumbag. Again, I'm not suggesting that mothering is easy, or even arguing whether stay-at-home parenting is better or worse. I just hate seeing this bullshit suggesting we go out of our ways to thank all the moms for succumbing to biology, or correlating stay-at-home mothering to productive labor inside the workforce. Thank your own mothers to whatever degree you think they deserve. Be whatever kind of parent you want to be. Stay at home or go to work. Choose any life you want for you and your children. That's your prerogative. And maybe you struggle more than most. And I believe you then might deserve praise for being a strong individual. But you shouldn't expect anybody outside of your immediate family to congratulate you for doing something that you are now obligated to do, whether by choice or by circumstance.

t3_26zj1x

CMV: I believe someone can be bleeding to death without dying.

I got into an argument on here, and apparently I'm in the minority of believing this is possible. Essentially, I was told that if you don't die, you can't say "to death". To counter this, I said "if someone gets their jugular slit, and they are bleeding out, they are bleeding to death. If a doctor stitches them up before they die, it doesn't change the fact that they were bleeding to death." I was then told this was stupid because that person couldn't say "I bled to death, but then got stitched up and now I'm fine." To me, this is obvious. Of course you wouldn't say you bled to death, as that implies you died. That doesn't mean you weren't bleeding to death though, and if you didn't get medical intervention you would have died. Apparently, unless death occurs, the words "to death" can not be used. I think this is wrong, and that one does not need to die in order to say they were bleeding to death. I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit, but I don't know of any where you post an argument and have people determine if you're right or wrong. With that said, what do you guys think? Can someone say they were bleeding to death, even if they were saved before they could die?

CMV: I believe someone can be bleeding to death without dying. I got into an argument on here, and apparently I'm in the minority of believing this is possible. Essentially, I was told that if you don't die, you can't say "to death". To counter this, I said "if someone gets their jugular slit, and they are bleeding out, they are bleeding to death. If a doctor stitches them up before they die, it doesn't change the fact that they were bleeding to death." I was then told this was stupid because that person couldn't say "I bled to death, but then got stitched up and now I'm fine." To me, this is obvious. Of course you wouldn't say you bled to death, as that implies you died. That doesn't mean you weren't bleeding to death though, and if you didn't get medical intervention you would have died. Apparently, unless death occurs, the words "to death" can not be used. I think this is wrong, and that one does not need to die in order to say they were bleeding to death. I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit, but I don't know of any where you post an argument and have people determine if you're right or wrong. With that said, what do you guys think? Can someone say they were bleeding to death, even if they were saved before they could die?

t3_6zbth2

CMV: if there is no traffic around at a 4 way red light, you should be able to carefully treat it as a stop sign

Edit: four way red = traffic light. Sorry, we call them 4 way reds Edit 2: you can make a right on red now. You can also make a left on red if you're on a one way turning into a one way. Thought I should add this I have lived all over but currently reside in a city of about 500k. There are several places with lights timed for heavy traffic. I can think of several where you must sit for a good 3-4 minutes with no traffic around anywhere just because it gets busy in the mornings and evenings. You can get pulled over and ticketed for running the light if a cop is sitting watching down the road. Change my view that we should always 100% of the time uphold this law and not change it. I'm not talking about just rolling up to any intersection and running thru, btw. I'm only talking about ones where there are no cars or pedestrians in site.

CMV: if there is no traffic around at a 4 way red light, you should be able to carefully treat it as a stop sign. Edit: four way red = traffic light. Sorry, we call them 4 way reds Edit 2: you can make a right on red now. You can also make a left on red if you're on a one way turning into a one way. Thought I should add this I have lived all over but currently reside in a city of about 500k. There are several places with lights timed for heavy traffic. I can think of several where you must sit for a good 3-4 minutes with no traffic around anywhere just because it gets busy in the mornings and evenings. You can get pulled over and ticketed for running the light if a cop is sitting watching down the road. Change my view that we should always 100% of the time uphold this law and not change it. I'm not talking about just rolling up to any intersection and running thru, btw. I'm only talking about ones where there are no cars or pedestrians in site.

t3_38i1tj

CMV: High school English classes should focus more on sustaining a desire to read

In elementary school, kids are constantly reminded that reading is fun. They have competitions and prizes for reading X number of books (and those books can be on any topic, as long as it's a book it counts). The curriculum is mostly made up of books that average elementary students will find pleasurable. In high school, most of the curriculum is based off of classic books that, while making it easy to relate to course standards, many students find boring. Not only that, but many are from way long ago with old dialects, which are less relevant to a student than any text in a modern dialect would be. I'm not advocating for completely eradicating old classics, but currently I'd say they make up about 75% of the average English curriculum and should instead make up no more than 10%. Modern books can teach the pedagogy equally well or even better. With a modern book, students are interested. They will actually read the book rather than skimming it or simply reading the Sparknotes. They will want to participate in classroom discussions much more. And most importantly, they won't see reading as a chore but instead see it as something fun. As for "standing the rest of time", I think that's just lazy. A person can scrutinize a book's merit themself just as well or better than leaving it up to history, pop culture, and the many other factors that determine whether a book becomes a classic. Or they could leave it up to awards and only pick Pulitzer nominated books or something like that. In other words, a book's status as a classic may come with a connotation that it is quality/literary/good classroom material, but so would a teacher's own reading or the decisions of an award panel. Of course there's no one book that all high schoolers will like and no one book that they all hate but in general it is pretty obvious that most students would rather read YA books like ~~The Hunger Games~~ The Perks of Being a Wallflower than Shakespeare. TLDR: High school students should be assigned books that they will like for English classes in order to encourage lifelong reading, CMV Edit: apparently The Hunger Games isn't very "literary" (I wouldn't know it's been years since I read it) so I chose a modern book tha _____ > *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: High school English classes should focus more on sustaining a desire to read. In elementary school, kids are constantly reminded that reading is fun. They have competitions and prizes for reading X number of books (and those books can be on any topic, as long as it's a book it counts). The curriculum is mostly made up of books that average elementary students will find pleasurable. In high school, most of the curriculum is based off of classic books that, while making it easy to relate to course standards, many students find boring. Not only that, but many are from way long ago with old dialects, which are less relevant to a student than any text in a modern dialect would be. I'm not advocating for completely eradicating old classics, but currently I'd say they make up about 75% of the average English curriculum and should instead make up no more than 10%. Modern books can teach the pedagogy equally well or even better. With a modern book, students are interested. They will actually read the book rather than skimming it or simply reading the Sparknotes. They will want to participate in classroom discussions much more. And most importantly, they won't see reading as a chore but instead see it as something fun. As for "standing the rest of time", I think that's just lazy. A person can scrutinize a book's merit themself just as well or better than leaving it up to history, pop culture, and the many other factors that determine whether a book becomes a classic. Or they could leave it up to awards and only pick Pulitzer nominated books or something like that. In other words, a book's status as a classic may come with a connotation that it is quality/literary/good classroom material, but so would a teacher's own reading or the decisions of an award panel. Of course there's no one book that all high schoolers will like and no one book that they all hate but in general it is pretty obvious that most students would rather read YA books like ~~The Hunger Games~~ The Perks of Being a Wallflower than Shakespeare. TLDR: High school students should be assigned books that they will like for English classes in order to encourage lifelong reading, CMV Edit: apparently The Hunger Games isn't very "literary" (I wouldn't know it's been years since I read it) so I chose a modern book tha

t3_1yasy6

It is ridiculous to spend three months' salary on a diamond engagement ring. CMV.

I have known for several years now that [diamonds are bullshit](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rohin-dhar/diamonds-are-bullshit_b_3708562.html). The "tradition" of giving a diamond as part of a marriage proposal was invented by a clever marketing campaign from the 1940s. The reason we all believe you're supposed to spend three month's salary on a diamond? Because the people selling the diamonds told us so. Aside from all that, it doesn't make good financial sense to purchase a diamond when you could put that money towards a down payment on a house or an amazing honeymoon. Even if you can afford it, spending thousands of dollars on a ring when there are so many charities you could be donating to instead seems immoral. Two more things: 1. Giving someone an expensive ring so they'll marry you feels a bit too much like buying a wife for my tastes 2. Women who wear diamonds come off as flashy and showoff-y Men should start refusing to buy such an outlandish overpriced gift just so women will agree to marry them, and women should start seeing diamond engagement rings for the load of shit that they are. Go ahead, change my view.

It is ridiculous to spend three months' salary on a diamond engagement ring. CMV. I have known for several years now that [diamonds are bullshit](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rohin-dhar/diamonds-are-bullshit_b_3708562.html). The "tradition" of giving a diamond as part of a marriage proposal was invented by a clever marketing campaign from the 1940s. The reason we all believe you're supposed to spend three month's salary on a diamond? Because the people selling the diamonds told us so. Aside from all that, it doesn't make good financial sense to purchase a diamond when you could put that money towards a down payment on a house or an amazing honeymoon. Even if you can afford it, spending thousands of dollars on a ring when there are so many charities you could be donating to instead seems immoral. Two more things: 1. Giving someone an expensive ring so they'll marry you feels a bit too much like buying a wife for my tastes 2. Women who wear diamonds come off as flashy and showoff-y Men should start refusing to buy such an outlandish overpriced gift just so women will agree to marry them, and women should start seeing diamond engagement rings for the load of shit that they are. Go ahead, change my view.

t3_3bu80x

CMV: The Supreme Court should be an undemocratic branch of the government

I am glad that SCOTUS is highly technocratic. It must be. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in *Marbury v. Madison* (1803), "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department **to say what the law is**." The purpose of the Court is the settle Constitutional questions. It is misunderstanding to say that the Court actually makes any policy decisions. Rather, they can only apply what has already been adopted into the Constitution. **They are the C3PO of the federal government.** When Jabba the Hut has an issue to settle, C3PO only acts as **messenger and interpreter**. He only tells Jabba what Luke Skywalker has to say. In order for the Court to accurately apply every principle of constitutional law, it must be composed of **experts who could not care less about public opinion or regional differences**. If the public has a constitutional issue, they can amend the constitution, but they cannot expect the Court to deviate from their role as messenger just as a means to a political end. _____ > *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 Supreme Court should be an undemocratic branch of the government. I am glad that SCOTUS is highly technocratic. It must be. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in *Marbury v. Madison* (1803), "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department **to say what the law is**." The purpose of the Court is the settle Constitutional questions. It is misunderstanding to say that the Court actually makes any policy decisions. Rather, they can only apply what has already been adopted into the Constitution. **They are the C3PO of the federal government.** When Jabba the Hut has an issue to settle, C3PO only acts as **messenger and interpreter**. He only tells Jabba what Luke Skywalker has to say. In order for the Court to accurately apply every principle of constitutional law, it must be composed of **experts who could not care less about public opinion or regional differences**. If the public has a constitutional issue, they can amend the constitution, but they cannot expect the Court to deviate from their role as messenger just as a means to a political end.

t3_3hdjdq

CMV: Bringing your kids to church is indoctrination and they shouldn't be allowed in any church until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves.

Disclaimer: I am very anti-theist so that's why I have such a negative thought of bringing your kids to church. Bringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice. At a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them. Thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered. I am not saying that they will never switch, it's just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered. I believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction (I will leave that age number up for debate). And not to make them not believe in religion, that violates the constitution. But to let them make the choice themselves, and purely by themselves. I know that the parents could just teach them about it, but hey, if some people are going to indoctrinate their child, might as well make them use their own time to do that. _____ > *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: Bringing your kids to church is indoctrination and they shouldn't be allowed in any church until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves. Disclaimer: I am very anti-theist so that's why I have such a negative thought of bringing your kids to church. Bringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice. At a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them. Thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered. I am not saying that they will never switch, it's just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered. I believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction (I will leave that age number up for debate). And not to make them not believe in religion, that violates the constitution. But to let them make the choice themselves, and purely by themselves. I know that the parents could just teach them about it, but hey, if some people are going to indoctrinate their child, might as well make them use their own time to do that.

t3_21sc3h

CMV: I believe that the US should put into law that the Scientific Method is the only recognizable source of research and development.

Abortion laws based religious on beliefs, stem cell research restricted for years due to the debate on "when life happens." Religion has entered into US Law and has begun a decline in the country. The separation of church and state means that we will never have a government centralized religion, but we also have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Freedom from religion means that laws that govern me and my family should have nothing to do with someone else's religious beliefs. I understand that I'm essentially debating two topics, but I believe they are intertwined. If the position of the United States was that laws pertaining to the rights of its citizens must be based on quantifiable research, this country would be in a much better place. Gay marriage, gun control, etc. should be based on peer reviewed studies that prove efficacy. CMV

CMV: I believe that the US should put into law that the Scientific Method is the only recognizable source of research and development. Abortion laws based religious on beliefs, stem cell research restricted for years due to the debate on "when life happens." Religion has entered into US Law and has begun a decline in the country. The separation of church and state means that we will never have a government centralized religion, but we also have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Freedom from religion means that laws that govern me and my family should have nothing to do with someone else's religious beliefs. I understand that I'm essentially debating two topics, but I believe they are intertwined. If the position of the United States was that laws pertaining to the rights of its citizens must be based on quantifiable research, this country would be in a much better place. Gay marriage, gun control, etc. should be based on peer reviewed studies that prove efficacy. CMV

t3_30xcys

[Mod Post] 2015 Update to Moderation Standards and Guidelines.

Hey, everyone: In an effort to make our rules and procedures clear and consistent, the mod team has done a yearly review of their comment removal and banning process. As a result, we're making the following reforms: **1. Rule 5 will remain a basis for a comment removal, but never for a ban.** We have a low effort rule because we want the rules of CMV to facilitate view-changing, and this most commonly occurs when people make posts that are "on point" and focused on OP's substantive view. We don't want threads cluttered by a top-voted comments and subsequent jokes, lolz, and written upvotes that are typically seen in other subreddits. Similarly, we remove comments that consist *only* of links to third-party sources. We likewise don't want CMV to become a debate-by-proxy, both because this is not a debate subreddit and because we want users to engage each other directly. Consequently, we prefer people at least summarize and apply the the third party source to OP's view. That said, this is mostly a housekeeping measure and most Rule 5s are well-intentioned. The mods don't think someone should be prohibited from posting in CMV on the basis of a Rule 5 violation, barring episodes where the low effort posts go part-and-parcel with acts of trolling and/or spamming. Therefore, users will no longer be banned based on a traditional rule 5 violation. **2. Any moderator who wants to vote for a ban must give a minimum one-line rationale for each past comment regarding why it should be held against the user (i.e., why each "strike" leading to the ban should count.)** CMV has a three-strikes rule, where three warnings for rule violations constitute grounds for a three-day ban. After a three-day ban, any rule violation is the basis for a permanent ban discussion. Comment removals constitute warnings, per our [moderation standards](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Every time someone is warned for breaking a rule, we keep a record of it. When a mod proposes a ban for a user based on their record, it requires at least two more mods to agree before the ban can occur. This is the case for both three-day bans and permanent bans. Typically, we discuss the merits of the proposal and then +1 in support or -1 against. This new procedure would require mods to look at a user's warning record and give a reason why each previous removal should be held against them in order for their +1 to count. We technically do a record overview already, but this requires mods to say "out loud" and with specificity which rules are applying to each removal and why. We're including this in our procedure because, in the past, we've had mods disagree over whether previous comments should have been removed and thus whether they should be held against a user today. Sometimes users don't appeal their comment removals so we don't get to discuss them as a group until the ban proceeding is initiated, or we have new mods with fresh eyes. This will allow us to front our concerns and disagreements over whether a ban is presently fair or not. It's intended to be a prophylactic against potentially and unintentionally unfair bans that can occur as users post here over time, and therefore have larger histories to comb through. Moreover, for users who technically have three strikes but one of them is a tenuous removal, we can at least message them and say "Hey, FYI, one more comment and it's a three day." It's just another way for us to ensure users have notice of where they stand. Trolling (e.g., multiple rule 2s within quick succession) and spamming will remain independent bases for a ban and are not subject to this change. We will be adding these to our moderation standards and guidelines. As always, please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about our moderation. Sincerely, CMV Mod Team

[Mod Post] 2015 Update to Moderation Standards and Guidelines. Hey, everyone: In an effort to make our rules and procedures clear and consistent, the mod team has done a yearly review of their comment removal and banning process. As a result, we're making the following reforms: **1. Rule 5 will remain a basis for a comment removal, but never for a ban.** We have a low effort rule because we want the rules of CMV to facilitate view-changing, and this most commonly occurs when people make posts that are "on point" and focused on OP's substantive view. We don't want threads cluttered by a top-voted comments and subsequent jokes, lolz, and written upvotes that are typically seen in other subreddits. Similarly, we remove comments that consist *only* of links to third-party sources. We likewise don't want CMV to become a debate-by-proxy, both because this is not a debate subreddit and because we want users to engage each other directly. Consequently, we prefer people at least summarize and apply the the third party source to OP's view. That said, this is mostly a housekeeping measure and most Rule 5s are well-intentioned. The mods don't think someone should be prohibited from posting in CMV on the basis of a Rule 5 violation, barring episodes where the low effort posts go part-and-parcel with acts of trolling and/or spamming. Therefore, users will no longer be banned based on a traditional rule 5 violation. **2. Any moderator who wants to vote for a ban must give a minimum one-line rationale for each past comment regarding why it should be held against the user (i.e., why each "strike" leading to the ban should count.)** CMV has a three-strikes rule, where three warnings for rule violations constitute grounds for a three-day ban. After a three-day ban, any rule violation is the basis for a permanent ban discussion. Comment removals constitute warnings, per our [moderation standards](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Every time someone is warned for breaking a rule, we keep a record of it. When a mod proposes a ban for a user based on their record, it requires at least two more mods to agree before the ban can occur. This is the case for both three-day bans and permanent bans. Typically, we discuss the merits of the proposal and then +1 in support or -1 against. This new procedure would require mods to look at a user's warning record and give a reason why each previous removal should be held against them in order for their +1 to count. We technically do a record overview already, but this requires mods to say "out loud" and with specificity which rules are applying to each removal and why. We're including this in our procedure because, in the past, we've had mods disagree over whether previous comments should have been removed and thus whether they should be held against a user today. Sometimes users don't appeal their comment removals so we don't get to discuss them as a group until the ban proceeding is initiated, or we have new mods with fresh eyes. This will allow us to front our concerns and disagreements over whether a ban is presently fair or not. It's intended to be a prophylactic against potentially and unintentionally unfair bans that can occur as users post here over time, and therefore have larger histories to comb through. Moreover, for users who technically have three strikes but one of them is a tenuous removal, we can at least message them and say "Hey, FYI, one more comment and it's a three day." It's just another way for us to ensure users have notice of where they stand. Trolling (e.g., multiple rule 2s within quick succession) and spamming will remain independent bases for a ban and are not subject to this change. We will be adding these to our moderation standards and guidelines. As always, please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about our moderation. Sincerely, CMV Mod Team

t3_6infil

CMV: Ads are an important part if the internet, and using adblock is an insult to website and content creators, and makes internet content much worse.

I'm posting this now, because lately I've seen a lot of discussion about adblock. People on Reddit specifically like to mention that they have an and blocker and don't know about an ad that's being discussed. Every time I see this, I get a little bit angry. Because I can only think of how much money is lost from the websites and those that make money off those websites. This first came about when I somehow had an adblocker installed, and this one website put a message where the ads used to be, explaining how the ad revenue was what kept the site alive, and allowed the site owner to produce new features and content. I immediately turned it off, and now I've seen the issue in other sites and media, like YouTube, and Reddit itself. People always complain about there either being a.) Too many bugs and not enough new features or b.) That you have to pay for something like a news subscription or bonus content. And this must be the most infuriating thing in the world, when you're struggling to meet people's demands, and an entire chunk of your consumers have just decided to opt out of your stream of revenue. People have always been fine with commercials, newspaper ads, magazine ads. But for some reason we as a society have decided that the Internet isn't important enough or something.

CMV: Ads are an important part if the internet, and using adblock is an insult to website and content creators, and makes internet content much worse. I'm posting this now, because lately I've seen a lot of discussion about adblock. People on Reddit specifically like to mention that they have an and blocker and don't know about an ad that's being discussed. Every time I see this, I get a little bit angry. Because I can only think of how much money is lost from the websites and those that make money off those websites. This first came about when I somehow had an adblocker installed, and this one website put a message where the ads used to be, explaining how the ad revenue was what kept the site alive, and allowed the site owner to produce new features and content. I immediately turned it off, and now I've seen the issue in other sites and media, like YouTube, and Reddit itself. People always complain about there either being a.) Too many bugs and not enough new features or b.) That you have to pay for something like a news subscription or bonus content. And this must be the most infuriating thing in the world, when you're struggling to meet people's demands, and an entire chunk of your consumers have just decided to opt out of your stream of revenue. People have always been fine with commercials, newspaper ads, magazine ads. But for some reason we as a society have decided that the Internet isn't important enough or something.

t3_1pxk7j

I don't think any drugs should be illegal. CMV

Personal, recreational drug use is a victim less crime, and yet the majority of our prisons are filled with these "criminals". I think that if anyone has a really bad problem with drugs, they should be sent to rehab only, not prison. I also believe that we should better educate our children about drugs and what they do to you. If kids knew how bad they were and how they can hurt you for the rest of your life, they may be less likely to try them. If photos of meth addicts were shown, maybe kids wouldn't think it would be cool to do it. Maybe it would be easier for people to get off the drugs if they were able to tell people in their life about it without fear of getting arrested. I hope you guys can change my view.

I don't think any drugs should be illegal. CMV. Personal, recreational drug use is a victim less crime, and yet the majority of our prisons are filled with these "criminals". I think that if anyone has a really bad problem with drugs, they should be sent to rehab only, not prison. I also believe that we should better educate our children about drugs and what they do to you. If kids knew how bad they were and how they can hurt you for the rest of your life, they may be less likely to try them. If photos of meth addicts were shown, maybe kids wouldn't think it would be cool to do it. Maybe it would be easier for people to get off the drugs if they were able to tell people in their life about it without fear of getting arrested. I hope you guys can change my view.

t3_27nq0c

CMV: The unsalted kettle chip is the superior type of potato chip.

I contend that the below are true: * There are only two ingredients used: oil, and the potato itself. This is an excellent recipe. Free of adulterants of any kind, the chip is both healthier and safer for those with specific allergies. The simplicity is a point of respect for the maker of these chips, because the recipe is very difficult to replicate despite its simplicity. * Your ordinary potato chip has less of a rigid crunch than the kettle chip, giving it less character and making it fail to punctuate its flavor in comparison to the kettle chip. * Kettle chips can be purchased directly from Kettle, which cuts the middle man and results in additional profit for Kettle. This makes their consumption morally superior to other brands of chips. * Due to their rigidity, the kettle chip lends itself to scooping aqueous foods such as tomato sauce or cheese dip in a superior manner compared to many other chips. I have not once experienced a kettle chip succumb to the immense weight of another substance, and the same cannot be said of Lays, for example. * Kettle chips are associated with the American South and West, which have historically been places of intrigue and frontier. With proper forethought, eating a kettle chip is evocative of feelings of adventure and wonder, which leads to happiness and new discoveries in the field of science. * Most potato chip brands break apart easily when handled and thus leave small residue. The unsalted and rigid nature of this particular chip enables it to not do so, which is both convenient and reflective of proper ethical views regarding cleanliness. * Kettle chips are thinly cut and most are a similar size to one another, allowing serving sizes to be more properly regulated. This encourages proper dieting due to its ease. * No other extant brand of chip sports all these characteristics simultaneously.

CMV: The unsalted kettle chip is the superior type of potato chip. I contend that the below are true: * There are only two ingredients used: oil, and the potato itself. This is an excellent recipe. Free of adulterants of any kind, the chip is both healthier and safer for those with specific allergies. The simplicity is a point of respect for the maker of these chips, because the recipe is very difficult to replicate despite its simplicity. * Your ordinary potato chip has less of a rigid crunch than the kettle chip, giving it less character and making it fail to punctuate its flavor in comparison to the kettle chip. * Kettle chips can be purchased directly from Kettle, which cuts the middle man and results in additional profit for Kettle. This makes their consumption morally superior to other brands of chips. * Due to their rigidity, the kettle chip lends itself to scooping aqueous foods such as tomato sauce or cheese dip in a superior manner compared to many other chips. I have not once experienced a kettle chip succumb to the immense weight of another substance, and the same cannot be said of Lays, for example. * Kettle chips are associated with the American South and West, which have historically been places of intrigue and frontier. With proper forethought, eating a kettle chip is evocative of feelings of adventure and wonder, which leads to happiness and new discoveries in the field of science. * Most potato chip brands break apart easily when handled and thus leave small residue. The unsalted and rigid nature of this particular chip enables it to not do so, which is both convenient and reflective of proper ethical views regarding cleanliness. * Kettle chips are thinly cut and most are a similar size to one another, allowing serving sizes to be more properly regulated. This encourages proper dieting due to its ease. * No other extant brand of chip sports all these characteristics simultaneously.

t3_27arev

CMV: Wikipedia is the single most impressive collection of data mankind has ever put together.

Suppose our species was wiped off the face of the earth. What better tool could aliens possibly use to gain better insight about mankind? Wikipedia may not be 100% reliable, but it offers a general explanation to almost all of human (and earth's) history. No other resource ever created offers more information about us as a species. In my opinion, this is the single greatest collaboration of information that mankind has collectively put together. Some may argue that the internet as a whole clearly trumps a single source. So for the sake of my argument I would like to keep this discussion limited to one single resource. CMV

CMV: Wikipedia is the single most impressive collection of data mankind has ever put together. Suppose our species was wiped off the face of the earth. What better tool could aliens possibly use to gain better insight about mankind? Wikipedia may not be 100% reliable, but it offers a general explanation to almost all of human (and earth's) history. No other resource ever created offers more information about us as a species. In my opinion, this is the single greatest collaboration of information that mankind has collectively put together. Some may argue that the internet as a whole clearly trumps a single source. So for the sake of my argument I would like to keep this discussion limited to one single resource. CMV

t3_2po3vf

CMV: It's pointless for friends with benefits to agree not to fall in love.

You often see in rom-com movies that two people agree to become friends with benefits on the condition that neither falls in love with the other - *and the rest of the plot unfolds with a tedious inevitability* - and this is reflected in real life ***edit for clarity: in real life it's not necessarily stated as explicitly as in film*** (whether real life got it from movies or the other way round is a chicken & egg sorta thing). This agreement is pointless for a number of reasons: If one (or both) is going to fall in love, no agreement is going to stop it from happening. The one who does fall in love (or both of them if neither says anything) is going to be miserable. Even if they are able to hold back on falling in love somewhat, it's still going to leave them worse off, as it's going to cause a delayed, painful ending rather than a clean break. If they both fall in love it's just ~~Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis wasting an hour and a half of my life~~ causing them to waste time that they could have been together or even prevent them from ever starting an actual relationship. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It's pointless for friends with benefits to agree not to fall in love. You often see in rom-com movies that two people agree to become friends with benefits on the condition that neither falls in love with the other - *and the rest of the plot unfolds with a tedious inevitability* - and this is reflected in real life ***edit for clarity: in real life it's not necessarily stated as explicitly as in film*** (whether real life got it from movies or the other way round is a chicken & egg sorta thing). This agreement is pointless for a number of reasons: If one (or both) is going to fall in love, no agreement is going to stop it from happening. The one who does fall in love (or both of them if neither says anything) is going to be miserable. Even if they are able to hold back on falling in love somewhat, it's still going to leave them worse off, as it's going to cause a delayed, painful ending rather than a clean break. If they both fall in love it's just ~~Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis wasting an hour and a half of my life~~ causing them to waste time that they could have been together or even prevent them from ever starting an actual relationship.

t3_2pmgsy

CMV: there is no legitimate reason for me NOT to take my fiancés last name when we get married.

The way I view it, marriage is and always has been a partnership. I, as a woman, leave my old family (name wise at least), and create a new one with my future husband. Keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about. I feel it is selfish because your last name doesn't only affect you. It also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family. If you are going to consider this other person family, one person (doesn't necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition) had ought to change their name to reflect that.

CMV: there is no legitimate reason for me NOT to take my fiancés last name when we get married. The way I view it, marriage is and always has been a partnership. I, as a woman, leave my old family (name wise at least), and create a new one with my future husband. Keeping my last name, to me, would indicate an innate selfishness and denotes a bit of uncertainty as to my intention to remain with my partner for life, which is what marriage is about. I feel it is selfish because your last name doesn't only affect you. It also affects your children when and if you have them by denoting a degree of separatness from the family. If you are going to consider this other person family, one person (doesn't necessarily have to be the wife, though that is the tradition) had ought to change their name to reflect that.

t3_6uq0tw

CMV: My best friend has no right to date my ex-husband.

When I split from my high school sweetheart after 11 years together, 2 years married, my maid of honor was at a bar with him making him feel better while I hauled every box and bag of stuff out to my car alone. (I had checked Find Friends and saw they were in the same gps location). That was the first big sign I ignored and let pass because we were all friends and I figured since I had been the one who wanted to leave the marriage first, I felt I didn't deserve sympathy from anyone. Throughout the year, she kept hanging out with him and our old mutual gang. We saw each other less and less because she felt awkward inviting me. A year after, at a community orchestra reception we played in together, she said that they decided to see if there was anything there. For the past 6 months I have been in agony feeling all kinds of emotions: betrayal, loneliness, heartbreak, anger, depression. When I say she was my best friend, she really was. We were inseparable. We even have a "couples" tattoo, an elephant on our wrists that face one another when our wrists touch. Change my view because I am slipping further and further into insanity. EDIT: instead of using the phrase "I strayed" i changed it to "wanted to leave" because it's being misconstrued as cheating.

CMV: My best friend has no right to date my ex-husband. When I split from my high school sweetheart after 11 years together, 2 years married, my maid of honor was at a bar with him making him feel better while I hauled every box and bag of stuff out to my car alone. (I had checked Find Friends and saw they were in the same gps location). That was the first big sign I ignored and let pass because we were all friends and I figured since I had been the one who wanted to leave the marriage first, I felt I didn't deserve sympathy from anyone. Throughout the year, she kept hanging out with him and our old mutual gang. We saw each other less and less because she felt awkward inviting me. A year after, at a community orchestra reception we played in together, she said that they decided to see if there was anything there. For the past 6 months I have been in agony feeling all kinds of emotions: betrayal, loneliness, heartbreak, anger, depression. When I say she was my best friend, she really was. We were inseparable. We even have a "couples" tattoo, an elephant on our wrists that face one another when our wrists touch. Change my view because I am slipping further and further into insanity. EDIT: instead of using the phrase "I strayed" i changed it to "wanted to leave" because it's being misconstrued as cheating.

t3_39m849

CMV: Mirrorless cameras are the future of the professional/non-casual photography

Over the past 5 years, the level of improvements in mirrorless has far outpaced that of DSLR. Some pros have already given up their Canons and Nikons for Sony's a7r. Some of the best mini video cameras are actually MFT cameras. Mirrorless cameras are much lighter and more convenient to use than DSLRs. They have almost everything DSLRs bodies have now; indeed full-frame mirrorless is now generating images with the same quality as DSLR. Mirrorless is also cheaper, though that's just a minor advantage. IMO once the lens situation improves for mirrorless, and once a good optical (or optical-like) viewfinder shows up for mirrorless, it will be all over for DSLR in the long term. DSLRs will become strictly worse than mirrorless, even if only for the bulkiness, and most professional and prosumer photographers will switch to mirrorless for their next generation of gear. DSLRs will stick around for a while due to inertia and the superior Nikon/Canon support services, but 20-30 years down the line most serious photographers will be using the much more compact mirrorless cameras. I think in 50 years DSLR will be 100% niche. Please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Mirrorless cameras are the future of the professional/non-casual photography. Over the past 5 years, the level of improvements in mirrorless has far outpaced that of DSLR. Some pros have already given up their Canons and Nikons for Sony's a7r. Some of the best mini video cameras are actually MFT cameras. Mirrorless cameras are much lighter and more convenient to use than DSLRs. They have almost everything DSLRs bodies have now; indeed full-frame mirrorless is now generating images with the same quality as DSLR. Mirrorless is also cheaper, though that's just a minor advantage. IMO once the lens situation improves for mirrorless, and once a good optical (or optical-like) viewfinder shows up for mirrorless, it will be all over for DSLR in the long term. DSLRs will become strictly worse than mirrorless, even if only for the bulkiness, and most professional and prosumer photographers will switch to mirrorless for their next generation of gear. DSLRs will stick around for a while due to inertia and the superior Nikon/Canon support services, but 20-30 years down the line most serious photographers will be using the much more compact mirrorless cameras. I think in 50 years DSLR will be 100% niche. Please CMV.

t3_1x4wkh

All the angst over "income inequality" is misguided and based ignorance. All men are not "created equal" CMV

I'm not going to defend the uber-rich here, nor am I defending those who become wealthy by dishonest means. But poor people aren't poor because rich people are rich. One of things recently covered in the media (I forget where) is how college-educated women are marrying college-educated men, creating some of the inequality that wasn't there in the past. In addition, there's the realization of long-term wealth gains from educated/well-off couples creating educated and well-off children. Meanwhile, on the other side, the problems of poverty and mental illness are handed down generation after generation. I've spent a great deal of my adult life administering government benefits, and I can tell you, unless you have direct experience, you cannot imagine the sort of problems the poor (most of them) have. They are not like you. For the most part, they do not have the skills (self-control, self-reliance, the ability to delay gratification, etc.) that you take for granted. Many of them have mental disorders and/or personality disorders. There's also the issue of many of them being severely intellectually challenged. Some people are just smarter than others. As Americans, we like to believe that people are created equal, but they're not, and that is the true source of income inequality. Change my view. Edit: obviously I left out the word "on". My basic thesis here (not well-stated, I'll admit) is that income inequality is a symptom, not a cause, and that the real problem is that people are not equal in their abilities. Most of you have given me some points to ponder. Edit:It's sad that some of you have assumed I some sort of Ayn Rand devotee who proposes some sort of "survival of the fittest" society, just because I had the nerve to state the obvious- people are not equal. It doesn't matter what environment you put me in, how hard I work, or what "structural advantages" I might have, I will NEVER, EVER, be able to dunk a basketball. My legs are 30". Not gonna happen. On the other hand, I have a very, very good memory, and what can only be characterized as a "plus-sized" head. If you don't think there's a relationship between brain size and memory, and leg length and the ability to dunk a basketball, then you're just being foolish. I'm OK with income redistribution in principle. But, frankly, I don't think it's going to work. People are not poor because of the money they don't make. They're poor because of the money they don't keep.

All the angst over "income inequality" is misguided and based ignorance. All men are not "created equal" CMV. I'm not going to defend the uber-rich here, nor am I defending those who become wealthy by dishonest means. But poor people aren't poor because rich people are rich. One of things recently covered in the media (I forget where) is how college-educated women are marrying college-educated men, creating some of the inequality that wasn't there in the past. In addition, there's the realization of long-term wealth gains from educated/well-off couples creating educated and well-off children. Meanwhile, on the other side, the problems of poverty and mental illness are handed down generation after generation. I've spent a great deal of my adult life administering government benefits, and I can tell you, unless you have direct experience, you cannot imagine the sort of problems the poor (most of them) have. They are not like you. For the most part, they do not have the skills (self-control, self-reliance, the ability to delay gratification, etc.) that you take for granted. Many of them have mental disorders and/or personality disorders. There's also the issue of many of them being severely intellectually challenged. Some people are just smarter than others. As Americans, we like to believe that people are created equal, but they're not, and that is the true source of income inequality. Change my view. Edit: obviously I left out the word "on". My basic thesis here (not well-stated, I'll admit) is that income inequality is a symptom, not a cause, and that the real problem is that people are not equal in their abilities. Most of you have given me some points to ponder. Edit:It's sad that some of you have assumed I some sort of Ayn Rand devotee who proposes some sort of "survival of the fittest" society, just because I had the nerve to state the obvious- people are not equal. It doesn't matter what environment you put me in, how hard I work, or what "structural advantages" I might have, I will NEVER, EVER, be able to dunk a basketball. My legs are 30". Not gonna happen. On the other hand, I have a very, very good memory, and what can only be characterized as a "plus-sized" head. If you don't think there's a relationship between brain size and memory, and leg length and the ability to dunk a basketball, then you're just being foolish. I'm OK with income redistribution in principle. But, frankly, I don't think it's going to work. People are not poor because of the money they don't make. They're poor because of the money they don't keep.

t3_2ctrve

CMV: The school grading system sucks.

The current system, with an absolute minimum and maximum does very little to incentivise good performance. It encourages a type of thinking that "I want X grade", where X is usually either the minimum or the maximum. Doesn't matter whether it's percentages, or out of 5, or A/B/C/D/F, or whatever. It's all the same shit. I know it sounds arrogant to say I could think of something better off the top of my head, but I honestly think I can (at least for pre-secondary): Students acquire "points" for doing assignments (which can be anything. Homework, tests, etc.). Quick, easy assignments are worth less than long, difficult assignments. Any student is allowed to take on any assignment K-12, at any time, as many times as they like. If they get a better score than they previously did, it replaces their old one, which encourages perfectionism/mastery. Now, that system might encourage doing lots of quick easy assignments over long, serious ones, but I think this is just a question of fine-tuning/balance. There's only so many kindergarten assignments you can do, and even if you get all of those perfectly, that's not going to compensate for your poor ranking in first grade. However, if you manage to catch up by second grade and even take a few third grade assignments, that should more than compensate for your earlier failures. You're still welcome to perfect your first grade knowledge if you so choose, but that shouldn't make much difference to your rank, reflecting how relatively easy it should be for you now. On top of this, your own achievements can be made relative to those of your classmates. If an assignment consistently yields low scores, then that assignment will be worth more points. If an assignment is easy for pretty much everyone, then it's not worth as much. This DOES NOT absolutely determine the value of an assignment. It's only used to weigh it in one direction or another. The "Nobody took the test so it must be worth a lot" problem is also avoided because points are only additive. Until you take the test, you get zero points. Since it would be momentarily weighed in your favor, you'd be quite willing to take the test. Of course, others are thinking the same thing, so they're also willing to take the test, which makes the weights all the more accurate. There. That system: * Is more competitive by allowing you to always one-up your classmates, at least by some tiny margin. * Encourages overachieving by removing the ceiling. * Assigns greater value to diligence, as opposed to "pure performance". * Makes "performance" less arbitrary. It's not a metric determined purely by the teacher. * Removes arbitrary cutoffs like "90% - A, 89% - B" * Smooths the transition between school years. If a complete moron like myself can think of a better system while taking a shower, then surely it should be easy to implement new, infinitely better systems with enough planning and initiative. I see no legitimate reason for keeping the current school grading system as it is. I actually think pretty much the entire primary school system needs a complete revamp, but writing out a complete replacement system would probably take up a book or two, so I'm just going to argue this particular aspect for now. :P _____ > *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 school grading system sucks. The current system, with an absolute minimum and maximum does very little to incentivise good performance. It encourages a type of thinking that "I want X grade", where X is usually either the minimum or the maximum. Doesn't matter whether it's percentages, or out of 5, or A/B/C/D/F, or whatever. It's all the same shit. I know it sounds arrogant to say I could think of something better off the top of my head, but I honestly think I can (at least for pre-secondary): Students acquire "points" for doing assignments (which can be anything. Homework, tests, etc.). Quick, easy assignments are worth less than long, difficult assignments. Any student is allowed to take on any assignment K-12, at any time, as many times as they like. If they get a better score than they previously did, it replaces their old one, which encourages perfectionism/mastery. Now, that system might encourage doing lots of quick easy assignments over long, serious ones, but I think this is just a question of fine-tuning/balance. There's only so many kindergarten assignments you can do, and even if you get all of those perfectly, that's not going to compensate for your poor ranking in first grade. However, if you manage to catch up by second grade and even take a few third grade assignments, that should more than compensate for your earlier failures. You're still welcome to perfect your first grade knowledge if you so choose, but that shouldn't make much difference to your rank, reflecting how relatively easy it should be for you now. On top of this, your own achievements can be made relative to those of your classmates. If an assignment consistently yields low scores, then that assignment will be worth more points. If an assignment is easy for pretty much everyone, then it's not worth as much. This DOES NOT absolutely determine the value of an assignment. It's only used to weigh it in one direction or another. The "Nobody took the test so it must be worth a lot" problem is also avoided because points are only additive. Until you take the test, you get zero points. Since it would be momentarily weighed in your favor, you'd be quite willing to take the test. Of course, others are thinking the same thing, so they're also willing to take the test, which makes the weights all the more accurate. There. That system: * Is more competitive by allowing you to always one-up your classmates, at least by some tiny margin. * Encourages overachieving by removing the ceiling. * Assigns greater value to diligence, as opposed to "pure performance". * Makes "performance" less arbitrary. It's not a metric determined purely by the teacher. * Removes arbitrary cutoffs like "90% - A, 89% - B" * Smooths the transition between school years. If a complete moron like myself can think of a better system while taking a shower, then surely it should be easy to implement new, infinitely better systems with enough planning and initiative. I see no legitimate reason for keeping the current school grading system as it is. I actually think pretty much the entire primary school system needs a complete revamp, but writing out a complete replacement system would probably take up a book or two, so I'm just going to argue this particular aspect for now. :P

t3_1teuwq

I believe that ADHD is a made up/overdiagnosed disease with its main purpose being to make drug companies money. CMV

When I was younger, I was diagnosed with ADHD because I liked to talk a lot in my elementary school class. I took medicine for it which supposedly 'fixed me' but I couldn't tell the difference.As I grew older I just stopped taking it because I felt it was a waste of money, and have a lot of friends who were diagnosed ADHD/ADD who seem perfectly normal to me. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't understand the subtleties of the disease, but to me ADHD seems like a white, middle-class male disease that is diagnosed to make parents worried about their children's future cough up a lot of money to cure their natural youthful hyperactivity.

I believe that ADHD is a made up/overdiagnosed disease with its main purpose being to make drug companies money. CMV. When I was younger, I was diagnosed with ADHD because I liked to talk a lot in my elementary school class. I took medicine for it which supposedly 'fixed me' but I couldn't tell the difference.As I grew older I just stopped taking it because I felt it was a waste of money, and have a lot of friends who were diagnosed ADHD/ADD who seem perfectly normal to me. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't understand the subtleties of the disease, but to me ADHD seems like a white, middle-class male disease that is diagnosed to make parents worried about their children's future cough up a lot of money to cure their natural youthful hyperactivity.

t3_479pzt

CMV: Active Consent "Yes Means Yes" policies are a good goal to aim for with sexual relations but should not be law or used as official policy.

Affirmative consent is bad policy and bad law. I am ready for your hate. I think the affirmative/active consent "Yes Means Yes" doctrine is a very good thing to support in order to get people to really understand what consent means. I fully support educational programs that set this as a goal for people to reach. Just one problem: I severely doubt even the people that formulate such policies practice this kind of consent every time at every stage of sex. Oh sure they've done it a few times, but likely not even 20 percent of the time if they even break double digits. And if that's true for the people formulating the policy, imagine what's true for the average person. This means that any law or policy based on active consent ensures that every sexually active woman and man is technically either a criminal guilty of sexual assault or eligible for immediate dismissal from their job, school, or organization. Wake up your boyfriend with a blow job while he's asleep? You didn't ask: sexual offender. Walk up behind your girlfriend and stroke her breasts seductively? You didn't ask: sexual offender. Licked a nipple on the way down to the head you verbally agreed to give? Separate act that needs specific (not assumed) consent: sexual offender. On and on you can go with examples like this. And any policy/law that makes literally every sexually active person, including the people that proposed it, a criminal is a bad law/policy. You might object with cases where the person was unconscious and the perp said "She's didn't say no, so...." But a reasonable person standard would be more useful in those contexts than a law that ensures the victim in such a case was also at one time or will one day be a perp herself, technically. Again, I think "Yes Means yes" is a good educational tool and thing to strive for in our society, but not when it comes to law where it makes us all offenders. TL/DR: Any law that even the people that proposed it don't/can't follow is a bad law.

CMV: Active Consent "Yes Means Yes" policies are a good goal to aim for with sexual relations but should not be law or used as official policy. Affirmative consent is bad policy and bad law. I am ready for your hate. I think the affirmative/active consent "Yes Means Yes" doctrine is a very good thing to support in order to get people to really understand what consent means. I fully support educational programs that set this as a goal for people to reach. Just one problem: I severely doubt even the people that formulate such policies practice this kind of consent every time at every stage of sex. Oh sure they've done it a few times, but likely not even 20 percent of the time if they even break double digits. And if that's true for the people formulating the policy, imagine what's true for the average person. This means that any law or policy based on active consent ensures that every sexually active woman and man is technically either a criminal guilty of sexual assault or eligible for immediate dismissal from their job, school, or organization. Wake up your boyfriend with a blow job while he's asleep? You didn't ask: sexual offender. Walk up behind your girlfriend and stroke her breasts seductively? You didn't ask: sexual offender. Licked a nipple on the way down to the head you verbally agreed to give? Separate act that needs specific (not assumed) consent: sexual offender. On and on you can go with examples like this. And any policy/law that makes literally every sexually active person, including the people that proposed it, a criminal is a bad law/policy. You might object with cases where the person was unconscious and the perp said "She's didn't say no, so...." But a reasonable person standard would be more useful in those contexts than a law that ensures the victim in such a case was also at one time or will one day be a perp herself, technically. Again, I think "Yes Means yes" is a good educational tool and thing to strive for in our society, but not when it comes to law where it makes us all offenders. TL/DR: Any law that even the people that proposed it don't/can't follow is a bad law.

t3_1o9oyd

I believe gaming DRM is a good thing and the future. CMV.

I've always been a massive fan of the steam system and was really excited when xbox announced they'd do it. Now I do think they could of worked on their offline play a little better but it's 2013 and the dvd drive HAS to go. Dvds are outdated and create complications and limitations with developing a game. They're slow to process and hold barely any space compared to a hdd/sdd. Why us everyone so obsessed with cd/dvds? People do need to remember when purchasing a game you aren't buying the game, you are buying a license to play the game and the developer can add whatever terms they want to it. EDIT: To avoid confusing, by DRM, i mean the system where you purchase a game, it's downloaded and locked to a single account.

I believe gaming DRM is a good thing and the future. CMV. I've always been a massive fan of the steam system and was really excited when xbox announced they'd do it. Now I do think they could of worked on their offline play a little better but it's 2013 and the dvd drive HAS to go. Dvds are outdated and create complications and limitations with developing a game. They're slow to process and hold barely any space compared to a hdd/sdd. Why us everyone so obsessed with cd/dvds? People do need to remember when purchasing a game you aren't buying the game, you are buying a license to play the game and the developer can add whatever terms they want to it. EDIT: To avoid confusing, by DRM, i mean the system where you purchase a game, it's downloaded and locked to a single account.

t3_1z75tg

Most Muffins are just Cupcakes full of lies. CMV

My viewpoint is based upon what I believe to be three fundamental truths about Cupcakes and Muffins: 1. There is a distinc difference between a Cupcake and Muffin. 2. Muffins are seen in our culture as being the healthier option of the two. Just the word itself carries with it a suggestion of sorts that the confection is guaranteed to be at least moderately good for you. 3. Cupcakes are seen in our culture as being the less healthy option of the two. Just the word itself carries with it a suggestion of sorts that the confection you will be eating is guaranteed to be pretty bad for you. With this in mind, I think it's incredibly irresponsible and dishonest for coffee shops and bakeries to market their cupcakes as muffins. Obviously people should be responsible for what they put into their own bodies, and should be more informed about what it is exactly that they're eating, but because of this constant cupcake / muffin mismarketting debaccle I feel western culture as a whole has been lead to believe -- erroneously of course -- that muffins will have less impact on their well-being than cupcakes, this is why muffins are so widely accepted as breakfast food, and not cupcakes when in reality the two couldnt be more similar. **The Differences** Because of this cultural misinformation, I'm sure many people are confused as to the difference between the cupcake and the muffin. Muffins, historically, started off as savoury, wheaty quick breads that were often eaten as breakfast, or brunch foods. They are created with the dry, and wet ingredients mixed seperatly, and then combined before baking. The muffin started as a rural food, as most of the ingredients were grown by, and available to farmers / the lower class. Cupcakes date back to around the early 19th century, and were simply just an easier, more convenient way for the upper class to enjoy cake. Cupcakes are created using the "creaming" method in baking, and are literally just small sweet, sugary cakes. The greatest distinction between the two is the fact that one is cake, and the other is a bread which typically uses wheat, with yeast to rise. My issue with this whole thing is that it's more or less just a personal annoyance that the word Muffin has come to mean "Cupcake that we don't want you to think of as a cupcake" in North America. Please CMV.

Most Muffins are just Cupcakes full of lies. CMV. My viewpoint is based upon what I believe to be three fundamental truths about Cupcakes and Muffins: 1. There is a distinc difference between a Cupcake and Muffin. 2. Muffins are seen in our culture as being the healthier option of the two. Just the word itself carries with it a suggestion of sorts that the confection is guaranteed to be at least moderately good for you. 3. Cupcakes are seen in our culture as being the less healthy option of the two. Just the word itself carries with it a suggestion of sorts that the confection you will be eating is guaranteed to be pretty bad for you. With this in mind, I think it's incredibly irresponsible and dishonest for coffee shops and bakeries to market their cupcakes as muffins. Obviously people should be responsible for what they put into their own bodies, and should be more informed about what it is exactly that they're eating, but because of this constant cupcake / muffin mismarketting debaccle I feel western culture as a whole has been lead to believe -- erroneously of course -- that muffins will have less impact on their well-being than cupcakes, this is why muffins are so widely accepted as breakfast food, and not cupcakes when in reality the two couldnt be more similar. **The Differences** Because of this cultural misinformation, I'm sure many people are confused as to the difference between the cupcake and the muffin. Muffins, historically, started off as savoury, wheaty quick breads that were often eaten as breakfast, or brunch foods. They are created with the dry, and wet ingredients mixed seperatly, and then combined before baking. The muffin started as a rural food, as most of the ingredients were grown by, and available to farmers / the lower class. Cupcakes date back to around the early 19th century, and were simply just an easier, more convenient way for the upper class to enjoy cake. Cupcakes are created using the "creaming" method in baking, and are literally just small sweet, sugary cakes. The greatest distinction between the two is the fact that one is cake, and the other is a bread which typically uses wheat, with yeast to rise. My issue with this whole thing is that it's more or less just a personal annoyance that the word Muffin has come to mean "Cupcake that we don't want you to think of as a cupcake" in North America. Please CMV.

t3_3dsac0

CMV: Adding arts to STEM to make STEAM is a step backwards for education

I've noticed that STEM has been slowly turning into STEAM and think that by adding art we are losing focus on what is important. The focus on STEM, I believe, was to make up for our lack of qualified job candidates in important fields. Adding arts into the equation makes the focus be the status quo. While I understand arts impact is important to our culture, I don't think that adding that focus will help us create qualified candidates for the vacant job positions. Our society needs more engineers and less film studies majors working in call centers. Change my view.

CMV: Adding arts to STEM to make STEAM is a step backwards for education. I've noticed that STEM has been slowly turning into STEAM and think that by adding art we are losing focus on what is important. The focus on STEM, I believe, was to make up for our lack of qualified job candidates in important fields. Adding arts into the equation makes the focus be the status quo. While I understand arts impact is important to our culture, I don't think that adding that focus will help us create qualified candidates for the vacant job positions. Our society needs more engineers and less film studies majors working in call centers. Change my view.

t3_262nky

CMV: an Axe Party would be highly successful in the 2014 US political climate

Inspired by this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/261zm6/cmv_gerrymandering_more_than_any_other_single/ I had a pretty infectious thought and having mentioned it to a handful of coworkers, I think it would be utterly electric in US politics this season. An Axe party (as in "axe em all!") would support candidates with 3 things: 1) No more than 2 prior terms in the seat they are running for. Self-interested, incumbent politicians are the biggest thing currently holding down our legislative houses. 2) Signed commitment to support a proportional electoral system with your vote. Anything is better than the current system and we need people dedicated to changing it. 3) Signed commitment that you will give up your seat after 2 terms whatever the current requirement of the law may be. Every person I have mentioned this to is highly supportive regardless of political affiliation. Candidates could be Democrat or Republican, neither of those political affiliations inherently disagree with the 3 principles of the axe party. Voters are sick of long term incumbent politicians who continually value money over the opinion of their constituents. People feel very disengaged from the current political scene and don't identify with the politicians representing them. This gives an outlet and encourages political activism. Tell me this wouldn't work. _____ > *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: an Axe Party would be highly successful in the 2014 US political climate. Inspired by this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/261zm6/cmv_gerrymandering_more_than_any_other_single/ I had a pretty infectious thought and having mentioned it to a handful of coworkers, I think it would be utterly electric in US politics this season. An Axe party (as in "axe em all!") would support candidates with 3 things: 1) No more than 2 prior terms in the seat they are running for. Self-interested, incumbent politicians are the biggest thing currently holding down our legislative houses. 2) Signed commitment to support a proportional electoral system with your vote. Anything is better than the current system and we need people dedicated to changing it. 3) Signed commitment that you will give up your seat after 2 terms whatever the current requirement of the law may be. Every person I have mentioned this to is highly supportive regardless of political affiliation. Candidates could be Democrat or Republican, neither of those political affiliations inherently disagree with the 3 principles of the axe party. Voters are sick of long term incumbent politicians who continually value money over the opinion of their constituents. People feel very disengaged from the current political scene and don't identify with the politicians representing them. This gives an outlet and encourages political activism. Tell me this wouldn't work.

t3_477rux

CMV: Supply/Demand analysis and equilibrium pricing are fundamentally flawed and in favor of the price-setter. Price ceilings above break-even are beneficial.

The general idea in supply/demand analysis is that the point where the supply and demand curves meet (the equilibrium price) is the "real value" of the product and the price that should be set for that product. My view is that this price is certainly the most efficient price in terms of make a profit for the business, but it is not the best price to create the greatest benefit for society overall. I believe that a price which is lower than equilibrium, but still high enough that it is above break-even is always better for society. In other words, a price-ceiling is beneficial to the economy. Defense 1: In supply/demand analysis, it is assumed that the amount which the supplier is willing to supply will drop as the price drops. I contend that this is only true when the price drops below break-even (where cost to produce > price). So long as a profit is being made on the production, it makes sense for the business to produce enough meet demand for that price. Thus, a price ceiling does not create a real gap between supply and demand assuming it is above break-even. Defense 2: A price set closer to the break-even point provides greater societal benefit. A lower price point means more people willing to buy which means more people benefiting from the product. It also means less siphoning of wealth from the bottom to the top. Defense 3: Price ceilings allow for monopolies to exist without fear of price gouging. This means that the most efficient businesses can grow to their highest potential and gain the maximum benefit from economies-of-scale. To change my view: Prove that a business's willingness to produce and sell a product will actually decrease if a price ceiling is set on their product which is above the break-even point. Prove that a business making less profit (bonus money in the pocket of the owners) is somehow more beneficial for society than spreading the benefit of the products to more people for cheaper. Prove that a price ceiling does not cause a naturally occurring monopoly to be better than forced competition of smaller businesses. Update: I have been informed (and awarded deltas) that supply/demand analysis assumes perfect competition, and thus is not flawed. The flaw resides in the assumption that perfect competition exists in reality. My view stands that price ceilings are beneficial where prices are artificially high due to lack of competition. _____ > *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: Supply/Demand analysis and equilibrium pricing are fundamentally flawed and in favor of the price-setter. Price ceilings above break-even are beneficial. The general idea in supply/demand analysis is that the point where the supply and demand curves meet (the equilibrium price) is the "real value" of the product and the price that should be set for that product. My view is that this price is certainly the most efficient price in terms of make a profit for the business, but it is not the best price to create the greatest benefit for society overall. I believe that a price which is lower than equilibrium, but still high enough that it is above break-even is always better for society. In other words, a price-ceiling is beneficial to the economy. Defense 1: In supply/demand analysis, it is assumed that the amount which the supplier is willing to supply will drop as the price drops. I contend that this is only true when the price drops below break-even (where cost to produce > price). So long as a profit is being made on the production, it makes sense for the business to produce enough meet demand for that price. Thus, a price ceiling does not create a real gap between supply and demand assuming it is above break-even. Defense 2: A price set closer to the break-even point provides greater societal benefit. A lower price point means more people willing to buy which means more people benefiting from the product. It also means less siphoning of wealth from the bottom to the top. Defense 3: Price ceilings allow for monopolies to exist without fear of price gouging. This means that the most efficient businesses can grow to their highest potential and gain the maximum benefit from economies-of-scale. To change my view: Prove that a business's willingness to produce and sell a product will actually decrease if a price ceiling is set on their product which is above the break-even point. Prove that a business making less profit (bonus money in the pocket of the owners) is somehow more beneficial for society than spreading the benefit of the products to more people for cheaper. Prove that a price ceiling does not cause a naturally occurring monopoly to be better than forced competition of smaller businesses. Update: I have been informed (and awarded deltas) that supply/demand analysis assumes perfect competition, and thus is not flawed. The flaw resides in the assumption that perfect competition exists in reality. My view stands that price ceilings are beneficial where prices are artificially high due to lack of competition.

t3_5t1xkp

CMV: Title IX sexual assault tribunals, while perhaps not illegal or unconstitutional, are clearly in violation of the spirit of our judicial system.

I've been doing some catch-up on the politics in my home state (Georgia), and I started reading about and then reading [HB 51](http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/51). The bill has two main goals: to make university faculty mandatory reporters for sexual assault, and to forbid universities from opening Title IX tribunals until law enforcement has begun a criminal investigation. While I think the first part is both stupid and paternalistic (Why take away the victim's choice?) I agree wholeheartedly with the second. My reasons are: 1. Title IX courts operate with very little oversight, compared with the legal system. The standard of evidence is often far lower, and what appeals process exists is frequently shrouded in secrecy and university policy. The "disciplinary proceedings" are carried out my people who would be more comfortable - and qualified - handling cases of cheating, plagiarism, and dorm violations. 2. Some proponents of Title IX tribunals claim that, because they are merely disciplinary hearings, they both do not need and should not have the burden of proof placed on the accuser. Both parties, they say, should have an equal chance to present their case, to show and critique evidence, etc. But the problem with this way of thinking is that it ignores the fact that it is much, much harder to prove that you didn't do something than it is to show that you very well might have. Barring a cast-iron alibi, the accused has few options at his disposal, while the accuser has every advantage. There is a reason that the justice system places the burden of proof on the state. Any other standard is heavily weighted against the defendant. 3. When faced with Point #2, some Title IX advocates respond that these courts only hand out university discipline, not criminal penalties, so the defendant has no need for the rights afforded him in a traditional court. Atlanta Women for Equality provides a perfect example in [their response to HB 51](http://www.11alive.com/news/local/holding-powerful-accountable/georgia-legislator-introduces-bill-to-change-rules-about-campus-sex-assault-investigations/385556907): >In school disciplinary proceedings, however, both parties are private individuals—the complainant being the victim-survivor and the respondent being the person who allegedly violated the school’s code of conduct—with equal interests at stake: access to educational programs, activities and benefits. Unlike the state in criminal cases, schools are impartial fact-finders. The naivete of this response is, to me, stunning. Does anyone actually believe that the only thing the defendant has at stake in these hearings is his education? If the school rules against him, then that's it: he's a rapist. And that kind of accusation doesn't come off. No matter what else he does, even if he is eventually exonerated, there are going to be people out there who think he just "got away with it." ~~And in the meantime, his name and face will be plastered all over the news and social media, so that everyone he knows can hear what an awful human being he is.~~ All that from a farce of a court without any of the legal protections he should have been afforded? How is that just? And anyway, how is losing your access to a college education *not* a big enough stake already? I want sexual assault victims to feel that they can come forward, I want a reform to the way law enforcement handles their cases, and I want more funding to help see that actual rapists are caught and punished. But I don't see how these kangaroo courts accomplish anything other than perverting our system of laws. Any takers? Edit: Removed the bit about disclosing the accused's identity. I was totally wrong on that point.

CMV: Title IX sexual assault tribunals, while perhaps not illegal or unconstitutional, are clearly in violation of the spirit of our judicial system. I've been doing some catch-up on the politics in my home state (Georgia), and I started reading about and then reading [HB 51](http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/HB/51). The bill has two main goals: to make university faculty mandatory reporters for sexual assault, and to forbid universities from opening Title IX tribunals until law enforcement has begun a criminal investigation. While I think the first part is both stupid and paternalistic (Why take away the victim's choice?) I agree wholeheartedly with the second. My reasons are: 1. Title IX courts operate with very little oversight, compared with the legal system. The standard of evidence is often far lower, and what appeals process exists is frequently shrouded in secrecy and university policy. The "disciplinary proceedings" are carried out my people who would be more comfortable - and qualified - handling cases of cheating, plagiarism, and dorm violations. 2. Some proponents of Title IX tribunals claim that, because they are merely disciplinary hearings, they both do not need and should not have the burden of proof placed on the accuser. Both parties, they say, should have an equal chance to present their case, to show and critique evidence, etc. But the problem with this way of thinking is that it ignores the fact that it is much, much harder to prove that you didn't do something than it is to show that you very well might have. Barring a cast-iron alibi, the accused has few options at his disposal, while the accuser has every advantage. There is a reason that the justice system places the burden of proof on the state. Any other standard is heavily weighted against the defendant. 3. When faced with Point #2, some Title IX advocates respond that these courts only hand out university discipline, not criminal penalties, so the defendant has no need for the rights afforded him in a traditional court. Atlanta Women for Equality provides a perfect example in [their response to HB 51](http://www.11alive.com/news/local/holding-powerful-accountable/georgia-legislator-introduces-bill-to-change-rules-about-campus-sex-assault-investigations/385556907): >In school disciplinary proceedings, however, both parties are private individuals—the complainant being the victim-survivor and the respondent being the person who allegedly violated the school’s code of conduct—with equal interests at stake: access to educational programs, activities and benefits. Unlike the state in criminal cases, schools are impartial fact-finders. The naivete of this response is, to me, stunning. Does anyone actually believe that the only thing the defendant has at stake in these hearings is his education? If the school rules against him, then that's it: he's a rapist. And that kind of accusation doesn't come off. No matter what else he does, even if he is eventually exonerated, there are going to be people out there who think he just "got away with it." ~~And in the meantime, his name and face will be plastered all over the news and social media, so that everyone he knows can hear what an awful human being he is.~~ All that from a farce of a court without any of the legal protections he should have been afforded? How is that just? And anyway, how is losing your access to a college education *not* a big enough stake already? I want sexual assault victims to feel that they can come forward, I want a reform to the way law enforcement handles their cases, and I want more funding to help see that actual rapists are caught and punished. But I don't see how these kangaroo courts accomplish anything other than perverting our system of laws. Any takers? Edit: Removed the bit about disclosing the accused's identity. I was totally wrong on that point.

t3_4kgsz1

CMV: The Oklahoman "transgender bathroom bill" that was recently passed is not deserving of the same ridicule as North Carolina's.

To preface: I in no way shape or form condone governmental discrimination against the LGBT community. Frankly, the bill is still offensive and the fears fueling its success are unfounded. However, I do not feel that this is a matter of discrimination, and finds a constitutional basis in freedom of association. Comparing it to North Carolina, who banned trans-gendered individuals from using the bathroom that they identify with is disingenuous as Oklahoma's iteration doesn't stop transgender individuals from using the bathroom they identify with. If anything, it is nearly identical to the more liberal idea of creating safe spaces for people who find certain things to be uncomfortable to be around. As much as I would like to think this is morally reprehensible or unconstitutional, I myself can't find a great reason, so CMV! I would appreciate arguments based on legal precedent or constitutionality, but am open to moral arguments as long as they are strong enough to reasonably justify new legal precedent. _____ > *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 Oklahoman "transgender bathroom bill" that was recently passed is not deserving of the same ridicule as North Carolina's. To preface: I in no way shape or form condone governmental discrimination against the LGBT community. Frankly, the bill is still offensive and the fears fueling its success are unfounded. However, I do not feel that this is a matter of discrimination, and finds a constitutional basis in freedom of association. Comparing it to North Carolina, who banned trans-gendered individuals from using the bathroom that they identify with is disingenuous as Oklahoma's iteration doesn't stop transgender individuals from using the bathroom they identify with. If anything, it is nearly identical to the more liberal idea of creating safe spaces for people who find certain things to be uncomfortable to be around. As much as I would like to think this is morally reprehensible or unconstitutional, I myself can't find a great reason, so CMV! I would appreciate arguments based on legal precedent or constitutionality, but am open to moral arguments as long as they are strong enough to reasonably justify new legal precedent.

t3_4ylnxq

CMV: The first month of starting a new job, one should submit average level work

If you start out working your hardest and submitting your absolute best work you will not only burn out but be held to this high standard throughout your worklife. Your employers will register your best work as just your "average" work and when they press for more you will have nothing to show. In the first month, if you start out on an average pace you will be able to show your "improvement" with time as you higher the pace. You will avoid getting burnt out, you will not be held to impossibly high standards. Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! _____ > *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 first month of starting a new job, one should submit average level work. If you start out working your hardest and submitting your absolute best work you will not only burn out but be held to this high standard throughout your worklife. Your employers will register your best work as just your "average" work and when they press for more you will have nothing to show. In the first month, if you start out on an average pace you will be able to show your "improvement" with time as you higher the pace. You will avoid getting burnt out, you will not be held to impossibly high standards. Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you!

t3_2k20v9

CMV: By accepting "all love is equal/the same" in terms of homosexuality you accept everyone is bisexual with a possible heavy preference/deterrence to one gender

Operationally defined, I'd say that the people in question are those who support homosexuality due to the fact that all love is equal and it is natural to love people of the same gender. By "bisexual" in the title, I refer to the possibility of liking either gender despite preferences to one or the other. I wasn't sure how else to word it, but for now when I say "bisexual" assume I mean "potentially bisexual", since from the viewpoint that all love "gay" or "straight" is natural, it can happen to anyone. With that being said, from this person's POV that means naturally anyone can like people of the same gender. This implies everyone is bisexual. Though people can have a "homosexual" or "heterosexual" preference, since we all start from the ability to like either gender naturally, we all potentially do. I also believe that these people also should accept that they too can have a "homo/heterosexual" desire despite their normal preference due to what bisexuality and "love is love no matter which gender" is. If Dave can naturally love Jon because they are in love, Dave can also potentially love Sally just because of the natural ways of love (although preference may get in the way). So to reiterate, people who believe that homosexuality is okay because all love is equal/natural (gender, not age/relation wise, not getting into pedophilia/incest/etc.) also accept that all people are bisexual and can potentially love people of the gender they don't normally have a preference to due to what they feel love is. I feel as though most people I talk to with this view point don't think that bisexuality is the default, and that seems to be contradictory, so if that's right go ahead and CMV. EDIT: I'm not arguing the view that everyone is bisexual; I feel like everyone who believes that all love is the same (gender-wise) should agree that everyone is bisexual by default. This is the 3rd time I'm saying it here. My view isn't that everyone is bisexual, my view is that it should be there view and your responses should be telling me why it becoming their view makes sense since it seems contradictory to think otherwise. _____ > *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: By accepting "all love is equal/the same" in terms of homosexuality you accept everyone is bisexual with a possible heavy preference/deterrence to one gender. Operationally defined, I'd say that the people in question are those who support homosexuality due to the fact that all love is equal and it is natural to love people of the same gender. By "bisexual" in the title, I refer to the possibility of liking either gender despite preferences to one or the other. I wasn't sure how else to word it, but for now when I say "bisexual" assume I mean "potentially bisexual", since from the viewpoint that all love "gay" or "straight" is natural, it can happen to anyone. With that being said, from this person's POV that means naturally anyone can like people of the same gender. This implies everyone is bisexual. Though people can have a "homosexual" or "heterosexual" preference, since we all start from the ability to like either gender naturally, we all potentially do. I also believe that these people also should accept that they too can have a "homo/heterosexual" desire despite their normal preference due to what bisexuality and "love is love no matter which gender" is. If Dave can naturally love Jon because they are in love, Dave can also potentially love Sally just because of the natural ways of love (although preference may get in the way). So to reiterate, people who believe that homosexuality is okay because all love is equal/natural (gender, not age/relation wise, not getting into pedophilia/incest/etc.) also accept that all people are bisexual and can potentially love people of the gender they don't normally have a preference to due to what they feel love is. I feel as though most people I talk to with this view point don't think that bisexuality is the default, and that seems to be contradictory, so if that's right go ahead and CMV. EDIT: I'm not arguing the view that everyone is bisexual; I feel like everyone who believes that all love is the same (gender-wise) should agree that everyone is bisexual by default. This is the 3rd time I'm saying it here. My view isn't that everyone is bisexual, my view is that it should be there view and your responses should be telling me why it becoming their view makes sense since it seems contradictory to think otherwise.

t3_1pdsj4

Parodies of popular songs on Youtube shouldn't be praised CMV

I'm referring specifically to songs that call themselves parodies, not covers. Songs like [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3twwafch4g) or [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwPHy17Iu6E) show up at the front of the page when you just search "parody" My problem with this songs is that more often than not they have no meaningful connection to the original song's intended lyrics or meaning. These parodies essentially gut the lyrics out of a song, fill it with their own poorly written ones that clearly attempt to be funny, but it ends up either not rhyming, or de-synchronized with the beat and often both end up occurring. Then there are the parodies that are Minecraft, or League of Legends-related. For whatever reason, people think it's fine to take a song about falling in and out of love that we hear on the mainstream radio, and turn it into a song about baking a fucking cake in Minecraft. I cringe whenever I hear these lyrics, and I seriously wonder if those artists don't hear how silly they sound when they sing about leveling up, or adding in extra filler words so that the amount of syllables in a verse will match up with the beat (something that's very obvious to me). Final statement: parody songs are just bad. CMV EDIT: I have realized that I may have poorly worded my post, which I blame on writing this off an all-nighter high. Here are my main points: **Yes, it's more of a personal opinion, but I dislike parodies.** **Some of you have pointed out that, similar to many things, there are the few diamonds in the rough. My argument is that considering the amount of effort it takes to parody a song and do it well (lyrics still match the initial beat, doesn't make you cringe), the artist might as well have gone and written an original song.** To write under the constraint of another song, and having to fit different lyrics into that song is hard, and shows creativity. **That's like saying a person is talented if they can somehow suck out the insides of a cake, and replace it with a different kind of batter. That person isn't a chef, in my mind they're a copycat, for lack of a better word. If this guy wants to show talent, why not just bake the entire cake yourself?"** **My view will be changed if you can show to me that these Youtube parodies have some artistic value, or that the song had to be done in parody form, and that to write it as an original song would convey a different message than the one the artist intended.**

Parodies of popular songs on Youtube shouldn't be praised CMV. I'm referring specifically to songs that call themselves parodies, not covers. Songs like [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3twwafch4g) or [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwPHy17Iu6E) show up at the front of the page when you just search "parody" My problem with this songs is that more often than not they have no meaningful connection to the original song's intended lyrics or meaning. These parodies essentially gut the lyrics out of a song, fill it with their own poorly written ones that clearly attempt to be funny, but it ends up either not rhyming, or de-synchronized with the beat and often both end up occurring. Then there are the parodies that are Minecraft, or League of Legends-related. For whatever reason, people think it's fine to take a song about falling in and out of love that we hear on the mainstream radio, and turn it into a song about baking a fucking cake in Minecraft. I cringe whenever I hear these lyrics, and I seriously wonder if those artists don't hear how silly they sound when they sing about leveling up, or adding in extra filler words so that the amount of syllables in a verse will match up with the beat (something that's very obvious to me). Final statement: parody songs are just bad. CMV EDIT: I have realized that I may have poorly worded my post, which I blame on writing this off an all-nighter high. Here are my main points: **Yes, it's more of a personal opinion, but I dislike parodies.** **Some of you have pointed out that, similar to many things, there are the few diamonds in the rough. My argument is that considering the amount of effort it takes to parody a song and do it well (lyrics still match the initial beat, doesn't make you cringe), the artist might as well have gone and written an original song.** To write under the constraint of another song, and having to fit different lyrics into that song is hard, and shows creativity. **That's like saying a person is talented if they can somehow suck out the insides of a cake, and replace it with a different kind of batter. That person isn't a chef, in my mind they're a copycat, for lack of a better word. If this guy wants to show talent, why not just bake the entire cake yourself?"** **My view will be changed if you can show to me that these Youtube parodies have some artistic value, or that the song had to be done in parody form, and that to write it as an original song would convey a different message than the one the artist intended.**

t3_1s2dyj

You say you're for equality but I don't think you quite understand what that means, CMV

For context, I'm from the US and this is US/western centric. 1. Most people are **against** inequality; full-on bigots are in the minority. 2. Part of dealing with inequality is acknowledging systematic oppression and how it impacts both the oppressors and the oppressed. 3. To actually address inequality massive changes would have to happen, especially in regard to historically privileged people and sacrifices they would have to make. 4. People who self identify as pro-equity and benefit somewhat from the status-quo probably aren't prepared for what it will take to achieve equality. That's my general though process, I'll give a more emotional rendering below: Let's say that we all woke up tomorrow and finally said, okay enough is enough time to end inequality, what would happen? Start with sports team mascots, that's easy. No more red skins or braves. Now we rename roads and tear down monuments. Wipe Jackson off the $20 bill. Stop celebrating Columbus day. Stop celebrating *any* people from history that laid the groundwork of inequality... because those scares are real for a great many people. While we change the name of colleges and other institutions, we have to examine the structures themselves, many of these institutions were built *to keep poor, gendered, and colored people out* if not explicitly than implicitly. Seats of power will be given up. And that's just a start. We could begin this tomorrow. Yet there are always excuses, I don't think a massive force of bigots is holding us back, but a population which isn't ready to practice what they preach. It is not those who are overtly bigoted that keep inequality in tact, but the inaction of those who would otherwise give equality lip service. Bring me back to reality, CMV :)

You say you're for equality but I don't think you quite understand what that means, CMV. For context, I'm from the US and this is US/western centric. 1. Most people are **against** inequality; full-on bigots are in the minority. 2. Part of dealing with inequality is acknowledging systematic oppression and how it impacts both the oppressors and the oppressed. 3. To actually address inequality massive changes would have to happen, especially in regard to historically privileged people and sacrifices they would have to make. 4. People who self identify as pro-equity and benefit somewhat from the status-quo probably aren't prepared for what it will take to achieve equality. That's my general though process, I'll give a more emotional rendering below: Let's say that we all woke up tomorrow and finally said, okay enough is enough time to end inequality, what would happen? Start with sports team mascots, that's easy. No more red skins or braves. Now we rename roads and tear down monuments. Wipe Jackson off the $20 bill. Stop celebrating Columbus day. Stop celebrating *any* people from history that laid the groundwork of inequality... because those scares are real for a great many people. While we change the name of colleges and other institutions, we have to examine the structures themselves, many of these institutions were built *to keep poor, gendered, and colored people out* if not explicitly than implicitly. Seats of power will be given up. And that's just a start. We could begin this tomorrow. Yet there are always excuses, I don't think a massive force of bigots is holding us back, but a population which isn't ready to practice what they preach. It is not those who are overtly bigoted that keep inequality in tact, but the inaction of those who would otherwise give equality lip service. Bring me back to reality, CMV :)

t3_2iilp1

CMV: I believe that non-white people have no place in Europe, and European society will be irreversibly changed with mass immigration.

I've just been reading on immigration issues in the UK and other European countries, and it really scares me how White people are declining in every European country. I believe that non-white immigrants have a dramatically harder time integrating into European society, and end up forming ethnic enclaves rather than assimilating. I believe this weakens the greater society. People prefer to interact with people of their own race, and in the end when White people are less than 50% of the population of Europe there will be a patchwork of different cultures in each nation rather than one unified one. I also believe mass immigration and ethnic minorities permanently changes a nation, and cause huge problems in society such as the recent Rotherham scandals and the Birmingham school scandals, not to mention the issue of halal meats in Subway stores and such. I'm just really scared of the unique and rich cultures of Europe being permanently lost. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that non-white people have no place in Europe, and European society will be irreversibly changed with mass immigration. I've just been reading on immigration issues in the UK and other European countries, and it really scares me how White people are declining in every European country. I believe that non-white immigrants have a dramatically harder time integrating into European society, and end up forming ethnic enclaves rather than assimilating. I believe this weakens the greater society. People prefer to interact with people of their own race, and in the end when White people are less than 50% of the population of Europe there will be a patchwork of different cultures in each nation rather than one unified one. I also believe mass immigration and ethnic minorities permanently changes a nation, and cause huge problems in society such as the recent Rotherham scandals and the Birmingham school scandals, not to mention the issue of halal meats in Subway stores and such. I'm just really scared of the unique and rich cultures of Europe being permanently lost.

t3_1z3vej

I think, to curb human population growth on planet earth, we need a big "Plague". CMV

In accordance with natural laws, when a population grows unchecked, natural mechanisms come in to play to control this growth, in form of diseases or natural disasters. But, we - humans - are working relentlessly to overcome these control mechanisms. This is making, our only home (currently), - earth - fall short to sustain this and other species. I think, we need to some sort of "Plague" - a highly contagious, lethal, but curable disease (something, out of the movie 'contagion') - to make earth more sustainable again. The population growth can be allowed to grow when we have located and colonized a some other planet a new home. Edit: To everyone who is assuming I am making myself immune from such disease, I AM NOT. I am a part of this earth. Kindly, do not make this a "F**k you post" instead of "Change my view post".

I think, to curb human population growth on planet earth, we need a big "Plague". CMV. In accordance with natural laws, when a population grows unchecked, natural mechanisms come in to play to control this growth, in form of diseases or natural disasters. But, we - humans - are working relentlessly to overcome these control mechanisms. This is making, our only home (currently), - earth - fall short to sustain this and other species. I think, we need to some sort of "Plague" - a highly contagious, lethal, but curable disease (something, out of the movie 'contagion') - to make earth more sustainable again. The population growth can be allowed to grow when we have located and colonized a some other planet a new home. Edit: To everyone who is assuming I am making myself immune from such disease, I AM NOT. I am a part of this earth. Kindly, do not make this a "F**k you post" instead of "Change my view post".

t3_2qsof1

CMV: Current US culture encourages mediocrity

I could talk for days about this topic, but the evidence (a combination of anecdotal and empirical) has lead me to conclude that mediocrity and ignorance is actively, globally encouraged, and particularly so in the United States. * politicians can actually be criticized for being too smart, there should be no such thing as too smart * schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are. I have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self-improvement * Ivy league (and similar) students are considered smarter than their peers, but most of the student body got there through money or nepotism (I have personally experienced this) * Building off the previous point, very, very few people at any Ivy (and similar) are actually intelligent * There are no difficult subjects to learn. * The emphasis on specialization of learning/skill encourages weakness and ignorance rather than strength and knowledge * Standardized tests are farcically easy * Many parts of the country actually have an active disdain of critical thinking and reasoning * math and science are often viewed as difficult or onerous * the entirety of the body-acceptance movement If you'd like me to clarify anything, please don't hesitate to ask. I'd like to believe that we as a species are going somewhere. _____ > *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: Current US culture encourages mediocrity. I could talk for days about this topic, but the evidence (a combination of anecdotal and empirical) has lead me to conclude that mediocrity and ignorance is actively, globally encouraged, and particularly so in the United States. * politicians can actually be criticized for being too smart, there should be no such thing as too smart * schools actively promote the idea that everyone is okay as they are. I have no issue with this but it generally encourages the notion that one should not pursue self-improvement * Ivy league (and similar) students are considered smarter than their peers, but most of the student body got there through money or nepotism (I have personally experienced this) * Building off the previous point, very, very few people at any Ivy (and similar) are actually intelligent * There are no difficult subjects to learn. * The emphasis on specialization of learning/skill encourages weakness and ignorance rather than strength and knowledge * Standardized tests are farcically easy * Many parts of the country actually have an active disdain of critical thinking and reasoning * math and science are often viewed as difficult or onerous * the entirety of the body-acceptance movement If you'd like me to clarify anything, please don't hesitate to ask. I'd like to believe that we as a species are going somewhere.

t3_23443d

CMV: Joining an apprenticeship to become an electrician is better than a CS major

This is assuming that both jobs look interesting to you. It looks like they pay you to learn how to become an electrician whereas you have to pay a college $$$ to get a degree and possibly end up in debt for a couple of years. Furthermore it looks like according to the BLS, that the average wage for electricians and programmers is roughly the same which is at around 70,000 dollars a year. Then there's the fact that a lot of programming jobs are being outsourced to places like India. Electricians can't get their jobs outsourced. Finally being an electrician means you get to work outside, you get to stand up longer and it's more physically demanding which means that you'll be more fit, you'll be healthier and you'll live longer.

CMV: Joining an apprenticeship to become an electrician is better than a CS major. This is assuming that both jobs look interesting to you. It looks like they pay you to learn how to become an electrician whereas you have to pay a college $$$ to get a degree and possibly end up in debt for a couple of years. Furthermore it looks like according to the BLS, that the average wage for electricians and programmers is roughly the same which is at around 70,000 dollars a year. Then there's the fact that a lot of programming jobs are being outsourced to places like India. Electricians can't get their jobs outsourced. Finally being an electrician means you get to work outside, you get to stand up longer and it's more physically demanding which means that you'll be more fit, you'll be healthier and you'll live longer.

t3_2j4j2u

CMV: Amphetamines are raising educational standards

EDIT 1: As some of you have pointed out, this is all limited to my personal experience. I'd like to do some more research on this in the future, and perhaps I'll prepare another post with some actual statistics. EDIT 2: I accidentally replaced this text with a comment reply via mobile, I'll try to replicate my original post. A lot of my points have been repeated in the comment section. EDIT 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: Amphetamines are raising educational standards. EDIT 1: As some of you have pointed out, this is all limited to my personal experience. I'd like to do some more research on this in the future, and perhaps I'll prepare another post with some actual statistics. EDIT 2: I accidentally replaced this text with a comment reply via mobile, I'll try to replicate my original post. A lot of my points have been repeated in the comment section. EDIT 3:

t3_6ebx2z

CMV: If it is necessary to confront a White Supremacist who is actively harassing a person of color, they should be preemptively incapacitated using physical and potentially lethal force

With the recent instances of murders at the hands of White Supremacists, it is becoming less tenable to intervene in active racist/xenophobic harassment using nonviolent means and reasonably expect to go home safely. Someone who finds it unacceptable to ignore such events when witnessed, thus further encouraging the harasser to amp up their behavior, and who is compelled to stop the harassment, can no longer presume that the racist harasser is just a "bully" who will tuck tail when confronted. Escalation or even attempted de-escalation of the harassment could end with in an intervener, target, or innocent bystander dead. Therefore, the only way to intervene responsibly would be to use such physical force that the White Supremacist is rendered unconscious or worse so that all innocent parties can leave safely.

CMV: If it is necessary to confront a White Supremacist who is actively harassing a person of color, they should be preemptively incapacitated using physical and potentially lethal force. With the recent instances of murders at the hands of White Supremacists, it is becoming less tenable to intervene in active racist/xenophobic harassment using nonviolent means and reasonably expect to go home safely. Someone who finds it unacceptable to ignore such events when witnessed, thus further encouraging the harasser to amp up their behavior, and who is compelled to stop the harassment, can no longer presume that the racist harasser is just a "bully" who will tuck tail when confronted. Escalation or even attempted de-escalation of the harassment could end with in an intervener, target, or innocent bystander dead. Therefore, the only way to intervene responsibly would be to use such physical force that the White Supremacist is rendered unconscious or worse so that all innocent parties can leave safely.

t3_3ce3zs

CMV: Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the presidency.

Hello CMV, I'm a big fan of Bernie Sanders and his ideas. However, I also believe that he has no chance of winning the presidency. Reasons: 1) He's a populist. He spouts ideas that are extremely popular with certain segments of the population (segments that make up a large percentage of the total population). While I like what he says, I don't think it's enough to win the presidency. Case in point: Ron Paul in 2008 was also a populist, and got the support of many people. However, it simply was not enough to be a populist. Which leads me to my 2nd point. 2) He will be outspent by almost everyone else, since he has refused SuperPAC money. Ideally, in a nation like the United States, anyone, from Joe Plumber to Richie Rich, has an equal chance of becoming POTUS. However, we live in reality. Campaigning is essentially marketing, and gigantic marketing budgets work. e.g., Apple iPhones outsell OnePlus Ones, simply because Apple has billions of dollars in marketing, while OnePlus doesn't. 3) His supporters today (e.g., on Reddit), come voting day, will NOT vote for him. More than likely, his supporters won't even appear at the ballot box. It has been known for the past decade or so that political apathy is strong among youth. Reasons cited for this vary, from disillusionment, to lack of sufficient leisure time (e.g., having to work on voting day or they get fired). 4) His ideas will alienate basically every institution of power out there. I'm sorry, but wanting to split up the banks, and remove power from the billionaire class basically guarantees that ALL of them will be working against you. This is like an ant picking a fight with every elephant on the planet. Sure, the ant may survive unsquished, but the ant will never be put in a position to lead the elephants. Look, I like him as much as anyone does. I've kept up with all of his campaign speeches on YouTube. But the dude doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. So, perhaps I've come to CMV for some glimmer of hope. _____ > *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: Bernie Sanders has no chance of winning the presidency. Hello CMV, I'm a big fan of Bernie Sanders and his ideas. However, I also believe that he has no chance of winning the presidency. Reasons: 1) He's a populist. He spouts ideas that are extremely popular with certain segments of the population (segments that make up a large percentage of the total population). While I like what he says, I don't think it's enough to win the presidency. Case in point: Ron Paul in 2008 was also a populist, and got the support of many people. However, it simply was not enough to be a populist. Which leads me to my 2nd point. 2) He will be outspent by almost everyone else, since he has refused SuperPAC money. Ideally, in a nation like the United States, anyone, from Joe Plumber to Richie Rich, has an equal chance of becoming POTUS. However, we live in reality. Campaigning is essentially marketing, and gigantic marketing budgets work. e.g., Apple iPhones outsell OnePlus Ones, simply because Apple has billions of dollars in marketing, while OnePlus doesn't. 3) His supporters today (e.g., on Reddit), come voting day, will NOT vote for him. More than likely, his supporters won't even appear at the ballot box. It has been known for the past decade or so that political apathy is strong among youth. Reasons cited for this vary, from disillusionment, to lack of sufficient leisure time (e.g., having to work on voting day or they get fired). 4) His ideas will alienate basically every institution of power out there. I'm sorry, but wanting to split up the banks, and remove power from the billionaire class basically guarantees that ALL of them will be working against you. This is like an ant picking a fight with every elephant on the planet. Sure, the ant may survive unsquished, but the ant will never be put in a position to lead the elephants. Look, I like him as much as anyone does. I've kept up with all of his campaign speeches on YouTube. But the dude doesn't have a chance in hell of winning. So, perhaps I've come to CMV for some glimmer of hope.

t3_1gr3lv

I enjoy the atmosphere and instrumentation of rap but fail to see lyrics as anything other than misogynistic or narcissistic. CMV

I've lived most of my life listening to solely metal and hard rock. My tastes have expanded exponentially over the past, and I've learned to appreciate nearly every genre I've come across. Except rap/hip-hop. I tend to value lyricism, meaningfulness, symbolism, and occasionally storytelling in music (things like concept albums or, in the case of instrumental music, a strong motivating story or force behind the composition) and when I hear hip-hop or rap, I tend to only hear misogyny and narcissism, two things which I detest in music. I do, however, enjoy the underlying instrumentals- for example, I really like the atmosphere and instrumentals of the song "Niggas in Paris" but hate the lines "What's 59 grand to a motherfucker like me/Can you please remind me." It comes across as offensive, self-centered, and arrogant. I'd love to be able to appreciate this kind of music, but I can't get past many songs' lyrical themes. CMV

I enjoy the atmosphere and instrumentation of rap but fail to see lyrics as anything other than misogynistic or narcissistic. CMV. I've lived most of my life listening to solely metal and hard rock. My tastes have expanded exponentially over the past, and I've learned to appreciate nearly every genre I've come across. Except rap/hip-hop. I tend to value lyricism, meaningfulness, symbolism, and occasionally storytelling in music (things like concept albums or, in the case of instrumental music, a strong motivating story or force behind the composition) and when I hear hip-hop or rap, I tend to only hear misogyny and narcissism, two things which I detest in music. I do, however, enjoy the underlying instrumentals- for example, I really like the atmosphere and instrumentals of the song "Niggas in Paris" but hate the lines "What's 59 grand to a motherfucker like me/Can you please remind me." It comes across as offensive, self-centered, and arrogant. I'd love to be able to appreciate this kind of music, but I can't get past many songs' lyrical themes. CMV

t3_18zsr1

Work should not be a commodity. CMV

Automation is increasingly eliminating the need for physical and menial jobs. On the other hand, we know from the development of wikis, the free software movement, and other similar projects that people will volunteer to do creative work for free. Please convince me that the commodification of work is preferable to automation, volunteer creativity, self employment, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, consumers cooperatives, and other alternatives.

Work should not be a commodity. CMV. Automation is increasingly eliminating the need for physical and menial jobs. On the other hand, we know from the development of wikis, the free software movement, and other similar projects that people will volunteer to do creative work for free. Please convince me that the commodification of work is preferable to automation, volunteer creativity, self employment, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, consumers cooperatives, and other alternatives.

t3_1g5vx4

I feel churches/mosques/synagogues (any place of religious worship) are wasted real estate in most urban centers where homeless/women's shelters are in short/needed supply. CMV

When a religious building has a utilitarian purpose only one day of the week (save for mosques) versus a shelter that has to turn people away due to overcrowding every day of the week I think there is a disparity in urban priorities. I am aware that *some* churches double as soup kitchens but too rarely do they double as shelters. Why waste square footage on religious institutions when more space is desperately needed for the homeless or abused?

I feel churches/mosques/synagogues (any place of religious worship) are wasted real estate in most urban centers where homeless/women's shelters are in short/needed supply. CMV. When a religious building has a utilitarian purpose only one day of the week (save for mosques) versus a shelter that has to turn people away due to overcrowding every day of the week I think there is a disparity in urban priorities. I am aware that *some* churches double as soup kitchens but too rarely do they double as shelters. Why waste square footage on religious institutions when more space is desperately needed for the homeless or abused?

t3_4j0qkf

CMV: Most chemicals and medicines should be available for public purchase without the need of prescriptions or certifications.

Say there's a medicine that cures a certain disease. In most western countries you must do the following the get it: Order a rather expensive appointment with your personal doctor, just be recommended to specialist who will then confirm your diagnosis and prescribe you with your medicine, which will in turn cost a lot of money. If I have the exact same knowledge as the specialist and am fully capable of self diagnosis, I will still have to go through this expensive system. The same goes for a lot chemicals. Even if I am the best chemist in the world, there's A LOT of chemicals that I cannot publically access. Examples are toxic metals like mercury, lead, arsenic, lithium, etc; high concentration acids or bases (1M< of HF, HCl, NaOH, etc); extremely flammable substances like acetone; and highly radioactive substances. Despite there being high regulations on many of these chemicals in my country, I could easily gain access to them by other means or find alternative chemicals that doesn't have regulations (I could make my own acids, find lithium and lead from batteries, arsenic from old paint, and use gasoline instead of acetone if I want to blow up something). The point is: These regulations are as pointless as airport security and does nothing to increase safety. All they do is to put up a paywall between the consumers and the product by requiring an often unnecessary prescription or certificate of safe usage. The typical reasons for not allowing certain chemicals and medicine on the free market are: 1. They are toxic and dangerous for human lives 2. They can be used for manufacturing weapons, bombs, poisons etc. 3. They are environmentally unfriendly 4. They are harmful to society (i.e medicine that can be used as recreational drugs or excessive use of antibiotics) I believe the first three reasons are not substantial for the following reasons: 1. This is matter of safe usage. If you do not have knowledge of a chemical or a medicine then you simply shouldn't fuck with it without professional guidance. However, as an adult you should be able to make that decision yourself. 2. So can plenty of other substances that are easy to obtain. If you have the knowledge, it's not a problem. 3. I don't believe easier access to these chemicals or medicines will drastically increase the usage. The same amount of people will get sick, and strange sounding chemicals aren't typically of interest to most people. The people needing these products won't change that much, but they will have an easier time getting it. It's regarding these reasons that you will (presumably) have to change my view on. EDIT: MasterGrok have changed my mind regarding medicines. My view was shaped from a personal experience where I could've done my own blood work and discovered the exact same thing as my doctor did. In my mind I angrily compared it with a carpenter hammering a nail into a wall and that it was something I could easily do to. My argument is now only regarding chemicals that are less dangerous than currently available products. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Most chemicals and medicines should be available for public purchase without the need of prescriptions or certifications. Say there's a medicine that cures a certain disease. In most western countries you must do the following the get it: Order a rather expensive appointment with your personal doctor, just be recommended to specialist who will then confirm your diagnosis and prescribe you with your medicine, which will in turn cost a lot of money. If I have the exact same knowledge as the specialist and am fully capable of self diagnosis, I will still have to go through this expensive system. The same goes for a lot chemicals. Even if I am the best chemist in the world, there's A LOT of chemicals that I cannot publically access. Examples are toxic metals like mercury, lead, arsenic, lithium, etc; high concentration acids or bases (1M< of HF, HCl, NaOH, etc); extremely flammable substances like acetone; and highly radioactive substances. Despite there being high regulations on many of these chemicals in my country, I could easily gain access to them by other means or find alternative chemicals that doesn't have regulations (I could make my own acids, find lithium and lead from batteries, arsenic from old paint, and use gasoline instead of acetone if I want to blow up something). The point is: These regulations are as pointless as airport security and does nothing to increase safety. All they do is to put up a paywall between the consumers and the product by requiring an often unnecessary prescription or certificate of safe usage. The typical reasons for not allowing certain chemicals and medicine on the free market are: 1. They are toxic and dangerous for human lives 2. They can be used for manufacturing weapons, bombs, poisons etc. 3. They are environmentally unfriendly 4. They are harmful to society (i.e medicine that can be used as recreational drugs or excessive use of antibiotics) I believe the first three reasons are not substantial for the following reasons: 1. This is matter of safe usage. If you do not have knowledge of a chemical or a medicine then you simply shouldn't fuck with it without professional guidance. However, as an adult you should be able to make that decision yourself. 2. So can plenty of other substances that are easy to obtain. If you have the knowledge, it's not a problem. 3. I don't believe easier access to these chemicals or medicines will drastically increase the usage. The same amount of people will get sick, and strange sounding chemicals aren't typically of interest to most people. The people needing these products won't change that much, but they will have an easier time getting it. It's regarding these reasons that you will (presumably) have to change my view on. EDIT: MasterGrok have changed my mind regarding medicines. My view was shaped from a personal experience where I could've done my own blood work and discovered the exact same thing as my doctor did. In my mind I angrily compared it with a carpenter hammering a nail into a wall and that it was something I could easily do to. My argument is now only regarding chemicals that are less dangerous than currently available products.

t3_29kc3h

CMV:The only difference between an overly offensive joke and a good joke is whether the audience laughs.

I'm pretty sure this MUST have come up on CMV before, but I haven't seen it and a quick search only showed similar views, not the same view. Essentially, in the example scenario where a person tells a few people a joke, there are roughly three outcomes once the joke's been told. The first is no one finds it funny and no one's offended, where I'm pretty sure everyone will agree, the joke just plain failed to be funny. The second is where everyone laughs, where we will say that the joke was good, it should exist, and no one minds it. The third is where those listening are offended and don't laugh, maybe saying the joke is 'too soon' to the topic's advent or that it's on a topic that just isn't funny at all. My issue is that third outcome. Yes, the joke wasn't funny to the audience, which in terms of the telling of it is all that really matters. The person telling the joke should apologise to the people and it's not mature or helpful or anything to argue they're being too sensitive or any other excuse that makes the 'offensiveness' not your fault. It is; you were supposed to say something to make people laugh in this setting and failed, getting an almost opposite reaction. However, I also don't think the justifications of those who didn't like the joke hold up much either. Now that we know people get offended by the telling of this particular joke, we CAN say it shouldn't have been told to those people at that time. But that's all. You can STILL make a holocaust joke that makes people shit themselves laughing, you CAN (rarely, I'm sure) get a chuckle out of someone who's just had an abortion joking about dumpster babies. There's no such thing as a topic you *CAN'T* joke about, the final arbiter is always whether or not the audience enjoys the joke, and that's all. I agree it's harder to define a 'good joke' if 8 people love it and 2 get offended, but I think in the end it's as simple as that you apologise to the 2 people and, as ever, factor what you know about these people and how they reacted to your joke and use it as data to guess who enjoys what next time. There's no such thing as a joke we can KNOW is outright too offensive to be funny; someone, somewhere might laugh at it sometime, and that makes it viable until proven otherwise, at which point you told a bad joke and should deal with the consequences. Trying to enforce other rules on anything other than a person-by-person basis is just woefully overzealous. _____ > *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 only difference between an overly offensive joke and a good joke is whether the audience laughs. I'm pretty sure this MUST have come up on CMV before, but I haven't seen it and a quick search only showed similar views, not the same view. Essentially, in the example scenario where a person tells a few people a joke, there are roughly three outcomes once the joke's been told. The first is no one finds it funny and no one's offended, where I'm pretty sure everyone will agree, the joke just plain failed to be funny. The second is where everyone laughs, where we will say that the joke was good, it should exist, and no one minds it. The third is where those listening are offended and don't laugh, maybe saying the joke is 'too soon' to the topic's advent or that it's on a topic that just isn't funny at all. My issue is that third outcome. Yes, the joke wasn't funny to the audience, which in terms of the telling of it is all that really matters. The person telling the joke should apologise to the people and it's not mature or helpful or anything to argue they're being too sensitive or any other excuse that makes the 'offensiveness' not your fault. It is; you were supposed to say something to make people laugh in this setting and failed, getting an almost opposite reaction. However, I also don't think the justifications of those who didn't like the joke hold up much either. Now that we know people get offended by the telling of this particular joke, we CAN say it shouldn't have been told to those people at that time. But that's all. You can STILL make a holocaust joke that makes people shit themselves laughing, you CAN (rarely, I'm sure) get a chuckle out of someone who's just had an abortion joking about dumpster babies. There's no such thing as a topic you *CAN'T* joke about, the final arbiter is always whether or not the audience enjoys the joke, and that's all. I agree it's harder to define a 'good joke' if 8 people love it and 2 get offended, but I think in the end it's as simple as that you apologise to the 2 people and, as ever, factor what you know about these people and how they reacted to your joke and use it as data to guess who enjoys what next time. There's no such thing as a joke we can KNOW is outright too offensive to be funny; someone, somewhere might laugh at it sometime, and that makes it viable until proven otherwise, at which point you told a bad joke and should deal with the consequences. Trying to enforce other rules on anything other than a person-by-person basis is just woefully overzealous.

t3_2804z3

CMV: It's OK to support FIFA and the World Cup 2014 being hosted in Brazil, and I should just ignore all the protests and civil unrest because it does not concern me

I would like to start off by saying I am NOT a huge soccer fan. I rarely watch it and world cup is pretty much the only time I take more of an interest in it. I see so much about why FIFA is evil and that it should not be hosting in Brazil because all the other infrastructure in the country is so poorly funded, etc. And yet I see people turning a blind eye, or are just completely ignorant of that side of things. Why should they care? They just want to see some high level soccer and support their team. They want to go to bars, have some drinks and a good time. Everything on the surface seems so happy and positive, all the "bad" stuff happening is cut out (obviously) and tourists in Brazil just casually overlook all the protests and angry local citizens the same way people do with homeless people asking for change. I feel as though I should be one of those people and not care, watch some games with friends and just enjoy the sport. I might be wrong about most people being ignorant of these issues but everyone around me is just denying the severity or quickly shifting topics to the actual games themselves. CMV

CMV: It's OK to support FIFA and the World Cup 2014 being hosted in Brazil, and I should just ignore all the protests and civil unrest because it does not concern me. I would like to start off by saying I am NOT a huge soccer fan. I rarely watch it and world cup is pretty much the only time I take more of an interest in it. I see so much about why FIFA is evil and that it should not be hosting in Brazil because all the other infrastructure in the country is so poorly funded, etc. And yet I see people turning a blind eye, or are just completely ignorant of that side of things. Why should they care? They just want to see some high level soccer and support their team. They want to go to bars, have some drinks and a good time. Everything on the surface seems so happy and positive, all the "bad" stuff happening is cut out (obviously) and tourists in Brazil just casually overlook all the protests and angry local citizens the same way people do with homeless people asking for change. I feel as though I should be one of those people and not care, watch some games with friends and just enjoy the sport. I might be wrong about most people being ignorant of these issues but everyone around me is just denying the severity or quickly shifting topics to the actual games themselves. CMV

t3_1gfukt

I believe that all citizens should have to engage in regular physical activity if they want access to a universal healthcare system. The same applies to senior citizens while they have the ability - CMV

I believe that all citizens should have to engage in regular physical activity if they want access to a universal healthcare system. The same applies to senior citizens while they have the ability - CMV

I believe that all citizens should have to engage in regular physical activity if they want access to a universal healthcare system. The same applies to senior citizens while they have the ability - CMV. I believe that all citizens should have to engage in regular physical activity if they want access to a universal healthcare system. The same applies to senior citizens while they have the ability - CMV

t3_3t8r9u

CMV: Tipping is charity

Now I guess I should preface this by saying that I usually tip generously, 20% is a minimum for me. I'm not asking someone to convince me that the tipping system is good, it's just that to me personally tipping feels like charity and I feel like this is bad. Though I don't like how it shifts the burden of rewarding good employees off the employer directly to the customer or that it pretty much forces everyone to do what should be unnecessary math calculations at the end of a meal which isn't exactly the best way to end hanging out with friends or whatnot. Maybe it's because I've never had a job where tipping was required so I don't know what it's like from the other side, but from my perspective it's essentially the same as tossing money to a homeless person sitting at the side of the road except you are pretty much forced to do it because of societal pressure. This I think is an unpopular opinion, but it's the closest thing I have been able to think to equate it to. The thing is, for me when it comes to dining out, particularly with a group the only things that matter to me are two things, the orders are correct and they will refill my glass when I ask them if they walk by once or twice. I don't care if they're friendly and try to talk to me or decide to fill my drink after every sip, actually I prefer it if they don't do either. So I really have no idea what "exceptional service" means, because to me that is average service. i.e. not overtly messing anything up and not forgetting about us completely. Even if the food takes an hour, that's not really an excuse not to tip because it's hardly the server's fault. _____ > *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: Tipping is charity. Now I guess I should preface this by saying that I usually tip generously, 20% is a minimum for me. I'm not asking someone to convince me that the tipping system is good, it's just that to me personally tipping feels like charity and I feel like this is bad. Though I don't like how it shifts the burden of rewarding good employees off the employer directly to the customer or that it pretty much forces everyone to do what should be unnecessary math calculations at the end of a meal which isn't exactly the best way to end hanging out with friends or whatnot. Maybe it's because I've never had a job where tipping was required so I don't know what it's like from the other side, but from my perspective it's essentially the same as tossing money to a homeless person sitting at the side of the road except you are pretty much forced to do it because of societal pressure. This I think is an unpopular opinion, but it's the closest thing I have been able to think to equate it to. The thing is, for me when it comes to dining out, particularly with a group the only things that matter to me are two things, the orders are correct and they will refill my glass when I ask them if they walk by once or twice. I don't care if they're friendly and try to talk to me or decide to fill my drink after every sip, actually I prefer it if they don't do either. So I really have no idea what "exceptional service" means, because to me that is average service. i.e. not overtly messing anything up and not forgetting about us completely. Even if the food takes an hour, that's not really an excuse not to tip because it's hardly the server's fault.

t3_1rbjq0

I believe that the assasination of JFK was a mafia hit. CMV because I also feel kind of silly for saying that.

This is the sequence of events as I believe happened. Please tell me if any lf them are refutable. * The mafia conspires with Oswald and convinces him somehow to assassinate JFK. * Obviously, it is successful. I don't subscribe to multiple shooters/grassy umbrella or whatever. Oswald shoots three times and kills the President. * To prevent Oswald from giving away information in court, Jack Ruby is sent to kill Oswald. He is chosen because Ruby has terminal cancer that will kill him before he himself can give away information in court. * The mafia pays off the local police station, allowing Ruby to kill Oswald easily. * Ruby dies as scheduled before he can appear in court, tying up the final loose end. * Government denies mafia involvement to save face. I will also accept if you provide an alternative answer to these questions: 1. Why did Oswald kill Kennedy? 2. Why did Ruby, a nightclub owner with known mafia connections, kill Oswald, the man who had just eliminated the brother of organized crime's greatest opponent? 3. Why was there no security preventing Ruby from entering the police station where Oswald was? 4. Why did Ruby, in prison, later claim to be a part/victim of a conspiracy? As I said, I feel ignorant for holding this view, but I haven't found a good answer.

I believe that the assasination of JFK was a mafia hit. CMV because I also feel kind of silly for saying that. This is the sequence of events as I believe happened. Please tell me if any lf them are refutable. * The mafia conspires with Oswald and convinces him somehow to assassinate JFK. * Obviously, it is successful. I don't subscribe to multiple shooters/grassy umbrella or whatever. Oswald shoots three times and kills the President. * To prevent Oswald from giving away information in court, Jack Ruby is sent to kill Oswald. He is chosen because Ruby has terminal cancer that will kill him before he himself can give away information in court. * The mafia pays off the local police station, allowing Ruby to kill Oswald easily. * Ruby dies as scheduled before he can appear in court, tying up the final loose end. * Government denies mafia involvement to save face. I will also accept if you provide an alternative answer to these questions: 1. Why did Oswald kill Kennedy? 2. Why did Ruby, a nightclub owner with known mafia connections, kill Oswald, the man who had just eliminated the brother of organized crime's greatest opponent? 3. Why was there no security preventing Ruby from entering the police station where Oswald was? 4. Why did Ruby, in prison, later claim to be a part/victim of a conspiracy? As I said, I feel ignorant for holding this view, but I haven't found a good answer.

t3_561rx3

CMV: Men should have the right to decide whether or not to support a child financially, if women have the right to abort, in certain situations.

So in the U.S. we all know that women have the right to abortion in most states. The men have 0 say in the matter. If a man says he wants to keep the baby; the mother has no obligation to actually listen to him and can go receive an abortion with no consequence. Which is fine. On the other hand if the mother-to-be decides to KEEP the baby; the biological Dad is on the line for child support regardless of the fact whether he wants the child or not. Maybe its a situation where neither person wanted a child. Maybe it was a 1 night stand that both agreed upon, but a baby was conceived that the Dad wants no part of. Maybe the mother decides to keep the child even though they agreed not to have children jn the first place, etc.. In that situation why shouldn't a dad be allowed to opt-out of paying child support? Now the most common argument against this that I have heard is that it will create a bunch of single-mothers having to bear the financial burden of another human being alone; and why should they have to do that if the Dad helped conceive the baby? My response, "well why don't we get a say in terms of abortion in the first place?" The response then usually is, "well that is because you are arguing about a biological function of a women's anatomy which a man has no right to; as opposed to financial support which has nothing to do with sacrificing a man's body." Which I then respond with, "Well there are states and instances where child-support payments can be exorbitantly highly which absolutely kills the ability for the father of the child to make any sort of living. Many states well in-fact jail a father for not paying child support even; or not paying the full amount. So now you have destroyed the life of an adult human being, with little capacity to further improve himself, and if he is in jail. You are now getting ZERO child support as opposed to even a small amount of support. Or at the very worst; the same amount (zero, as he was giving you previously), but with the fact he is now in jail." This is typically where the argument breaks off several times without many convincing arguments. I think what I have described in the title would fix both issues, and I actually believe that dead-beat dads wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as it is assumed they would be, and there is nothing stopping someone from publicly shaming them to support a child. Especially useful in the age of social media (assuming it doesn't turn into a form of bullying). So i'd like someone to try and change my view.

CMV: Men should have the right to decide whether or not to support a child financially, if women have the right to abort, in certain situations. So in the U.S. we all know that women have the right to abortion in most states. The men have 0 say in the matter. If a man says he wants to keep the baby; the mother has no obligation to actually listen to him and can go receive an abortion with no consequence. Which is fine. On the other hand if the mother-to-be decides to KEEP the baby; the biological Dad is on the line for child support regardless of the fact whether he wants the child or not. Maybe its a situation where neither person wanted a child. Maybe it was a 1 night stand that both agreed upon, but a baby was conceived that the Dad wants no part of. Maybe the mother decides to keep the child even though they agreed not to have children jn the first place, etc.. In that situation why shouldn't a dad be allowed to opt-out of paying child support? Now the most common argument against this that I have heard is that it will create a bunch of single-mothers having to bear the financial burden of another human being alone; and why should they have to do that if the Dad helped conceive the baby? My response, "well why don't we get a say in terms of abortion in the first place?" The response then usually is, "well that is because you are arguing about a biological function of a women's anatomy which a man has no right to; as opposed to financial support which has nothing to do with sacrificing a man's body." Which I then respond with, "Well there are states and instances where child-support payments can be exorbitantly highly which absolutely kills the ability for the father of the child to make any sort of living. Many states well in-fact jail a father for not paying child support even; or not paying the full amount. So now you have destroyed the life of an adult human being, with little capacity to further improve himself, and if he is in jail. You are now getting ZERO child support as opposed to even a small amount of support. Or at the very worst; the same amount (zero, as he was giving you previously), but with the fact he is now in jail." This is typically where the argument breaks off several times without many convincing arguments. I think what I have described in the title would fix both issues, and I actually believe that dead-beat dads wouldn't be nearly as prevalent as it is assumed they would be, and there is nothing stopping someone from publicly shaming them to support a child. Especially useful in the age of social media (assuming it doesn't turn into a form of bullying). So i'd like someone to try and change my view.

t3_1k00wh

I think that the prejudice white people face is not as bad as the prejudice black people/people of color face CMV

To start off, I am of mixed race. My mother is Mexican, my father is white. While I have not experienced racism that can be comparable to someone of darker skin, I have experienced it. From both sides, both as a white and a Mexican. I basically am 'othered' by both sides. But that's not what this is about. A lot of people, when pointing out the racism people of color go through, mention 'reverse racism' (or racism aimed towards whites by people of color instead of racism aimed towards people of color by whites or other people of color). However, I think that's kind of a stupid point to make in the face of the systematic oppression POC face, and that, having experienced it myself, pales in comparison. **I am in no way saying that white people don't experience prejudice nor is this prejudice that white people experience a good thing.** For me, when a white person (and I have been discriminated against for being half white in a Mexican community) gets called a honkey, or a cracker, or whatever or is even bullied or picked on for being white, its not because people of color genuinely think that because that person is white, that person is below them. I think it's just bullying because that person is different from them, that person is not one of us. It is also in response to the racism that they face everyday- in order to escape racism from whites, they take preventative measures even if they don't realize it. On the other hand, being called something like beaner, spic, or wetback is much more hurtful (I've been called this when in predominantly white communities). When people say these things, when people make jokes about being Mexican (and jokes about race are fine at times, but some cross the line), when I am seen as just a piece of Latina ass, it is because people see me as below them because of my skin color and where my family came from. It carries more weight than calling me a cracker does. And it will always hurt more.

I think that the prejudice white people face is not as bad as the prejudice black people/people of color face CMV. To start off, I am of mixed race. My mother is Mexican, my father is white. While I have not experienced racism that can be comparable to someone of darker skin, I have experienced it. From both sides, both as a white and a Mexican. I basically am 'othered' by both sides. But that's not what this is about. A lot of people, when pointing out the racism people of color go through, mention 'reverse racism' (or racism aimed towards whites by people of color instead of racism aimed towards people of color by whites or other people of color). However, I think that's kind of a stupid point to make in the face of the systematic oppression POC face, and that, having experienced it myself, pales in comparison. **I am in no way saying that white people don't experience prejudice nor is this prejudice that white people experience a good thing.** For me, when a white person (and I have been discriminated against for being half white in a Mexican community) gets called a honkey, or a cracker, or whatever or is even bullied or picked on for being white, its not because people of color genuinely think that because that person is white, that person is below them. I think it's just bullying because that person is different from them, that person is not one of us. It is also in response to the racism that they face everyday- in order to escape racism from whites, they take preventative measures even if they don't realize it. On the other hand, being called something like beaner, spic, or wetback is much more hurtful (I've been called this when in predominantly white communities). When people say these things, when people make jokes about being Mexican (and jokes about race are fine at times, but some cross the line), when I am seen as just a piece of Latina ass, it is because people see me as below them because of my skin color and where my family came from. It carries more weight than calling me a cracker does. And it will always hurt more.

t3_1rb1gr

CMV: I think society would be much better if we stopped taking sex so seriously

I am of the opinion that sex is purely what one makes of it. It can be a romantic act of intimacy between two people who love each other, but it doesn't have to be. It can be a way to produce children, but it doesn't have to be. It can be just a fun thing to do, but again, it doesn't have to be. I realize that people have diverse views regarding sex, and they are entitled to that. But I do believe that many of the problems associated with sex would be 'solved' if people on a societal as well as an individual level did not see it as such a big deal. For instance: Rape. The main harm that comes from rape is not the physical (injury, STDs, etc.) but the psychological. No other crime tops rape as a means to leave lasting mental trauma to the victim, but why? I believe it comes down to the (troublesome) view that a person's body is the main characterization of who they are. Property theft doesn't leave a person feeling "violated," but being intentionally groped by a stranger does. Assault victims get sympathy, rape victims get scrutinized by people who think the victim's prior actions indicate that they actually wanted it, or that they didn't care enough to take care of themselves. People think "sluts" can't get raped because *who they are* is determined by what they choose to do with their body. If people did not put so much meaning behind sex, rape victims might not be made to feel ashamed or at fault, and it might not be so attractive to sociopaths who want to establish "dominance." Gender roles. It's hardly fair that men are hardly judged by how much sex they have (it may even be seen as a positive) while women who have a lot of sex are seen as whores. Sex is supposed to be such a big deal to women that they're expected to keep it to themselves, and if they don't, they clearly lack restraint. If sex wasn't seen as such a big indicator of one's character, women could have sex much more freely without fear of being judged. Demonization of prostitutes/sex workers. If people were open-minded enough to accept sex workers' view of sex, it would be seen as just another service, like massaging. It would be an easy path to legalization, which may reduce the demand for sex, which would hopefully lead to a lot less creepy PMs on dating apps. Sex crimes to minors. I think this is the biggest indicator of society's attitude toward sex. A childhood is supposed to be an "innocent" time- free of anything sexual, as if sex is dirty or shameful and only causes problems for people who know of it. It's at the point where people freak out if someone under 18 so much as sees a penis. Adults are labeled as sex offenders if their sex partner hasn't crossed the arbitrary age of consent. And of course, a sex act toward a child is seen as one of the worst crimes imaginable because, coupled with the trauma of rape, it forcibly shatters this illusion of a sex-free life. If people weren't so afraid of introducing sex to children (in a non-physical way, obviously) it would lead to children being well-informed on the matter and, ideally, less teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs. The biggest opponents to sexual education, after all, are people who are paranoid that it will make kids want to (gasp) *have sex.* There are a few other things I think it would help, but I don't feel like going into each and every one. **TL;DR-** This whole "your body is a temple" mentality that we all seem to have in regards to sex prevents people from seeing sex for what it really is and does more harm than good.

CMV: I think society would be much better if we stopped taking sex so seriously. I am of the opinion that sex is purely what one makes of it. It can be a romantic act of intimacy between two people who love each other, but it doesn't have to be. It can be a way to produce children, but it doesn't have to be. It can be just a fun thing to do, but again, it doesn't have to be. I realize that people have diverse views regarding sex, and they are entitled to that. But I do believe that many of the problems associated with sex would be 'solved' if people on a societal as well as an individual level did not see it as such a big deal. For instance: Rape. The main harm that comes from rape is not the physical (injury, STDs, etc.) but the psychological. No other crime tops rape as a means to leave lasting mental trauma to the victim, but why? I believe it comes down to the (troublesome) view that a person's body is the main characterization of who they are. Property theft doesn't leave a person feeling "violated," but being intentionally groped by a stranger does. Assault victims get sympathy, rape victims get scrutinized by people who think the victim's prior actions indicate that they actually wanted it, or that they didn't care enough to take care of themselves. People think "sluts" can't get raped because *who they are* is determined by what they choose to do with their body. If people did not put so much meaning behind sex, rape victims might not be made to feel ashamed or at fault, and it might not be so attractive to sociopaths who want to establish "dominance." Gender roles. It's hardly fair that men are hardly judged by how much sex they have (it may even be seen as a positive) while women who have a lot of sex are seen as whores. Sex is supposed to be such a big deal to women that they're expected to keep it to themselves, and if they don't, they clearly lack restraint. If sex wasn't seen as such a big indicator of one's character, women could have sex much more freely without fear of being judged. Demonization of prostitutes/sex workers. If people were open-minded enough to accept sex workers' view of sex, it would be seen as just another service, like massaging. It would be an easy path to legalization, which may reduce the demand for sex, which would hopefully lead to a lot less creepy PMs on dating apps. Sex crimes to minors. I think this is the biggest indicator of society's attitude toward sex. A childhood is supposed to be an "innocent" time- free of anything sexual, as if sex is dirty or shameful and only causes problems for people who know of it. It's at the point where people freak out if someone under 18 so much as sees a penis. Adults are labeled as sex offenders if their sex partner hasn't crossed the arbitrary age of consent. And of course, a sex act toward a child is seen as one of the worst crimes imaginable because, coupled with the trauma of rape, it forcibly shatters this illusion of a sex-free life. If people weren't so afraid of introducing sex to children (in a non-physical way, obviously) it would lead to children being well-informed on the matter and, ideally, less teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs. The biggest opponents to sexual education, after all, are people who are paranoid that it will make kids want to (gasp) *have sex.* There are a few other things I think it would help, but I don't feel like going into each and every one. **TL;DR-** This whole "your body is a temple" mentality that we all seem to have in regards to sex prevents people from seeing sex for what it really is and does more harm than good.

t3_2pmdht

CMV: I think #metalgate is a huge overreaction.

To my knowledge, Metalgate is about one website (Spin), just one, publishing a single article which contains a comment that people considered to be offensive enough to get upset over. The comment in its entirety: "Metal is still dogged by the issues that arise from its deep-seated conservative values, but thanks to an increase in conversations about racism, politics, and feminism, those on the right side of history have gained solid ground." I don't think this is anything to get riled up over. I mean, there are no hordes of articles proclaiming "metal fans are over". I feel like this is really not a big deal. Anybody want 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: I think #metalgate is a huge overreaction. To my knowledge, Metalgate is about one website (Spin), just one, publishing a single article which contains a comment that people considered to be offensive enough to get upset over. The comment in its entirety: "Metal is still dogged by the issues that arise from its deep-seated conservative values, but thanks to an increase in conversations about racism, politics, and feminism, those on the right side of history have gained solid ground." I don't think this is anything to get riled up over. I mean, there are no hordes of articles proclaiming "metal fans are over". I feel like this is really not a big deal. Anybody want to change my view?

t3_1e208x

I believe real Christians died out centuries ago, CMV.

That is to say, if real Christians ever existed in the first place. If you are a Christian, you must follow the teachings of the bible. You must follow the teachings of Christ. A real follower of any religion should follow that religion, not pick and choose what bits interest them. As soon as you can say "this works" and "this doesn't", you're not following the rules! I believe anyone who works on the Sabbath, has piercings or tattoos, wears cotton/polyester blends, has a same-sex relationship, allows a woman to teach, or allows a woman to speak in church, etc. And says they're a Christian is lying. I am certainly not saying that anyone should actually follow these rules, but I am convinced you are simply being dishonest if you call yourself a Christian, or a member of any religion, without following the rules that were clearly put out to you under that religion. Anyone that chooses to nit-pick the parts of their religion that they choose to follow is nothing more than a deist with a book they like. You are not a follower unless you are a follower! Update: Between /u/TheophilusOmega and /u/Ausfall my view has changed. I feel the easiest way for me to word this is my analogy that the Bible is not a rulebook to Christians, but a textbook. They don't follow it to a T because they don't have to. Jesus' teachings is the lesson, and the Bible is the textbook in which his teachings and the Biblical historical relevance is told. Assuming that a Christian must follow the rules of the Bible exactly, else they are not a 'true' believer, is fallacious reasoning as shown by /u/ausfall, and between the two of them I've learned what actually separates following the Holy Book to following the Religion itself. I feel the points were put across strongest and clearest by these two Redditors, but thank you to everyone else who contributed.

I believe real Christians died out centuries ago, CMV. That is to say, if real Christians ever existed in the first place. If you are a Christian, you must follow the teachings of the bible. You must follow the teachings of Christ. A real follower of any religion should follow that religion, not pick and choose what bits interest them. As soon as you can say "this works" and "this doesn't", you're not following the rules! I believe anyone who works on the Sabbath, has piercings or tattoos, wears cotton/polyester blends, has a same-sex relationship, allows a woman to teach, or allows a woman to speak in church, etc. And says they're a Christian is lying. I am certainly not saying that anyone should actually follow these rules, but I am convinced you are simply being dishonest if you call yourself a Christian, or a member of any religion, without following the rules that were clearly put out to you under that religion. Anyone that chooses to nit-pick the parts of their religion that they choose to follow is nothing more than a deist with a book they like. You are not a follower unless you are a follower! Update: Between /u/TheophilusOmega and /u/Ausfall my view has changed. I feel the easiest way for me to word this is my analogy that the Bible is not a rulebook to Christians, but a textbook. They don't follow it to a T because they don't have to. Jesus' teachings is the lesson, and the Bible is the textbook in which his teachings and the Biblical historical relevance is told. Assuming that a Christian must follow the rules of the Bible exactly, else they are not a 'true' believer, is fallacious reasoning as shown by /u/ausfall, and between the two of them I've learned what actually separates following the Holy Book to following the Religion itself. I feel the points were put across strongest and clearest by these two Redditors, but thank you to everyone else who contributed.

t3_1mb014

Earth is a prison/rehabilitation center for our “souls“not a place where we come to chill and learn. CMV.

This is my view when I feel that our lives have a bigger purpose. Of course nothing suggests that there has to be anything more than what we already have. Just a big random universe full of great wonders and mysteries, but if there is a purpose I believe that this is it. **The belief** I believe that we humans are nothing more than beings who have messed something up in a world/dimension where we actually originate from and are sent here to pay for our mistakes or try to understand them and change ourselves, in order to be healed when we go back. Just to give you an idea of what I mean by pay for our mistakes. What if the highest pleasure on Earth is the same as the deepest depression “out there”? This means we suffer even when we think everything is superb. The whole experience will be made known to you when you have finished your sentence. **Why do I think this?** Many humans believe that life is a gift that should be cherished. I think that living on Earth is not a gift, because why should we choose to live in a place where you need to fight for the chance to exist? I understand how our current state of mind sees it as a challenge, that should be defeated, but I think that we are extremely limited as a species about the things that we understand. What I mean is that, who says that feeling hunger, sadness and anger or love, compassion and unity is useful and necessary to evolve and grow as a life form? Yes this is useful for humans, but on the off chance that this life is just a stage which is not our real world, why would we need such lessons? I believe that beings smarter and more evolved than us do not need such arbitrary teachings as our lives. We do not need to relive a life of a monkey to know it sucked. Fighting for food, mating privileges and for life itself is something we acknowledge being hard and unpleasant without experiencing it. Why should a more advance being do it with our lives? And I do believe that we are not as smart on Earth as we are “out there.” Why should we be? It would diminish the experience here. Doesn’t it? We need to be ignorant of our true selves to be properly punished. So when we go back, the understanding would be that much stronger. Another example would be the place you go to visit when you want to relax. It is not a warzone or a prison. If you want to relax you go to a spa or a nice hotel. What I am trying to say is that Earth cannot be better than the place we are from. Why, because a civilization that has the ability to create a whole universe just to make a spa, must be capable of providing an awesome life for all the residents there. Therefore why the hell would you want to leave that place? Just for the kicks? I don’t think so. Yes there are some extremists out there who need immense adrenaline rushes to feel alive, but most of us are quite happy with just staying home. No need to risk our lives. Why should smarter beings want to feel unhappy? You probably want to say something like “Gods envy us because we are mortal“but I feel that such sayings exist only to silence our thoughts that we do not belong here. And reinforce the feeling that we should not leave and mess up the punishment. **Tl;dr:** Human life is not a class or a vacation. It is a punishment for our mistakes. **Change my view!**

Earth is a prison/rehabilitation center for our “souls“not a place where we come to chill and learn. CMV. This is my view when I feel that our lives have a bigger purpose. Of course nothing suggests that there has to be anything more than what we already have. Just a big random universe full of great wonders and mysteries, but if there is a purpose I believe that this is it. **The belief** I believe that we humans are nothing more than beings who have messed something up in a world/dimension where we actually originate from and are sent here to pay for our mistakes or try to understand them and change ourselves, in order to be healed when we go back. Just to give you an idea of what I mean by pay for our mistakes. What if the highest pleasure on Earth is the same as the deepest depression “out there”? This means we suffer even when we think everything is superb. The whole experience will be made known to you when you have finished your sentence. **Why do I think this?** Many humans believe that life is a gift that should be cherished. I think that living on Earth is not a gift, because why should we choose to live in a place where you need to fight for the chance to exist? I understand how our current state of mind sees it as a challenge, that should be defeated, but I think that we are extremely limited as a species about the things that we understand. What I mean is that, who says that feeling hunger, sadness and anger or love, compassion and unity is useful and necessary to evolve and grow as a life form? Yes this is useful for humans, but on the off chance that this life is just a stage which is not our real world, why would we need such lessons? I believe that beings smarter and more evolved than us do not need such arbitrary teachings as our lives. We do not need to relive a life of a monkey to know it sucked. Fighting for food, mating privileges and for life itself is something we acknowledge being hard and unpleasant without experiencing it. Why should a more advance being do it with our lives? And I do believe that we are not as smart on Earth as we are “out there.” Why should we be? It would diminish the experience here. Doesn’t it? We need to be ignorant of our true selves to be properly punished. So when we go back, the understanding would be that much stronger. Another example would be the place you go to visit when you want to relax. It is not a warzone or a prison. If you want to relax you go to a spa or a nice hotel. What I am trying to say is that Earth cannot be better than the place we are from. Why, because a civilization that has the ability to create a whole universe just to make a spa, must be capable of providing an awesome life for all the residents there. Therefore why the hell would you want to leave that place? Just for the kicks? I don’t think so. Yes there are some extremists out there who need immense adrenaline rushes to feel alive, but most of us are quite happy with just staying home. No need to risk our lives. Why should smarter beings want to feel unhappy? You probably want to say something like “Gods envy us because we are mortal“but I feel that such sayings exist only to silence our thoughts that we do not belong here. And reinforce the feeling that we should not leave and mess up the punishment. **Tl;dr:** Human life is not a class or a vacation. It is a punishment for our mistakes. **Change my view!**

t3_2k16fy

CMV: Gender is a useless concept and should not be used.

Gender, as defined by Wikipedia, is "the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." This notion of gender creates an unhealthy dichotomy between what defines a man and what defines a woman. It forces people to associate with one of two extremes that are not clearly defined universally or objectively. Through traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, gender creates a categorization of behaviors, qualities, and images as belonging either to men or women. Any man who aligns with the female gender or any woman who aligns with the male gender, then, is an an exception to the definition of a man or woman, as defined by society. Sex and sexual orientation are the only concepts of importance. Although there are some rare exceptions, a person is classified biologically as either male or female. A man who assumes a feminine gendered identity is still a man and a woman who assumes a masculine gendered identity is still a woman regardless of their character or orientation. The problem lies not within people “being born in the wrong skin”, but within society’s narrow definitions of men and women and of masculinity and femininity. Change my view.

CMV: Gender is a useless concept and should not be used. Gender, as defined by Wikipedia, is "the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." This notion of gender creates an unhealthy dichotomy between what defines a man and what defines a woman. It forces people to associate with one of two extremes that are not clearly defined universally or objectively. Through traditional stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, gender creates a categorization of behaviors, qualities, and images as belonging either to men or women. Any man who aligns with the female gender or any woman who aligns with the male gender, then, is an an exception to the definition of a man or woman, as defined by society. Sex and sexual orientation are the only concepts of importance. Although there are some rare exceptions, a person is classified biologically as either male or female. A man who assumes a feminine gendered identity is still a man and a woman who assumes a masculine gendered identity is still a woman regardless of their character or orientation. The problem lies not within people “being born in the wrong skin”, but within society’s narrow definitions of men and women and of masculinity and femininity. Change my view.

t3_5e44xi

CMV: The world would be so much better without Christianity, Islam, and Judaism

I had this all typed out and they removed it because no CMV. I'm feeling pretty reluctant about typing this again, but anyways, these religions of having "one god," bring nothing but violence and negativity into this world. I understand that there are those miracle moments and churches do good things for communities. But that's all in their head. They could do that without it being "gods will." I'm having trouble understanding why they should be kept around, science disproves everything in their holy texts. Throughout history so many people have been murdered because they refuse to believe in their version of god or any god. I feel like I'm a very open minded person but I just don't think anybody should be killed or treated differently over an idea. I don't want to say what people should and shouldn't believe in but wouldn't the world be a much better place without these religions?

CMV: The world would be so much better without Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I had this all typed out and they removed it because no CMV. I'm feeling pretty reluctant about typing this again, but anyways, these religions of having "one god," bring nothing but violence and negativity into this world. I understand that there are those miracle moments and churches do good things for communities. But that's all in their head. They could do that without it being "gods will." I'm having trouble understanding why they should be kept around, science disproves everything in their holy texts. Throughout history so many people have been murdered because they refuse to believe in their version of god or any god. I feel like I'm a very open minded person but I just don't think anybody should be killed or treated differently over an idea. I don't want to say what people should and shouldn't believe in but wouldn't the world be a much better place without these religions?

t3_3lve9p

CMV Reddit is becoming perceptibly worse, and if it hasn't already, will most likely evolve into a complete cesspool of mindless repetition and non-ironic circle jerks

I believe the predisposing factor for the decreasing quality in the reddit community is the increasing numbers on reddit. It is following a path where the most visible content is that which is designed to be attention seeking and panders to upvotes not quality. 1. Posts containing errors, propaganda, bias, and/or topics that garner easy karma, but have no real substance are more prevalent than ever before 2. The increase in population makes it harder for new content and in-jokes to gain momentum, so the status quo of circlejerking is perpetuated 3. Higher traffic = higher corporate intrigue and people are as corruptible as ever. Censorship goes far beyond Ellen pao. Voting algorithms, Changes to AMA structure, admins, moderators, etc have all been targets of allegations of corruption. (May or may not be true, just speculating as to what I think could potentially contribute to a poorer reddit community) 4. Redditors are resistant to change. Alternative hypotheses: the change actually lies with me, I have become disillusioned or for some reason perceive content differently. Reddit is actually improving as a community but I am out of touch with the userbase. (...no it's the kids who are wrong) I filter my reddit experience in some way that shows me content that I perceive as circlejerking or too repetitive

CMV Reddit is becoming perceptibly worse, and if it hasn't already, will most likely evolve into a complete cesspool of mindless repetition and non-ironic circle jerks. I believe the predisposing factor for the decreasing quality in the reddit community is the increasing numbers on reddit. It is following a path where the most visible content is that which is designed to be attention seeking and panders to upvotes not quality. 1. Posts containing errors, propaganda, bias, and/or topics that garner easy karma, but have no real substance are more prevalent than ever before 2. The increase in population makes it harder for new content and in-jokes to gain momentum, so the status quo of circlejerking is perpetuated 3. Higher traffic = higher corporate intrigue and people are as corruptible as ever. Censorship goes far beyond Ellen pao. Voting algorithms, Changes to AMA structure, admins, moderators, etc have all been targets of allegations of corruption. (May or may not be true, just speculating as to what I think could potentially contribute to a poorer reddit community) 4. Redditors are resistant to change. Alternative hypotheses: the change actually lies with me, I have become disillusioned or for some reason perceive content differently. Reddit is actually improving as a community but I am out of touch with the userbase. (...no it's the kids who are wrong) I filter my reddit experience in some way that shows me content that I perceive as circlejerking or too repetitive

t3_6581af

CMV: The Constitutionally-mandated age to hold public office of any kind, including POTUS, should be lowered to 18.

I don't claim to be a political scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but my thinking is that in a democracy, there really shouldn't be any barriers to holding office, and for the most part, in America, the ones that are in place make sense. For instance, the requirement that states you have to be an American citizen to be POTUS. Ideally, there would be NO formal requirement, but I don't mind these others as much as I dislike the age requirement because it seems so obviously a tool of an entrenched establishment to keep the younger generations from having a real voice in the highest office of the country. If this is a democracy, we should be trusted by our government to choose the best leaders (let's ignore the electoral college for now) for ourselves, and maybe the best person to lead the country at a given point in time is under 35. I'll check in on the comments after I clock out of work and we'll see how this goes I guess. Edit: corrected the age I cited

CMV: The Constitutionally-mandated age to hold public office of any kind, including POTUS, should be lowered to 18. I don't claim to be a political scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but my thinking is that in a democracy, there really shouldn't be any barriers to holding office, and for the most part, in America, the ones that are in place make sense. For instance, the requirement that states you have to be an American citizen to be POTUS. Ideally, there would be NO formal requirement, but I don't mind these others as much as I dislike the age requirement because it seems so obviously a tool of an entrenched establishment to keep the younger generations from having a real voice in the highest office of the country. If this is a democracy, we should be trusted by our government to choose the best leaders (let's ignore the electoral college for now) for ourselves, and maybe the best person to lead the country at a given point in time is under 35. I'll check in on the comments after I clock out of work and we'll see how this goes I guess. Edit: corrected the age I cited

t3_6weqg7

CMV: On average, English people are more guileful and wily than Canadians.

The titled view is based on my, my friends’, and my family’s personal interactions with the English, and thus is difficult to evidence. We feel that *on average*, Canadians tend to be franker, friendlier, more innocuous; while English tend to be [cleverer](https://www.quora.com/Are-British-people-witty-and-clever-or-is-that-just-TV), more adept and reserved. I've exemplified with academic education, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians, capitalist who are all guileful in their own ways and thus should exemplify the different types of 'guile'. No; our feeling is not affected by Received Pronunciation. **1) Education:** The best education in England beats the best education in Canada. Not all schools are like [Eton]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Schools_Act_1868) but at least England has them, while Canada doesn’t truly; St George’s School in Vancouver and Upper Canada College in Toronto aren’t as internationally renowned. England also boasts Oxbridge and LSE that beat Canada’s top-ranked universities (McGill, UBC, U of T). Peradventure [this](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-i-went-to-eton-and-absolutely-hated-it-481212.html) summarizes my feeling: "I have never met an Etonian who wasn't an untrustworthy, mendacious, conniving creep." **2) Advocacy/Litigation:** The best English barristers/Solicitor Advocates are cleverer and wilier than the best Canadian litigators. I discuss court advocates here because the work of English solicitors is easier. The London Bar is the first choice for many common-law jurisdictions around the world (e.g. Lord Pannick QC who has acted in Hong Kong). [Professor Stephen Waddams wrote in [this book](http://www.carswell.com/product-detail/introduction-to-the-study-of-law-8th-edition/)) that the quality of advocacy is higher in England than in Canada. **3) Math and Science:** (I'm aware of the difference between England and UK; but I can't find data for only English Laureates.) The UK has more [Nobel Laureates per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita) and [Fields Medallists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Fields_Medallists) than Canada. _____ > *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: On average, English people are more guileful and wily than Canadians. The titled view is based on my, my friends’, and my family’s personal interactions with the English, and thus is difficult to evidence. We feel that *on average*, Canadians tend to be franker, friendlier, more innocuous; while English tend to be [cleverer](https://www.quora.com/Are-British-people-witty-and-clever-or-is-that-just-TV), more adept and reserved. I've exemplified with academic education, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians, capitalist who are all guileful in their own ways and thus should exemplify the different types of 'guile'. No; our feeling is not affected by Received Pronunciation. **1) Education:** The best education in England beats the best education in Canada. Not all schools are like [Eton]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Schools_Act_1868) but at least England has them, while Canada doesn’t truly; St George’s School in Vancouver and Upper Canada College in Toronto aren’t as internationally renowned. England also boasts Oxbridge and LSE that beat Canada’s top-ranked universities (McGill, UBC, U of T). Peradventure [this](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-i-went-to-eton-and-absolutely-hated-it-481212.html) summarizes my feeling: "I have never met an Etonian who wasn't an untrustworthy, mendacious, conniving creep." **2) Advocacy/Litigation:** The best English barristers/Solicitor Advocates are cleverer and wilier than the best Canadian litigators. I discuss court advocates here because the work of English solicitors is easier. The London Bar is the first choice for many common-law jurisdictions around the world (e.g. Lord Pannick QC who has acted in Hong Kong). [Professor Stephen Waddams wrote in [this book](http://www.carswell.com/product-detail/introduction-to-the-study-of-law-8th-edition/)) that the quality of advocacy is higher in England than in Canada. **3) Math and Science:** (I'm aware of the difference between England and UK; but I can't find data for only English Laureates.) The UK has more [Nobel Laureates per capita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Nobel_laureates_per_capita) and [Fields Medallists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Fields_Medallists) than Canada. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1pvbrs

I view schooling/education as a fair vehicle that can only create opportunities. CMV

I've read articles and heard arguments that state how schooling/education favours the elites or higher status families of societies. They say that schooling contributes to the reproduction of existing social hierarchies and that it unfairly acts as the only way to establish one's credibility or legitimacy. I simply look as schooling/education as a vehicle of opportunity. I myself am not from a elite or higher status family, but I still feel like schooling/education has created opportunities for me. At the moment, I can't see how schooling / education can limit opportunities. **CMV**

I view schooling/education as a fair vehicle that can only create opportunities. CMV. I've read articles and heard arguments that state how schooling/education favours the elites or higher status families of societies. They say that schooling contributes to the reproduction of existing social hierarchies and that it unfairly acts as the only way to establish one's credibility or legitimacy. I simply look as schooling/education as a vehicle of opportunity. I myself am not from a elite or higher status family, but I still feel like schooling/education has created opportunities for me. At the moment, I can't see how schooling / education can limit opportunities. **CMV**

t3_277kmt

CMV: The imperial system sucks and shouldn't be used

The imperial system is completely arbitrary and uses a scale which makes no sense. Things like having 12 inches in one foot has no common sense. The metric system is currently used by physicists and scientists. It is adopted by essentially every developed nation in the world outside the US. It is universal in scale in that mili means thousandth, kilo means thousand, and everything goes up in multiples of 10s so it is easy to remember. 0 is freezing, 100 is boiling, that actually makes sense, and so does every other metric in the metric system. Delta'd I still believe that the metric is better than the imperial system in most measurement terms ranging from volume to length etc, and I don't think that the fact that imperial can be divided by 3 and 4 really means anything since unless you are talking about exactly a foot, it won't matter. However, I do realize that Imperial has been ingrained into American society and it would be too difficult to actually implement a change. The benefits of metric don't outweigh the cost of having to make everyone learn a different system. Maybe I'll be wrong in the long run though,who knows.

CMV: The imperial system sucks and shouldn't be used. The imperial system is completely arbitrary and uses a scale which makes no sense. Things like having 12 inches in one foot has no common sense. The metric system is currently used by physicists and scientists. It is adopted by essentially every developed nation in the world outside the US. It is universal in scale in that mili means thousandth, kilo means thousand, and everything goes up in multiples of 10s so it is easy to remember. 0 is freezing, 100 is boiling, that actually makes sense, and so does every other metric in the metric system. Delta'd I still believe that the metric is better than the imperial system in most measurement terms ranging from volume to length etc, and I don't think that the fact that imperial can be divided by 3 and 4 really means anything since unless you are talking about exactly a foot, it won't matter. However, I do realize that Imperial has been ingrained into American society and it would be too difficult to actually implement a change. The benefits of metric don't outweigh the cost of having to make everyone learn a different system. Maybe I'll be wrong in the long run though,who knows.

t3_2aocqi

CMV: I see no problem with "invasions of privacy" by government or corporations.

I've read a lot of threads on here hoping to have my view changed on this, to no avail -- most of those threads are full of people disparaging the view-holder as deluded or brain-washed, or only arguing that it's a slippery slope to an Orwellian apocalypse. Please don't do that to me. It doesn't convince anyone and it certainly won't convince me. Here's my thinking on this: There is, admittedly, a lot that can go wrong. I'm not concerned with as-yet-unoccuring rights violations or government oversteps, but rather the act of surveillance itself. If things go wrong, I will have problems with those policies and actions, not the enabling surveillance technology. To me, I see a lot to gain from widespread surveillance (whether that means tracking internet searches, tapping phones, reading emails, or putting up cameras in public areas). This could be crime prevention a la Person of Interest, medical research extensions via mass statistical analysis, or more accurate advertising. And the losses all would come from policies that are rights violations in themselves, regardless of initial source. To me, essentially there is no right to privacy in itself, just right to private thoughts, free actions, and private property -- which surveillance would not and does not change. To head off something that I suspect will be leveraged against me, I personally have sworn off secrets in my life, but I know many people don't want to. The closest I'll come to lying is lying by omission -- if asked directly, I will tell. I don't think everyone needs to follow my rules for my own life, and I do see how this could appear contradictory to mass surveillance. My resolution for this is that this information need not prevent the keeping of secrets from those in your personal life, just those who gather the data. And in the incredible amount of data that would be generated, the vast majority of information would disappear amid the flood and be, essentially, private. All that said, I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise -- I know my view is the minority, and sometimes I think something is wrong with me to believe this so strongly when pretty much no one else does. I need a logical argument not based on dangerous potential endgames, or a justification for privacy in itself beyond just that "privacy is good". Thanks!

CMV: I see no problem with "invasions of privacy" by government or corporations. I've read a lot of threads on here hoping to have my view changed on this, to no avail -- most of those threads are full of people disparaging the view-holder as deluded or brain-washed, or only arguing that it's a slippery slope to an Orwellian apocalypse. Please don't do that to me. It doesn't convince anyone and it certainly won't convince me. Here's my thinking on this: There is, admittedly, a lot that can go wrong. I'm not concerned with as-yet-unoccuring rights violations or government oversteps, but rather the act of surveillance itself. If things go wrong, I will have problems with those policies and actions, not the enabling surveillance technology. To me, I see a lot to gain from widespread surveillance (whether that means tracking internet searches, tapping phones, reading emails, or putting up cameras in public areas). This could be crime prevention a la Person of Interest, medical research extensions via mass statistical analysis, or more accurate advertising. And the losses all would come from policies that are rights violations in themselves, regardless of initial source. To me, essentially there is no right to privacy in itself, just right to private thoughts, free actions, and private property -- which surveillance would not and does not change. To head off something that I suspect will be leveraged against me, I personally have sworn off secrets in my life, but I know many people don't want to. The closest I'll come to lying is lying by omission -- if asked directly, I will tell. I don't think everyone needs to follow my rules for my own life, and I do see how this could appear contradictory to mass surveillance. My resolution for this is that this information need not prevent the keeping of secrets from those in your personal life, just those who gather the data. And in the incredible amount of data that would be generated, the vast majority of information would disappear amid the flood and be, essentially, private. All that said, I would LOVE to be convinced otherwise -- I know my view is the minority, and sometimes I think something is wrong with me to believe this so strongly when pretty much no one else does. I need a logical argument not based on dangerous potential endgames, or a justification for privacy in itself beyond just that "privacy is good". Thanks!

t3_1bcbta

I think that r/atheism has more hate and ignorance than most modern christians. CMV

I live in Utah, and because of that, I am surrounded by Christians. In my experience these people respect individual decisions and beliefs to a far greater extent that the posts I've seen in r/atheism. I think there are similarities to religion and atheism that can be made, one of them being the desire to share knowledge that can improve the lives of others. But from there, I think that Christians are much more pleasant in their approach to sharing their views. Now these people can be pushy (Mormons are famous for it) but they are far less hostile and much more accepting of people who may share beliefs that are in-congruent of their own.

I think that r/atheism has more hate and ignorance than most modern christians. CMV. I live in Utah, and because of that, I am surrounded by Christians. In my experience these people respect individual decisions and beliefs to a far greater extent that the posts I've seen in r/atheism. I think there are similarities to religion and atheism that can be made, one of them being the desire to share knowledge that can improve the lives of others. But from there, I think that Christians are much more pleasant in their approach to sharing their views. Now these people can be pushy (Mormons are famous for it) but they are far less hostile and much more accepting of people who may share beliefs that are in-congruent of their own.

t3_36fllr

CMV: Turning right on red from the "outside lane" or "left right turn lane" should be legal in most cases.

As can be seen in [this image](http://mediaassets.naplesnews.com/photo/2014/05/20/0716_NCLO_Know1_4963231_ver1.0_640_480.JPG), in most places in the U.S. (and maybe elsewhere that right-on-red is allowed?), it is legal to turn right on red from the inmost lane, but if there is more than one right-only turn lane, all others are prohibited from turning right on red. I do not see why this is. If it is legal to turn right on red after checking for incoming traffic from your left in one lane, why would it not be in another? I don't think there is a significant likelihood of cars from more than one turn lane crashing into each other. I also don't think it likely that a vehicle turning right on red from the leftmost right turn lane would be more likely to collide with oncoming traffic. Surely he would check both lanes of traffic before turning, just as the inside lane would check the rightmost incoming traffic lane as well as whether there is anyone that might be changing lanes into his lane before the intersection. However, I imagine that someone somewhere had a reason for making this a law, so I am quite willing to change my view if given reasoning as to why turning right on red from anything but the inside lane is predominantly illegal. Edit: going to bed. I posted this on a whim and didn't think about the time required for a detailed discussion. Thanks for the comments. I'll respond more tomorrow. _____ > *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: Turning right on red from the "outside lane" or "left right turn lane" should be legal in most cases. As can be seen in [this image](http://mediaassets.naplesnews.com/photo/2014/05/20/0716_NCLO_Know1_4963231_ver1.0_640_480.JPG), in most places in the U.S. (and maybe elsewhere that right-on-red is allowed?), it is legal to turn right on red from the inmost lane, but if there is more than one right-only turn lane, all others are prohibited from turning right on red. I do not see why this is. If it is legal to turn right on red after checking for incoming traffic from your left in one lane, why would it not be in another? I don't think there is a significant likelihood of cars from more than one turn lane crashing into each other. I also don't think it likely that a vehicle turning right on red from the leftmost right turn lane would be more likely to collide with oncoming traffic. Surely he would check both lanes of traffic before turning, just as the inside lane would check the rightmost incoming traffic lane as well as whether there is anyone that might be changing lanes into his lane before the intersection. However, I imagine that someone somewhere had a reason for making this a law, so I am quite willing to change my view if given reasoning as to why turning right on red from anything but the inside lane is predominantly illegal. Edit: going to bed. I posted this on a whim and didn't think about the time required for a detailed discussion. Thanks for the comments. I'll respond more tomorrow.

t3_1zdtdm

I think that Lance Armstrong got a raw deal and was no more guilty than any other competing member of his sport. CMV

I haven't done a great deal of research into the matter, but I think that in the end he was punished so harshly simply to serve as an example to others who ended up getting off light for using PEDs. So in the end Lance Armstrong was punished for his success just as much as his use of PEDs. Haven't many of the other competing bikers been known to use? I think that perhaps PEDs should be allowed - up to a degree - and that they should be regulated and measured. It might cost more in upkeep but these events generate millions. The association, or whatever organization(s) that runs the races, should consider a different set of rules for this sort of thing - and I don't think that Lance should have had his medals stripped. Perhaps tarnished with a footnote, but not taken. Regardless of his use of PEDs he still worked really really hard for those achievements - with no lack of talent. Maybe an alternate league which allows them should be formed? Clearly the sport is rife with abuse, so why punish the best and brightest - an icon of the competition on a global scale for decades - just to prove a point? It doesn't seem right.

I think that Lance Armstrong got a raw deal and was no more guilty than any other competing member of his sport. CMV. I haven't done a great deal of research into the matter, but I think that in the end he was punished so harshly simply to serve as an example to others who ended up getting off light for using PEDs. So in the end Lance Armstrong was punished for his success just as much as his use of PEDs. Haven't many of the other competing bikers been known to use? I think that perhaps PEDs should be allowed - up to a degree - and that they should be regulated and measured. It might cost more in upkeep but these events generate millions. The association, or whatever organization(s) that runs the races, should consider a different set of rules for this sort of thing - and I don't think that Lance should have had his medals stripped. Perhaps tarnished with a footnote, but not taken. Regardless of his use of PEDs he still worked really really hard for those achievements - with no lack of talent. Maybe an alternate league which allows them should be formed? Clearly the sport is rife with abuse, so why punish the best and brightest - an icon of the competition on a global scale for decades - just to prove a point? It doesn't seem right.

t3_4i333f

CMV: Sadly, Donald Trump will be our next president.

I'm totally not a Trump supporter. I'm actually a huge Sanders supporter, but I don't think he has a chance. That said, it's highly plausible that Clinton will win the Democratic nominee, unless she gets indicted which isn't likely. So we're looking at a Trump vs Clinton in the general. There is no way Clinton can win against Trump. Clinton has way too many scandals on her. The worst trump has said were some questionable things about hispanics and Muslims. Also, in recent polls [Trump beats Clinton](http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/poll-trump-pops-into-lead-against-hillary/)... it used to be the other way around but as of recent it looks like Trump will beat Clinton. On top of that, people are sick and tired of establishment politics. I think the only person who could (and likely would have) beat trump is Sanders. But a Sanders vs Trump general is highly unlikely.

CMV: Sadly, Donald Trump will be our next president. I'm totally not a Trump supporter. I'm actually a huge Sanders supporter, but I don't think he has a chance. That said, it's highly plausible that Clinton will win the Democratic nominee, unless she gets indicted which isn't likely. So we're looking at a Trump vs Clinton in the general. There is no way Clinton can win against Trump. Clinton has way too many scandals on her. The worst trump has said were some questionable things about hispanics and Muslims. Also, in recent polls [Trump beats Clinton](http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/poll-trump-pops-into-lead-against-hillary/)... it used to be the other way around but as of recent it looks like Trump will beat Clinton. On top of that, people are sick and tired of establishment politics. I think the only person who could (and likely would have) beat trump is Sanders. But a Sanders vs Trump general is highly unlikely.

t3_2itvx2

CMV:Women dress more skimpy then men

I then females get more dopamine by dressing a sexy or pretty then males do. Simple as that.Cleavage isn't even a thing for males.High heels are extremely uncomfortable leaving little justify wearing them. When I think of scantily clad men I tend to think of gay men in fact. I'm thinking of the gay pride stuff. I don't think the is any stigma for strait guys showing skin though. What about Elsa's customs change in frozen insinuating that she's become a more confident person. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Women dress more skimpy then men. I then females get more dopamine by dressing a sexy or pretty then males do. Simple as that.Cleavage isn't even a thing for males.High heels are extremely uncomfortable leaving little justify wearing them. When I think of scantily clad men I tend to think of gay men in fact. I'm thinking of the gay pride stuff. I don't think the is any stigma for strait guys showing skin though. What about Elsa's customs change in frozen insinuating that she's become a more confident person.

t3_2dtnr7

CMV: I believe that people do not know what is best for them and a realistically utopian society would have extremely strict laws that were absolutely enforced and accepted.

Okay. Guys. I think I'm crazy. But this is honestly what I believe. First of all, a disclaimer. While I make no claims to be a diagnosed socio/psychopath, I sometimes have difficulty empathizing with other people or things, especially in the case of animals. I am not sure if this is a normal condition and other people simply lie about what they care about, but it is true for me. Additionally, the household that I grew up in suffered from an on-and-off alcoholic parent, and I realize that this makes me both far more cynical and gives me a *insanely* intense bias against any sort of mind-altering substance. These are my foibles. With that out of the way, let us get to the point of our view here. I genuinely believe that individual freedom is overrated and its position as a value must be reduced greatly if we are ever to construct any sort of society in which most people would be happy, or around middle-class as we see today. Some people may ask who would determine the rules. I think I'm better than most people too, even if I rationally realize that this is a extremely debatable claim. So I think my particular realistically Utopian society would follow my views exactly and that they would additionally be exactly enforced. Basically, I don't see why personal freedom is valued so much outside of the basic necessities. Similarly, privacy from the government does not seem to be that much of a concern to me. I don't care about the NSA monitoring every private communication I ever send. If even *one* life was saved, I think it was totally worth it. Even if *no* lives were saved, and it only *stopped* people from engaging in harmful activity, it would be worth it. As well, I think that people, as a collective, are silly and need to be herded closely. I don't think any sort of mind-altering substance should be legal and they should be punished harshly. That includes the currently legal ones, drugs and alcohol. Obviously, in a medical setting, prescribed by a practicing doctor, they would be acceptable, as I believe doctors are more knowledgeable than me in their field and defer to them in the business of treating illness and disease. I realize this post was rather rambling. I am not comfortable divulging personal information, and would appreciate if you did not attempt to use my post history to contradict or attempt to change my view. I do not agree with many of the things I have previously stated anymore. Thank you for your effort. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that people do not know what is best for them and a realistically utopian society would have extremely strict laws that were absolutely enforced and accepted. Okay. Guys. I think I'm crazy. But this is honestly what I believe. First of all, a disclaimer. While I make no claims to be a diagnosed socio/psychopath, I sometimes have difficulty empathizing with other people or things, especially in the case of animals. I am not sure if this is a normal condition and other people simply lie about what they care about, but it is true for me. Additionally, the household that I grew up in suffered from an on-and-off alcoholic parent, and I realize that this makes me both far more cynical and gives me a *insanely* intense bias against any sort of mind-altering substance. These are my foibles. With that out of the way, let us get to the point of our view here. I genuinely believe that individual freedom is overrated and its position as a value must be reduced greatly if we are ever to construct any sort of society in which most people would be happy, or around middle-class as we see today. Some people may ask who would determine the rules. I think I'm better than most people too, even if I rationally realize that this is a extremely debatable claim. So I think my particular realistically Utopian society would follow my views exactly and that they would additionally be exactly enforced. Basically, I don't see why personal freedom is valued so much outside of the basic necessities. Similarly, privacy from the government does not seem to be that much of a concern to me. I don't care about the NSA monitoring every private communication I ever send. If even *one* life was saved, I think it was totally worth it. Even if *no* lives were saved, and it only *stopped* people from engaging in harmful activity, it would be worth it. As well, I think that people, as a collective, are silly and need to be herded closely. I don't think any sort of mind-altering substance should be legal and they should be punished harshly. That includes the currently legal ones, drugs and alcohol. Obviously, in a medical setting, prescribed by a practicing doctor, they would be acceptable, as I believe doctors are more knowledgeable than me in their field and defer to them in the business of treating illness and disease. I realize this post was rather rambling. I am not comfortable divulging personal information, and would appreciate if you did not attempt to use my post history to contradict or attempt to change my view. I do not agree with many of the things I have previously stated anymore. Thank you for your effort.

t3_3v8bcs

CMV: This current generation's pop-culture is no worse than the previous, or the previous before that. There are enjoyable aspects, and not-so-enjoyable aspects, but is it worse? No.

I think that many people born in more recent generations fall victim to the fallacy that there was a smaller volume of poorly-made and generic films and songs that were popular and mainstream in previous generations. Every decade has had it's fair share of horribly commercial and fad-driven trends, but most of these have fallen into obscurity along with forgotten fashion trends because of their low quality. In other words, each decade has a certain amount of crap content it produces, which dies with the time period as people move on to newer trends, while songs and films of quality stand the test of time longer. I argue that when people complain about the way pop-culture is now, they're only thinking of 'quality' bands and movies from the past because the others have fallen behind. The 'good stuff' from each decade is all that's left. And if anything, that shows how much good taste people can really have. There is also the fact that many films and songs that are popular now weren't popular at the time. But due to their current popularity, people drop them into the bin of 'past pop-culture'. This decade, like all others before it, will retain a smaller amount of it's content than what we currently experience and remember. In a few years, this decade too will look better compared to the current because young people won't know about as much of the low-effort and 'brain-rotting' media that accompanied it. So what about people that were born in a previous generation but claim it's superior? Those are the people that may be able to sway my opinion. However, I still retain that many of these people look at their own generation through rose-colored glasses ("90's kids" anyone?) and simply remember it as better because of nostalgic fondness. The future is new and different and didn't bond with them like what was shown to them in their impressionable years was. As adults, they're more objective to pop-culture. I like that each decade has songs and movies that are supposed to be fun. People complain about current music and films and how 'dumb' they are, as if all music and film has some obligation to contain new or intellectual material. Even so, there are still a lot of popular artists such as Kendrick Lamar who create thought-provoking work. I see so many people ranting about how the current generation and pop-culture now is just the *worst*, but is it really worse than any other decade? I don't think so. _____ > *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: This current generation's pop-culture is no worse than the previous, or the previous before that. There are enjoyable aspects, and not-so-enjoyable aspects, but is it worse? No. I think that many people born in more recent generations fall victim to the fallacy that there was a smaller volume of poorly-made and generic films and songs that were popular and mainstream in previous generations. Every decade has had it's fair share of horribly commercial and fad-driven trends, but most of these have fallen into obscurity along with forgotten fashion trends because of their low quality. In other words, each decade has a certain amount of crap content it produces, which dies with the time period as people move on to newer trends, while songs and films of quality stand the test of time longer. I argue that when people complain about the way pop-culture is now, they're only thinking of 'quality' bands and movies from the past because the others have fallen behind. The 'good stuff' from each decade is all that's left. And if anything, that shows how much good taste people can really have. There is also the fact that many films and songs that are popular now weren't popular at the time. But due to their current popularity, people drop them into the bin of 'past pop-culture'. This decade, like all others before it, will retain a smaller amount of it's content than what we currently experience and remember. In a few years, this decade too will look better compared to the current because young people won't know about as much of the low-effort and 'brain-rotting' media that accompanied it. So what about people that were born in a previous generation but claim it's superior? Those are the people that may be able to sway my opinion. However, I still retain that many of these people look at their own generation through rose-colored glasses ("90's kids" anyone?) and simply remember it as better because of nostalgic fondness. The future is new and different and didn't bond with them like what was shown to them in their impressionable years was. As adults, they're more objective to pop-culture. I like that each decade has songs and movies that are supposed to be fun. People complain about current music and films and how 'dumb' they are, as if all music and film has some obligation to contain new or intellectual material. Even so, there are still a lot of popular artists such as Kendrick Lamar who create thought-provoking work. I see so many people ranting about how the current generation and pop-culture now is just the *worst*, but is it really worse than any other decade? I don't think so.

t3_3ilt4t

CMV: Tougher gun laws would not have prevented yesterday's tragedy where Bryce Williams killed Alison Parker and Adam Ward

Firstly, my heart goes out to the victims and by no means am I making excuses or defending any actions. Yesterday's events were a tragedy. Having grown up on Smith Mountain Lake and spent countless days on the very docks that the incident took place and having gone to the same school as Alison, the events hit really close to home. May Alison and Adam rest in peace. Secondly, I am not coming from the pro or anti gun legislation perspective. If I could remove all guns from the world and safely fill the sport and personal self-defense gaps with something else with a single wish, I would... after I wished for $1 billion and 22 year old Heidi Klum to be my wife. I wanted to talk specifically about premeditated murder and the role firearms play in them. While watching the comments role through in yesterday's /r/news thread, several comments mentioned the desire for tougher gun laws. However, I believe that in instances of premeditated murder (vs manslaughter or random acts of violence), tougher gun laws would not prevent these events. I am going to repeat myself a few times, but bear with me: Despite all of the reason for Bryce Williams not to commit yesterday's crime, he still decided to go through with it. Despite the consequences that he would face legally, he decided to go through with it. Despite the pain he would cause to the families of the Alison and Adam as well as his own, he decided to go through with it. Despite the hate and vitriol his memory would leave, he decided to through with it. Despite all of the reasons not to go through with it, he decided to go through with it. My argument is, if guns were more difficult or impossible to get access to, Bryce Williams would have just added it to the list of hinderances he ignored and still gone through with it. Hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, I believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill Alison and Adam by another means. I so badly want to believe that we can prevent incidents like yesterday's from happening through tougher gun legislation or any other way, but I cannot see how. Please change my view.

CMV: Tougher gun laws would not have prevented yesterday's tragedy where Bryce Williams killed Alison Parker and Adam Ward. Firstly, my heart goes out to the victims and by no means am I making excuses or defending any actions. Yesterday's events were a tragedy. Having grown up on Smith Mountain Lake and spent countless days on the very docks that the incident took place and having gone to the same school as Alison, the events hit really close to home. May Alison and Adam rest in peace. Secondly, I am not coming from the pro or anti gun legislation perspective. If I could remove all guns from the world and safely fill the sport and personal self-defense gaps with something else with a single wish, I would... after I wished for $1 billion and 22 year old Heidi Klum to be my wife. I wanted to talk specifically about premeditated murder and the role firearms play in them. While watching the comments role through in yesterday's /r/news thread, several comments mentioned the desire for tougher gun laws. However, I believe that in instances of premeditated murder (vs manslaughter or random acts of violence), tougher gun laws would not prevent these events. I am going to repeat myself a few times, but bear with me: Despite all of the reason for Bryce Williams not to commit yesterday's crime, he still decided to go through with it. Despite the consequences that he would face legally, he decided to go through with it. Despite the pain he would cause to the families of the Alison and Adam as well as his own, he decided to go through with it. Despite the hate and vitriol his memory would leave, he decided to through with it. Despite all of the reasons not to go through with it, he decided to go through with it. My argument is, if guns were more difficult or impossible to get access to, Bryce Williams would have just added it to the list of hinderances he ignored and still gone through with it. Hypothetically not having access to a fire arm, I believe he would have still gone through the act of trying to kill Alison and Adam by another means. I so badly want to believe that we can prevent incidents like yesterday's from happening through tougher gun legislation or any other way, but I cannot see how. Please change my view.

t3_5lv89l

CMV: Jury duty is unconstitutional

Jury Duty is unconstitutional. It violates the 13th amendment which says: >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Involuntary servitude is being coerced into working against one's will in the service of another. The coercion can take the form of threats of physical violence, imprisonment, or fines. Failure to report to jury duty is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment and is therefore involuntary servitude. I will now respond to anticipated counterarguments. 1) "The 6th amendment makes jury duty mandatory" No it doesn't. The 6th amendment says you have the right to an impartial jury. That does not entail the jury must involuntarily serve. 2) "If jury duty was voluntary, then juries would be biased because of self-selection bias" This is like arguing that voting should be forced because it is biased by self-selection. This is not a problem. The people who vote tend to be people that understand the issues relative to non-voters. That is a good thing. A voluntary jury will tend to be made of people that have the time and interest to do the job properly. In the current system juries are already biased in different ways because they are compelled against their will to be there. For example juries will often hasten to reach verdicts because they want to go home. 3) "You get paid for jury duty so it's not involuntary servitude" Yes, it still is. If I force you to work for me under threats of fines or imprisonment, it is still involuntary servitude even if I decide to give you money for it. 4) "The Supreme Court has ruled that jury duty is not involuntary servitude" The Supreme Court is wrong. They have no good argument for their determination. Their opinion may have power, but might does not make right. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the draft is not involuntary servitude. If being forced under threat of imprisonment to possibly kill people is not involuntary servitude, then the words "involuntary servitude" have no meaning. I only mention this because I think you will be more likely to agree that the draft is unconstitutional, but if you agree on that point, there is no reason in principle why you shouldn't also agree that jury duty is unconstitutional. _____ > *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: Jury duty is unconstitutional. Jury Duty is unconstitutional. It violates the 13th amendment which says: >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Involuntary servitude is being coerced into working against one's will in the service of another. The coercion can take the form of threats of physical violence, imprisonment, or fines. Failure to report to jury duty is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment and is therefore involuntary servitude. I will now respond to anticipated counterarguments. 1) "The 6th amendment makes jury duty mandatory" No it doesn't. The 6th amendment says you have the right to an impartial jury. That does not entail the jury must involuntarily serve. 2) "If jury duty was voluntary, then juries would be biased because of self-selection bias" This is like arguing that voting should be forced because it is biased by self-selection. This is not a problem. The people who vote tend to be people that understand the issues relative to non-voters. That is a good thing. A voluntary jury will tend to be made of people that have the time and interest to do the job properly. In the current system juries are already biased in different ways because they are compelled against their will to be there. For example juries will often hasten to reach verdicts because they want to go home. 3) "You get paid for jury duty so it's not involuntary servitude" Yes, it still is. If I force you to work for me under threats of fines or imprisonment, it is still involuntary servitude even if I decide to give you money for it. 4) "The Supreme Court has ruled that jury duty is not involuntary servitude" The Supreme Court is wrong. They have no good argument for their determination. Their opinion may have power, but might does not make right. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the draft is not involuntary servitude. If being forced under threat of imprisonment to possibly kill people is not involuntary servitude, then the words "involuntary servitude" have no meaning. I only mention this because I think you will be more likely to agree that the draft is unconstitutional, but if you agree on that point, there is no reason in principle why you shouldn't also agree that jury duty is unconstitutional.

t3_22xvd7

CMV: The only good definition of the word "Indie" when applied to music is Independent Record Label.

Rock/pop is just rock/pop. If a band is an underrated or relatively unknown rock/pop band....its just an underrated/unknown rock/pop band. If a rap artist is underrated and on an independent record label, the artist doesn't get its own genre. Its still just rap and the artist is underrated and independent. The same can be said for a grunge band, alternative rock band, classic rock band, or any combination of genres. Indie is not a genre. Alternative Rock, Garage Rock, Grunge are genres. Indie is an adjective only describing its record label. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The only good definition of the word "Indie" when applied to music is Independent Record Label. Rock/pop is just rock/pop. If a band is an underrated or relatively unknown rock/pop band....its just an underrated/unknown rock/pop band. If a rap artist is underrated and on an independent record label, the artist doesn't get its own genre. Its still just rap and the artist is underrated and independent. The same can be said for a grunge band, alternative rock band, classic rock band, or any combination of genres. Indie is not a genre. Alternative Rock, Garage Rock, Grunge are genres. Indie is an adjective only describing its record label. CMV.

t3_1m7kdh

The UN will never be a serious or fair international force as long as there are 5 permanent members of the Security Council CMV

The presence of a permanent security council with veto power is irreconcilable with the idea of a fair and representative international body. The five permanent members, UK, US, France, Russia, and China would be incredibly influential without their permanent spot, due to their economic, military and diplomatic influence around the world. When you add a permanent seat to that, they simply break the system. The UN stops being international and becomes a playground for the "big boys". The international members get a big "fuck you, we're above the rules, fall in line," and the desires of the majority are frequently thwarted by the veto power of a tiny minority. Furthermore, the UN to my knowledge is legally incapable of changing this situation. The US for example has a defined process for amending its Constitution, while the veto power effectively prevents any such reform of the UN. tldr: fundamentally broken, can't be fixed, league of nations-tier shithouse that makes any idea of an international regulatory body a joke by constantly betraying such principles by its mere existence

The UN will never be a serious or fair international force as long as there are 5 permanent members of the Security Council CMV. The presence of a permanent security council with veto power is irreconcilable with the idea of a fair and representative international body. The five permanent members, UK, US, France, Russia, and China would be incredibly influential without their permanent spot, due to their economic, military and diplomatic influence around the world. When you add a permanent seat to that, they simply break the system. The UN stops being international and becomes a playground for the "big boys". The international members get a big "fuck you, we're above the rules, fall in line," and the desires of the majority are frequently thwarted by the veto power of a tiny minority. Furthermore, the UN to my knowledge is legally incapable of changing this situation. The US for example has a defined process for amending its Constitution, while the veto power effectively prevents any such reform of the UN. tldr: fundamentally broken, can't be fixed, league of nations-tier shithouse that makes any idea of an international regulatory body a joke by constantly betraying such principles by its mere existence

t3_5d2fvg

CMV: The Electoral College should elect Hillary Clinton as president by way of faithless electors.

This view is based on several other views which are (mostly) up for changing: 1. Donald Trump is an unqualified candidate who does not have the poise, temperament, or familiarity with the office to be president. 2. The electoral college was created to prevent a demagogue like Trump from taking office, which is why electors vote for president instead of a direct election by the general populace. 3. Faithless electors are a check and a failsafe for exactly this scenario- when the candidate put forth through the general election is unqualified.

CMV: The Electoral College should elect Hillary Clinton as president by way of faithless electors. This view is based on several other views which are (mostly) up for changing: 1. Donald Trump is an unqualified candidate who does not have the poise, temperament, or familiarity with the office to be president. 2. The electoral college was created to prevent a demagogue like Trump from taking office, which is why electors vote for president instead of a direct election by the general populace. 3. Faithless electors are a check and a failsafe for exactly this scenario- when the candidate put forth through the general election is unqualified.

t3_2ailde

CMV: I think that grammar in most, but not all, cases is pointless

**TITLE UPDATE:** Thanks to /u/DHCKris, I just realized that my title might be incorrectly stated. I can't change it but what it should be is: ***We should not be required to follow the current rules of grammar 100*** Note that in this post I'm only referring to the English language. Although my argument can be extended to mant other languages, I'm not familiar with them and will thus exclude them from this conversation. I don't think that anyone should be looked down upon if improper grammar is used in writing as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous. For example, I could write "I drove to the store" or "I drove two the store". In the second case, I would unnecessarily be corrected even though clarity of meaning wasn't compromised. In fact, words like to/two/too, their/there/they're, and its/it's should be simplified into only 1 word. Look at it this way, when I use those words in spoken language, you can't tell the difference since they all sound the same. You can guess which one I mean through context. Why should it be any different with written language. Some might argue that in spoken language, body language gives a lot clues, but what about audio recordings like radio? You can't tell body language but you still understand exactly what the person is saying. Other examples, where proper grammar seems unnecessary 1) "My friend and I saw a movie" vs "My friend and me saw a movie" vs "I and my friend saw a movie" vs "Me and my friends saw a movie" 2) "I went to the store, and I went to the bank" vs "I went to the store and I went to the bank" (notice the comma) 3) Run on sentences. It doesn't matter when I speak in run on sentences so why should it in writing? Doesn't compromise meaning 4) Swam vs Swimmed (mean the same but swimmed is the one you would pick by instinct if you didn't know grammar) and other similar irregular words (as long as it isn't too awkward to say like seeed vs saw) 5) "You did well on that test" vs "You did good on that test" 6) "However, I thought that...." vs "However I though that..." (Comma) 7) "I went to the store" vs "Me went to the store" These are just a few examples out of many more. By making language like this, you are simplifying it without taking out too much structure. This is beneficial because 1) I don't have to think too hard to check if my sentence is grammatically correct even though I got my meaning across in a clear fashion. Even now, if I'm writing a formal essay, I sometimes have to do a quick google search on certain grammatical topics even though I have learned them before in school 2) Time isn't wasted in school learning these rules. This time can be used to teach other more important stuff 3) People new to English wouldn't have as hard of a time learning the language 4) It may sound/look weird now but after a while once it becomes commonplace and we get used to it, it will sound/look much more natural Please don't use the argument that people will think I'm less smart/professional/serious if I don't use good grammar (as long as my message isn't ambiguous) . This also needs to change in my opinion. Remember, my argument is that grammar shouldn't matter as long as clarity of meaning isn't sacrificed. Lack of ambiguity takes priority over grammar. _____ > *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 that grammar in most, but not all, cases is pointless. **TITLE UPDATE:** Thanks to /u/DHCKris, I just realized that my title might be incorrectly stated. I can't change it but what it should be is: ***We should not be required to follow the current rules of grammar 100*** Note that in this post I'm only referring to the English language. Although my argument can be extended to mant other languages, I'm not familiar with them and will thus exclude them from this conversation. I don't think that anyone should be looked down upon if improper grammar is used in writing as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous. For example, I could write "I drove to the store" or "I drove two the store". In the second case, I would unnecessarily be corrected even though clarity of meaning wasn't compromised. In fact, words like to/two/too, their/there/they're, and its/it's should be simplified into only 1 word. Look at it this way, when I use those words in spoken language, you can't tell the difference since they all sound the same. You can guess which one I mean through context. Why should it be any different with written language. Some might argue that in spoken language, body language gives a lot clues, but what about audio recordings like radio? You can't tell body language but you still understand exactly what the person is saying. Other examples, where proper grammar seems unnecessary 1) "My friend and I saw a movie" vs "My friend and me saw a movie" vs "I and my friend saw a movie" vs "Me and my friends saw a movie" 2) "I went to the store, and I went to the bank" vs "I went to the store and I went to the bank" (notice the comma) 3) Run on sentences. It doesn't matter when I speak in run on sentences so why should it in writing? Doesn't compromise meaning 4) Swam vs Swimmed (mean the same but swimmed is the one you would pick by instinct if you didn't know grammar) and other similar irregular words (as long as it isn't too awkward to say like seeed vs saw) 5) "You did well on that test" vs "You did good on that test" 6) "However, I thought that...." vs "However I though that..." (Comma) 7) "I went to the store" vs "Me went to the store" These are just a few examples out of many more. By making language like this, you are simplifying it without taking out too much structure. This is beneficial because 1) I don't have to think too hard to check if my sentence is grammatically correct even though I got my meaning across in a clear fashion. Even now, if I'm writing a formal essay, I sometimes have to do a quick google search on certain grammatical topics even though I have learned them before in school 2) Time isn't wasted in school learning these rules. This time can be used to teach other more important stuff 3) People new to English wouldn't have as hard of a time learning the language 4) It may sound/look weird now but after a while once it becomes commonplace and we get used to it, it will sound/look much more natural Please don't use the argument that people will think I'm less smart/professional/serious if I don't use good grammar (as long as my message isn't ambiguous) . This also needs to change in my opinion. Remember, my argument is that grammar shouldn't matter as long as clarity of meaning isn't sacrificed. Lack of ambiguity takes priority over grammar.

t3_64mou9

CMV: If a former employer harms me, I should not shop at that location anymore (despite better sales & prices).

**Position:** As a victim of emotional abuse over years of working for a given employer, it is my best interest to protest that particular store by not being a customer. I believe that by making daily purchases, I am supporting the very people who have harmed me in the past. Until they are gone, I should no longer shop there. My money ought to be better spent somewhere else, even if I have to pay a little more because of this. ^ CMV. **Background:** I worked with a company for over 15 years and received verbal abuse on a daily basis. I was literally told that I was stupid and did not deserve my job despite having a spotless track record. I trained employees who later stole my notebooks in an effort to get me to lose my place; it did not work, but they would constantly play the victim, ask for help, and take advantage of my knowledge rather than learn themselves. My coworkers sabotaged my job and conspired against me to lift themselves into higher positions and eventually, now that I am no longer with the company, they have taken over as general managers. Their abuse continues to this day harming currently employed people. I cannot give myself to indirectly help maintain such a culture of cruelty. **Counter Opinion:** *"The sales alone are a way to 'fight back' and take advantage of those who wronged me, as some items do sell at a loss."* While true in few instances, I do not believe this to be compelling as I am still, in effect, paying my abusers to maintain a position of power.

CMV: If a former employer harms me, I should not shop at that location anymore (despite better sales & prices). **Position:** As a victim of emotional abuse over years of working for a given employer, it is my best interest to protest that particular store by not being a customer. I believe that by making daily purchases, I am supporting the very people who have harmed me in the past. Until they are gone, I should no longer shop there. My money ought to be better spent somewhere else, even if I have to pay a little more because of this. ^ CMV. **Background:** I worked with a company for over 15 years and received verbal abuse on a daily basis. I was literally told that I was stupid and did not deserve my job despite having a spotless track record. I trained employees who later stole my notebooks in an effort to get me to lose my place; it did not work, but they would constantly play the victim, ask for help, and take advantage of my knowledge rather than learn themselves. My coworkers sabotaged my job and conspired against me to lift themselves into higher positions and eventually, now that I am no longer with the company, they have taken over as general managers. Their abuse continues to this day harming currently employed people. I cannot give myself to indirectly help maintain such a culture of cruelty. **Counter Opinion:** *"The sales alone are a way to 'fight back' and take advantage of those who wronged me, as some items do sell at a loss."* While true in few instances, I do not believe this to be compelling as I am still, in effect, paying my abusers to maintain a position of power.

t3_1xy39w

I think people who sneeze loudly are rude and/or lazy. CMV

I come from a family of explosive sneezers, my own included if I don't control them. If I was on another floor on the other side of the house I could still hear my family sneeze as if they were in the room next to me. This caused me to be a bit paranoid about annoying people and so learned to sneeze quieter or muffle it completely depending on the situation. These two circumstances have caused me to believe that it is possible to control the volume of your sneezes and if you are loud it's because you choose to not care about how it may affect people around you. Also that people who argue that they can't control it are either lying or haven't actually tried.

I think people who sneeze loudly are rude and/or lazy. CMV. I come from a family of explosive sneezers, my own included if I don't control them. If I was on another floor on the other side of the house I could still hear my family sneeze as if they were in the room next to me. This caused me to be a bit paranoid about annoying people and so learned to sneeze quieter or muffle it completely depending on the situation. These two circumstances have caused me to believe that it is possible to control the volume of your sneezes and if you are loud it's because you choose to not care about how it may affect people around you. Also that people who argue that they can't control it are either lying or haven't actually tried.

t3_63t6k5

CMV: White people should be allowed to wear dreads (cultural appropriation)

Cultural appropriation is a hotly debated topic. If you're liberal (like myself) it's hard to express or discuss issues around cultural appropriation (if you think its ok) without being told you're wrong and that your views are regressive by SJWs. I understand that certain forms of cultural appropriation is not okay. I can see why wearing a Native American head-dress can be offensive to Native Americans in the same way that wearing military fatigues and *not* being in the military annoys people. However, there are some behaviors that SJWs will call "culturally appropriated" (by white people) and objectively wrong that i haven't heard a good supporting argument for. I think a strong point to be made that hair styles (like dreads, though popularized by black americans) [*have no inherent singular culture tied to them*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadlocks#By_culture). To a lesser extent, I feel that it's hard to really call cultural appropriation objectively "wrong" because society is so incredibly globalized that many of us don't realize how many important things that we use in every day life come from people on every continent on this earth. Its hypocritical for us to call cultural appropriation wrong when many of us 'do it' every day in ways we are totally unaware of. Please attempt to CMV. I see the social justice community roll heads over the dreads issue and I honestly don't see what the big deal is. _____ > *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]d(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: White people should be allowed to wear dreads (cultural appropriation). Cultural appropriation is a hotly debated topic. If you're liberal (like myself) it's hard to express or discuss issues around cultural appropriation (if you think its ok) without being told you're wrong and that your views are regressive by SJWs. I understand that certain forms of cultural appropriation is not okay. I can see why wearing a Native American head-dress can be offensive to Native Americans in the same way that wearing military fatigues and *not* being in the military annoys people. However, there are some behaviors that SJWs will call "culturally appropriated" (by white people) and objectively wrong that i haven't heard a good supporting argument for. I think a strong point to be made that hair styles (like dreads, though popularized by black americans) [*have no inherent singular culture tied to them*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadlocks#By_culture). To a lesser extent, I feel that it's hard to really call cultural appropriation objectively "wrong" because society is so incredibly globalized that many of us don't realize how many important things that we use in every day life come from people on every continent on this earth. Its hypocritical for us to call cultural appropriation wrong when many of us 'do it' every day in ways we are totally unaware of. Please attempt to CMV. I see the social justice community roll heads over the dreads issue and I honestly don't see what the big deal is.

t3_2sjdom

CMV: Over-moderation of online forums is a lot worse than under-moderation

I have been a big forum user before forums were even a big thing on the internet (~at least 15 years). And I have seen forums go from virtually unmoderated wild west to the extremely moderated "sanitized" forums we have today, reddit included. I have been banned and have threads deleted for the most mild things, and I have seen threads from other users dissapear on various forums that actually had interesting discussions but could of "offended" someone or a view wasnt "mainstream". It makes participating in those types of forums a waste of time (if you participate in a interesting yet controversial thread, it might be removed within the hour), and all of the post generic, safe, and dull. There is also the problem of moderator bias, in which if your views don't line up with the moderators views, your thread is removed as "trolling" even though it's a perfect valid discussion. So my view is: 1. Even if some flamebait/trolling slips through, overall a lightly moderated forum is a lot better than a heavily moderated forum. 2. Over-moderation kills opposing and controversial views of getting discussed. 3. Moderators should not remove threads just because someone on the internet "might be offended" 4. Admins allowing strict moderation often leads to moderator bias removing threads for personal reasons (bias) rather than actual forum moderation

CMV: Over-moderation of online forums is a lot worse than under-moderation. I have been a big forum user before forums were even a big thing on the internet (~at least 15 years). And I have seen forums go from virtually unmoderated wild west to the extremely moderated "sanitized" forums we have today, reddit included. I have been banned and have threads deleted for the most mild things, and I have seen threads from other users dissapear on various forums that actually had interesting discussions but could of "offended" someone or a view wasnt "mainstream". It makes participating in those types of forums a waste of time (if you participate in a interesting yet controversial thread, it might be removed within the hour), and all of the post generic, safe, and dull. There is also the problem of moderator bias, in which if your views don't line up with the moderators views, your thread is removed as "trolling" even though it's a perfect valid discussion. So my view is: 1. Even if some flamebait/trolling slips through, overall a lightly moderated forum is a lot better than a heavily moderated forum. 2. Over-moderation kills opposing and controversial views of getting discussed. 3. Moderators should not remove threads just because someone on the internet "might be offended" 4. Admins allowing strict moderation often leads to moderator bias removing threads for personal reasons (bias) rather than actual forum moderation

t3_1grg24

If homosexuality is acceptable, consensual incest between adults should be as well CMV

The two arguments against it I understand are A) the possibility of child abuse or people in positions of power abusing it. One person being taken advantage of, basically. Which is why I believe only consensual relationships between adults should be legal. B) Risks of inbreeding. But we never forbid this in any other circumstances. Older women who are more likely to have children with down's syndrome are permitted to reproduce. Couples who are genetically likely to have children with defects are allowed to reproduce. Attempting to outlaw either of those cases would be seen as tyrannical and wrong. Other than those two, there's really only the cultural dislike for it and the biblical prohibitions, both of which have basically been proven to be unviable reasons by the gay rights movement.

If homosexuality is acceptable, consensual incest between adults should be as well CMV. The two arguments against it I understand are A) the possibility of child abuse or people in positions of power abusing it. One person being taken advantage of, basically. Which is why I believe only consensual relationships between adults should be legal. B) Risks of inbreeding. But we never forbid this in any other circumstances. Older women who are more likely to have children with down's syndrome are permitted to reproduce. Couples who are genetically likely to have children with defects are allowed to reproduce. Attempting to outlaw either of those cases would be seen as tyrannical and wrong. Other than those two, there's really only the cultural dislike for it and the biblical prohibitions, both of which have basically been proven to be unviable reasons by the gay rights movement.

t3_4xr8uh

CMV:In poker I don't think you should be penalized for betting out of turn

At most places I go to if you bet out of turn you will not be allowed to bet and your opponent can choose to check but if they bet you can't raise and can only call or fold I think this is unfair since position is very important in poker you're punishing someone for putting then self at a disadvantage also it teaches new players to play better poker I think poker should be difficult to learn as to leave more room for improvement it also might make new players feel unwelcome because there being corrected _____ > *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:In poker I don't think you should be penalized for betting out of turn. At most places I go to if you bet out of turn you will not be allowed to bet and your opponent can choose to check but if they bet you can't raise and can only call or fold I think this is unfair since position is very important in poker you're punishing someone for putting then self at a disadvantage also it teaches new players to play better poker I think poker should be difficult to learn as to leave more room for improvement it also might make new players feel unwelcome because there being corrected

t3_6u6q5a

CMV: Americans should have to pass some kind of simple political test before they can vote.

I know this is all anecdotal, but it seems to be pretty universal. When discussing Trump with a Trump supporter, it's maddening just how little of politics they actually know, or care to know. One particular guy that I've argued with has zero concept of anything Trump is doing. When I bring up things like Russian collusion, or his tax returns, or his insane tweets, his remark is something like, "I don't know about any of that... I just like that he speaks his mind." I'm like... Christ almighty man!! At least take a passing interest in politics if you're going to vote in one of the worst humans to ever live! And I see this same attitude time and time again. These single issue voters that Trump sold a lie to, and they can't be bothered to do any research before voting. I would love to see a simple test that shows you are at least mildly engaged in the political process before you are allowed to vote. Why would this be a bad thing?

CMV: Americans should have to pass some kind of simple political test before they can vote. I know this is all anecdotal, but it seems to be pretty universal. When discussing Trump with a Trump supporter, it's maddening just how little of politics they actually know, or care to know. One particular guy that I've argued with has zero concept of anything Trump is doing. When I bring up things like Russian collusion, or his tax returns, or his insane tweets, his remark is something like, "I don't know about any of that... I just like that he speaks his mind." I'm like... Christ almighty man!! At least take a passing interest in politics if you're going to vote in one of the worst humans to ever live! And I see this same attitude time and time again. These single issue voters that Trump sold a lie to, and they can't be bothered to do any research before voting. I would love to see a simple test that shows you are at least mildly engaged in the political process before you are allowed to vote. Why would this be a bad thing?

t3_1kao2h

Video games are a waste of time CMV

First off, I grew up playing games. As an adult, I developed games for more than 10 years. I can see no benefit, other than killing time and taking time away from doing something more constructive. Is it better that kids bash each other in a video game, rather than in real life? Perhaps, but there are better alternatives that are equal if not better at avoiding violence and creating sympathy. Does video games give better dexterity and eye tracking? Perhaps, but what career ever required hours and hours of video game playing, other than to develop games? You may argue that somewhere down the line, in the future, we'll have created a benefit; fine, but for now, it's a waste of time

Video games are a waste of time CMV. First off, I grew up playing games. As an adult, I developed games for more than 10 years. I can see no benefit, other than killing time and taking time away from doing something more constructive. Is it better that kids bash each other in a video game, rather than in real life? Perhaps, but there are better alternatives that are equal if not better at avoiding violence and creating sympathy. Does video games give better dexterity and eye tracking? Perhaps, but what career ever required hours and hours of video game playing, other than to develop games? You may argue that somewhere down the line, in the future, we'll have created a benefit; fine, but for now, it's a waste of time

t3_6w6jni

CMV: Transit fare evasion is so rampant in some places, such as Ottawa, because deterrent efforts are ineffective.

This CMV focuses on OC Transpo in Ottawa, Canada, but it could possibly apply to other transit systems as well. If you are familiar with OC Transpo, you would likely be aware of the people who hop on the back of the buses and travel without paying, and they usually get away with it. I think that, among other factors, it's because our fare enforcement system is too soft. According to Beccaria's *On Crime and Punishment* (1761), effective deterrence depends on the punishment being swift, sure, and severe. OC Transpo fare enforcement is neither of them, so there is zero deterrence: * Swift: the punishment must be given in a timely manner relative to the offence, in order for the public to see a clear and simple connection between the two. When someone hops the bus, it is likely that nothing will ever happen. So, he will do it every time. * Sure: when the offence occurs, the punishment should also occur. OC Transpo's fare enforcement is haphazard, random, and oftentimes useless in terms of giving fines to offenders and having them stick. More on this below. * Severe: the punishment should outweigh the benefits of the offence. So the fine is $150, which isn't that much, but I guess that works to some extent. But absent the two factors above, any fine is practically meaningless. So, there's an enforcement team that checks people for their proof of payment, which is good. But they rarely show up (1st point) and when they do, the people who game the system know to exit the bus before they come on (2nd point) and policies prevent drivers from keeping them on. They may also give fake names/addresses and transit enforcement can't do anything about it, so the tickets go nowhere and nothing happens (2nd and 3rd points). The more accustomed offenders may also become belligerent, knowing full well that transit enforcement has to let them go, thereby dropping the fines (2nd and 3rd points). To top it off, news articles like [these](http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2015/05/21/stopped-by-an-oc-transpo-fare-inspector-you-dont-need-to-give-id-says-city.html) further soften and weaken transit enforcement efforts. Put together, it's easy to see why people skip their fares with impunity and freely mock the system. People are talking about how fare enforcement is so hard to accomplish. I don't think so. It all revolves around the three points above, established over 250 years ago. Fare enforcement is too soft and weak because the policies don't let them do their jobs, and the 'seasoned criminals' take advantage of this. Taking a few steps back and hardening the fare enforcement system would likely eradicate the fare evasion problem. CMV.

CMV: Transit fare evasion is so rampant in some places, such as Ottawa, because deterrent efforts are ineffective. This CMV focuses on OC Transpo in Ottawa, Canada, but it could possibly apply to other transit systems as well. If you are familiar with OC Transpo, you would likely be aware of the people who hop on the back of the buses and travel without paying, and they usually get away with it. I think that, among other factors, it's because our fare enforcement system is too soft. According to Beccaria's *On Crime and Punishment* (1761), effective deterrence depends on the punishment being swift, sure, and severe. OC Transpo fare enforcement is neither of them, so there is zero deterrence: * Swift: the punishment must be given in a timely manner relative to the offence, in order for the public to see a clear and simple connection between the two. When someone hops the bus, it is likely that nothing will ever happen. So, he will do it every time. * Sure: when the offence occurs, the punishment should also occur. OC Transpo's fare enforcement is haphazard, random, and oftentimes useless in terms of giving fines to offenders and having them stick. More on this below. * Severe: the punishment should outweigh the benefits of the offence. So the fine is $150, which isn't that much, but I guess that works to some extent. But absent the two factors above, any fine is practically meaningless. So, there's an enforcement team that checks people for their proof of payment, which is good. But they rarely show up (1st point) and when they do, the people who game the system know to exit the bus before they come on (2nd point) and policies prevent drivers from keeping them on. They may also give fake names/addresses and transit enforcement can't do anything about it, so the tickets go nowhere and nothing happens (2nd and 3rd points). The more accustomed offenders may also become belligerent, knowing full well that transit enforcement has to let them go, thereby dropping the fines (2nd and 3rd points). To top it off, news articles like [these](http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2015/05/21/stopped-by-an-oc-transpo-fare-inspector-you-dont-need-to-give-id-says-city.html) further soften and weaken transit enforcement efforts. Put together, it's easy to see why people skip their fares with impunity and freely mock the system. People are talking about how fare enforcement is so hard to accomplish. I don't think so. It all revolves around the three points above, established over 250 years ago. Fare enforcement is too soft and weak because the policies don't let them do their jobs, and the 'seasoned criminals' take advantage of this. Taking a few steps back and hardening the fare enforcement system would likely eradicate the fare evasion problem. CMV.

t3_33jf1e

CMV: Smoking marijuana isn't as idiotic as it's put out to be.

The way I see it, you can either do it or not do it. So, what is keeping me from doing it? As any other euphoric substance it can be addicting which makes it a risk. I believe the risk is worth taking. However, it's considered a gateway drug. I understand this concept in that after feeling this sense of euphoria, you would want to got further with it. Then, there's the social aspect where you are categorized as a "pothead". I believe that when you are of age, marijuana is very similar to alcohol in that you just need to be a responsible person. _____ > *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: Smoking marijuana isn't as idiotic as it's put out to be. The way I see it, you can either do it or not do it. So, what is keeping me from doing it? As any other euphoric substance it can be addicting which makes it a risk. I believe the risk is worth taking. However, it's considered a gateway drug. I understand this concept in that after feeling this sense of euphoria, you would want to got further with it. Then, there's the social aspect where you are categorized as a "pothead". I believe that when you are of age, marijuana is very similar to alcohol in that you just need to be a responsible person.

t3_3dh1ns

CMV: The Supreme Court has the most political power of any government entity of the United States.

The implementation of **Judicial Review** from the *Marbury v. Madison* case from the precedent of the **Judiciary Act of 1789** allows for the Supreme court to be to judge over the legislative branch and executive branch of government. Furthermore, *Fletcher v. Peck* allows for the overturing of state laws in the Supreme Court, which changed the balance of state versus federal government power in favor of the federal government. In *McCulloch v. Maryland*, the supreme Court cited the **"necessary and proper"** or **elastic clause** in the constitution to implement laws not explicitly stated in the text. (In this case being the Second Bank of the United States and the legality of a state entity taxing the federal bank.) *Cohens v. Virginia* allowes for the Supreme Court to superceede state bank's ruling on criminal charges. Finally, although some may argue that the court is checked by the circumstances by which Justices reach the position- recommendation by the president and approval by the senate, but once inside the court, they have life tenure. [Even the impeachment of Justices accused of public drunkeness and insanity have not been sucessfully carried out.](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Tries_Justice.htm) #Ultimately, this means that: 1. The Supreme Court can judge legality of the actions of the Legislative and Executive brantches of government. 2. The Supreme Court rules over the state courts. 3. The Supreme Court can create laws that are "Necessary and Proper" 4. Criminals otherwise convicted by state courts can be retrialed with the Supreme Court. 5. Life tenure is nearly garenteed as no justice have been impeached in US History.

CMV: The Supreme Court has the most political power of any government entity of the United States. The implementation of **Judicial Review** from the *Marbury v. Madison* case from the precedent of the **Judiciary Act of 1789** allows for the Supreme court to be to judge over the legislative branch and executive branch of government. Furthermore, *Fletcher v. Peck* allows for the overturing of state laws in the Supreme Court, which changed the balance of state versus federal government power in favor of the federal government. In *McCulloch v. Maryland*, the supreme Court cited the **"necessary and proper"** or **elastic clause** in the constitution to implement laws not explicitly stated in the text. (In this case being the Second Bank of the United States and the legality of a state entity taxing the federal bank.) *Cohens v. Virginia* allowes for the Supreme Court to superceede state bank's ruling on criminal charges. Finally, although some may argue that the court is checked by the circumstances by which Justices reach the position- recommendation by the president and approval by the senate, but once inside the court, they have life tenure. [Even the impeachment of Justices accused of public drunkeness and insanity have not been sucessfully carried out.](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Tries_Justice.htm) #Ultimately, this means that: 1. The Supreme Court can judge legality of the actions of the Legislative and Executive brantches of government. 2. The Supreme Court rules over the state courts. 3. The Supreme Court can create laws that are "Necessary and Proper" 4. Criminals otherwise convicted by state courts can be retrialed with the Supreme Court. 5. Life tenure is nearly garenteed as no justice have been impeached in US History.

t3_2kbpag

CMV: Politically, the UK is actually just fine...

I believe overzealous people overestimate the issues we face and actually we're all fine. Sure the UK has it's issues but in the long run we're fine. We have a decent and fair judicial system, strong liberty and freedom of speech, plenty of food and basic housing for the vast majority of people, a capable welfare system (once you get past the beaurocracy), a functional NHS, a secular school system, a statistically low violent crime rate, an overall standard of living matched by only the richest of countries, and a faily liberal minded society with little ethnic, gender, or segregate based oppression or sentiment. Sure we're not without the odd racist, sexist or homeophobe but they make up the small minority. Sure we have problems, but there will always be problems, especially in the current economic situation. We're lucky that the economy is holding following the recession; look at Spain. We're lucky that nationalists and racists haven't taken control using scapegoating and radicalism; look at Greece. We could be so much worse off than we are, and there's certainly room to improve, but we're hardly "doomed for revolution" as some corners of the Internet would have us believe. In the end I don't worry now. I'm disabled; I rely on benefits and the NHS and while I oppose privatization and would campaign against the Conservatives, I understand their politics and know they're reasoning... and while my standard of living will decrease under Tory rule, I'll still be fine even if they are in power. Politics in UK seems now to be just arguing over details. I don't even think UKIP matters that much. It's a reactionary response to scapegoating for things that don't really matter; tinged unfortunately with a little racism. The thing is, after a few of them get into power and people realise they're all just hot air and don't actually know anything about local governance, they'll vote them out again next election. In short, I feel happy with my country. While I'm chronically ill, I'm looked after by the NHS, welfare system, housing system, emergency services etc. and have enough money to live comfortably. I have plenty of food, clothes to wear, a place to live, stable utilities and internet access, my games consoles, a Netflix account, and enough money for a pizza night once a week and the occasion trip to the cinema with my friends. I'd get that almost no-where elso on the planet, not even USA despite it's insistance that it's "number one". Yes it's not megabucks that I'm on, it's actually about what you'd earn working basic shifts for McDonald's, but it's enough and it's far more than I could get on my own. In short, thank you UK and the tax paying british people for all your help. It's taken me some time to realise it but I genuinely think we've got one of the best countries in the world. Now it's time to put up the challenge. CMV (if you can). If I'm wrong and there are serious issues I don't see, tell me and CMV. Personally I hope to change your view, but just because my current opinion is nice doesn't mean I'm right so, let's hear your arguments. _____ > *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: Politically, the UK is actually just fine... I believe overzealous people overestimate the issues we face and actually we're all fine. Sure the UK has it's issues but in the long run we're fine. We have a decent and fair judicial system, strong liberty and freedom of speech, plenty of food and basic housing for the vast majority of people, a capable welfare system (once you get past the beaurocracy), a functional NHS, a secular school system, a statistically low violent crime rate, an overall standard of living matched by only the richest of countries, and a faily liberal minded society with little ethnic, gender, or segregate based oppression or sentiment. Sure we're not without the odd racist, sexist or homeophobe but they make up the small minority. Sure we have problems, but there will always be problems, especially in the current economic situation. We're lucky that the economy is holding following the recession; look at Spain. We're lucky that nationalists and racists haven't taken control using scapegoating and radicalism; look at Greece. We could be so much worse off than we are, and there's certainly room to improve, but we're hardly "doomed for revolution" as some corners of the Internet would have us believe. In the end I don't worry now. I'm disabled; I rely on benefits and the NHS and while I oppose privatization and would campaign against the Conservatives, I understand their politics and know they're reasoning... and while my standard of living will decrease under Tory rule, I'll still be fine even if they are in power. Politics in UK seems now to be just arguing over details. I don't even think UKIP matters that much. It's a reactionary response to scapegoating for things that don't really matter; tinged unfortunately with a little racism. The thing is, after a few of them get into power and people realise they're all just hot air and don't actually know anything about local governance, they'll vote them out again next election. In short, I feel happy with my country. While I'm chronically ill, I'm looked after by the NHS, welfare system, housing system, emergency services etc. and have enough money to live comfortably. I have plenty of food, clothes to wear, a place to live, stable utilities and internet access, my games consoles, a Netflix account, and enough money for a pizza night once a week and the occasion trip to the cinema with my friends. I'd get that almost no-where elso on the planet, not even USA despite it's insistance that it's "number one". Yes it's not megabucks that I'm on, it's actually about what you'd earn working basic shifts for McDonald's, but it's enough and it's far more than I could get on my own. In short, thank you UK and the tax paying british people for all your help. It's taken me some time to realise it but I genuinely think we've got one of the best countries in the world. Now it's time to put up the challenge. CMV (if you can). If I'm wrong and there are serious issues I don't see, tell me and CMV. Personally I hope to change your view, but just because my current opinion is nice doesn't mean I'm right so, let's hear your arguments.

t3_4mvqw9

CMV:If you are pro-choice due to bodily autonomy, there should be no limits on abortion.

Abortion is a common topic on CMV. TThe debate in most of threads seems to be less about when a fetus is human, but the rights of the mother. The famous violinist thought experiment is even based on the idea that a fetus is a parasite that deserves to be removed regardless of its status. Assuming this is true, why does it matter how long the baby has been inside of the mother? Why would it be wrong to abort a baby because it is a female or homosexual? Any arguments about first trimester, 10 weeks, Late term abortions, etc. are fundamentally about when the fetus deserves to be protected or is human. But if you agree with the thought experiment, why does humanness or the brain development or pain of the "parasite" matter? Why is abortion suddenly wrong if it is used for birth control or the mother wants it gone not due to financial status, but because she would hate a black baby?

CMV:If you are pro-choice due to bodily autonomy, there should be no limits on abortion. Abortion is a common topic on CMV. TThe debate in most of threads seems to be less about when a fetus is human, but the rights of the mother. The famous violinist thought experiment is even based on the idea that a fetus is a parasite that deserves to be removed regardless of its status. Assuming this is true, why does it matter how long the baby has been inside of the mother? Why would it be wrong to abort a baby because it is a female or homosexual? Any arguments about first trimester, 10 weeks, Late term abortions, etc. are fundamentally about when the fetus deserves to be protected or is human. But if you agree with the thought experiment, why does humanness or the brain development or pain of the "parasite" matter? Why is abortion suddenly wrong if it is used for birth control or the mother wants it gone not due to financial status, but because she would hate a black baby?

t3_1p3fui

I think Bruce Lee's greatness as a Martial Artist is more myth than fact. CMV

There is almost no footage of Bruce Lee's greatest feats. I'm not saying he wasn't impressive physically, and I know his influence is still felt today, but it seems a lot of stories that surround him are unproven. In fact the worship surrounding him I find to be maddening. Some examples: [Former MMA fighter Bas Rutten states Bruce Lee would lose in combat today is met with many thumbs down and angry comments](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWZBSBab-Es) [People often use this ping pong video as an example and it's obviously fake](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SncapPrTusA) I'm open to having my view changed on this. I'm just tired of hearing about how much ass he would kick in mma today without and real examples of his excellence. Anytime I try to have a discussion about this on reddit I am right away met with downvotes. It seems Bruce is such an Icon that you can't have a level headed discussion with his staggering fan base. I'm really hoping that this is the place where I can have a real discussion on the matter.

I think Bruce Lee's greatness as a Martial Artist is more myth than fact. CMV. There is almost no footage of Bruce Lee's greatest feats. I'm not saying he wasn't impressive physically, and I know his influence is still felt today, but it seems a lot of stories that surround him are unproven. In fact the worship surrounding him I find to be maddening. Some examples: [Former MMA fighter Bas Rutten states Bruce Lee would lose in combat today is met with many thumbs down and angry comments](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWZBSBab-Es) [People often use this ping pong video as an example and it's obviously fake](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SncapPrTusA) I'm open to having my view changed on this. I'm just tired of hearing about how much ass he would kick in mma today without and real examples of his excellence. Anytime I try to have a discussion about this on reddit I am right away met with downvotes. It seems Bruce is such an Icon that you can't have a level headed discussion with his staggering fan base. I'm really hoping that this is the place where I can have a real discussion on the matter.

t3_1gkbwt

I'm a moral nihilist. CMV

I do not think that anything is inherently "right" or "wrong" and that any common ground about morality is just a popular consensus on preferences of interpersonal conduct. I do not think stealing or killing is "wrong", but I do not find such activities preferable because I am not skilled at them, they're risky in that they have tons of unpredictable and undesirable outcomes, and I think I can get more of what I want without having to resort to such risks. In the wild or whatever, when one organism is able to conquer another organism for his benefit, he survives and the other thing doesn't. There isn't a judge or someone to say it isn't "right". Sometimes the organism may find it to be beneficial to cooperate. Other times, not. Similarly, when I hear about a huge financial scheme like Bernie Madoff's operation, I think it would have been pretty awesome if he were able to successfully pull it off (and no doubt, every day, there are many people who successfuly do this) and fool everyone else. If I had the confidence and the know-how to attempt something like that, and I evaluated that the reward outweighed the risk, I would probably do it. I would probably do the thing where you pull a lever that kills someone you don't know and you get a lot of money and nobody would ever find out. I could use a lot of money and that other person had the terrible cosmic misfortune of being on the other end of the death lottery box thing. So, I find my current view to be very compelling to me. Do you guys have any compelling reasons on why I should adopt a moral system based on... whatever it is you guys mean when you say something is right or wrong? For anyone that may be curious, I was raised in a Jewish family and predominantly Jewish community and I never bought into any religious ideology. I have always felt this way. EDIT: I should say the reason I am posting this is because having these views has been isolating, which so far is the only issue I have with being a moral nihilist.

I'm a moral nihilist. CMV. I do not think that anything is inherently "right" or "wrong" and that any common ground about morality is just a popular consensus on preferences of interpersonal conduct. I do not think stealing or killing is "wrong", but I do not find such activities preferable because I am not skilled at them, they're risky in that they have tons of unpredictable and undesirable outcomes, and I think I can get more of what I want without having to resort to such risks. In the wild or whatever, when one organism is able to conquer another organism for his benefit, he survives and the other thing doesn't. There isn't a judge or someone to say it isn't "right". Sometimes the organism may find it to be beneficial to cooperate. Other times, not. Similarly, when I hear about a huge financial scheme like Bernie Madoff's operation, I think it would have been pretty awesome if he were able to successfully pull it off (and no doubt, every day, there are many people who successfuly do this) and fool everyone else. If I had the confidence and the know-how to attempt something like that, and I evaluated that the reward outweighed the risk, I would probably do it. I would probably do the thing where you pull a lever that kills someone you don't know and you get a lot of money and nobody would ever find out. I could use a lot of money and that other person had the terrible cosmic misfortune of being on the other end of the death lottery box thing. So, I find my current view to be very compelling to me. Do you guys have any compelling reasons on why I should adopt a moral system based on... whatever it is you guys mean when you say something is right or wrong? For anyone that may be curious, I was raised in a Jewish family and predominantly Jewish community and I never bought into any religious ideology. I have always felt this way. EDIT: I should say the reason I am posting this is because having these views has been isolating, which so far is the only issue I have with being a moral nihilist.

t3_1uw4uh

I think Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed and it will ultimately collapse. CMV

I have a limited understanding of finance so I could be entirely wrong here. But I feel like Bitcoin the commodity and Bitcoin the currency create a problem for eachother. As Bitcoin becomes accepted by retailers its value has shot up immensely. But this volatility ultimately makes it more difficult to use as a currency, because the value of bitcoin paid for something today could be much higher in another year or so. So this makes retailers wary of it, perhaps even causing some of them to drop it, which will make the value plummet, give it more of a reputation for being volatile, and cause a snowballing collapse of the currency. Change My View Reddit.

I think Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed and it will ultimately collapse. CMV. I have a limited understanding of finance so I could be entirely wrong here. But I feel like Bitcoin the commodity and Bitcoin the currency create a problem for eachother. As Bitcoin becomes accepted by retailers its value has shot up immensely. But this volatility ultimately makes it more difficult to use as a currency, because the value of bitcoin paid for something today could be much higher in another year or so. So this makes retailers wary of it, perhaps even causing some of them to drop it, which will make the value plummet, give it more of a reputation for being volatile, and cause a snowballing collapse of the currency. Change My View Reddit.

t3_4r2zgj

CMV: There is absolutely no logical reason why Governor Jerry Brown in California DIDN'T sign the law making theft of a firearm a felony.

This week, Governor Jerry Brown signed a few new laws related to guns and ammunition. Things like requiring background checks to buy ammunition, banning *all* magazines that hold more than 10 rounds even if they were legally purchased decades ago before bans were enacted, making it a crime to lend a gun to a family member without a background check, and a few others. There *was* one potential law, however, that he **did not** sign. He vetoed the law that would have made theft of a gun a felony. A little background: Up until two years ago, for theft to be a felony in CA, the value of the item had to exceed $499. Proposition 47 increased that amount to $900 because people are worried about prison overcrowding and raising that amount to $900 allows prosecutors to charge more theft crimes as misdemeanors and reduces the number of people in jail. Ok, so raising that dollar amount to $900 makes virtually all gun theft a misdemeanor (talking about the types of guns bought and sold on the street to be used in crimes) since virtually all of those handguns are worth less than $900. The bill that Brown vetoed would have made an exception to the $900 rule for firearms making theft of a firearm a felony regardless of the value. **I just can't wrap my head around this.** Regardless of a person's stance on the other measures or on gun control in general, I can't find a single person who didn't support this particular measure since 97% of crimes committed with guns are committed with stolen guns. Over the last few days, every time I pose this question to my very pro-gun friends, I get the same response: *"they want the criminals to have the guns, just not law-abiding people."* I'm trying to assume this isn't true because I can't think of anything more f**ked up than a government actively trying to disarm law-abiding people while actively trying to keep guns in the hands of criminals. So there is absolutely no logical reason why Jerry Brown vetoed this bill and the only conclusion a person can make is that the government of CA wants to keep guns in the hands of criminals so that crime stays up, giving the lawmakers more incentive to pass more gun laws. Making all gun theft a felony would actually have reduced crime and therefore is not a desirable law politically. Please change my very cynical view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is absolutely no logical reason why Governor Jerry Brown in California DIDN'T sign the law making theft of a firearm a felony. This week, Governor Jerry Brown signed a few new laws related to guns and ammunition. Things like requiring background checks to buy ammunition, banning *all* magazines that hold more than 10 rounds even if they were legally purchased decades ago before bans were enacted, making it a crime to lend a gun to a family member without a background check, and a few others. There *was* one potential law, however, that he **did not** sign. He vetoed the law that would have made theft of a gun a felony. A little background: Up until two years ago, for theft to be a felony in CA, the value of the item had to exceed $499. Proposition 47 increased that amount to $900 because people are worried about prison overcrowding and raising that amount to $900 allows prosecutors to charge more theft crimes as misdemeanors and reduces the number of people in jail. Ok, so raising that dollar amount to $900 makes virtually all gun theft a misdemeanor (talking about the types of guns bought and sold on the street to be used in crimes) since virtually all of those handguns are worth less than $900. The bill that Brown vetoed would have made an exception to the $900 rule for firearms making theft of a firearm a felony regardless of the value. **I just can't wrap my head around this.** Regardless of a person's stance on the other measures or on gun control in general, I can't find a single person who didn't support this particular measure since 97% of crimes committed with guns are committed with stolen guns. Over the last few days, every time I pose this question to my very pro-gun friends, I get the same response: *"they want the criminals to have the guns, just not law-abiding people."* I'm trying to assume this isn't true because I can't think of anything more f**ked up than a government actively trying to disarm law-abiding people while actively trying to keep guns in the hands of criminals. So there is absolutely no logical reason why Jerry Brown vetoed this bill and the only conclusion a person can make is that the government of CA wants to keep guns in the hands of criminals so that crime stays up, giving the lawmakers more incentive to pass more gun laws. Making all gun theft a felony would actually have reduced crime and therefore is not a desirable law politically. Please change my very cynical view.

t3_1gml0l

I think that tax avoidance for public corporations is perfectly understandable and part of their obligation. CMV.

First off, let me state some obvious facts: 1. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, tax evasion is not. 2. A public company should always act in the interest of shareholders, doing everything with the goal of maximizing shareholder value. All other stakeholders should always come after shareholders. 3. Minimizing taxes will increase the bottom line, and therefore accomplish the main purpose of the corporation to maximize shareholder value. When we combine these 3 facts, I think it's perfectly justifiable for a company to avoid taxes, even if it is morally wrong. I believe that the only situation in which a public company is obligated to pay above minimal taxes is when the damage to the bottom line from the negative publicity outweighs the amount of excess tax they'd have to pay if they stopped using these accounting loopholes. CMV.

I think that tax avoidance for public corporations is perfectly understandable and part of their obligation. CMV. First off, let me state some obvious facts: 1. Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, tax evasion is not. 2. A public company should always act in the interest of shareholders, doing everything with the goal of maximizing shareholder value. All other stakeholders should always come after shareholders. 3. Minimizing taxes will increase the bottom line, and therefore accomplish the main purpose of the corporation to maximize shareholder value. When we combine these 3 facts, I think it's perfectly justifiable for a company to avoid taxes, even if it is morally wrong. I believe that the only situation in which a public company is obligated to pay above minimal taxes is when the damage to the bottom line from the negative publicity outweighs the amount of excess tax they'd have to pay if they stopped using these accounting loopholes. CMV.

t3_1c5m9j

I see nothing admirable or desirable about having patriotism. CMV.

As a college student in the South, I see all these fraternities with their American flag shorts and "Back to back World War champs" bro-tanks and I just dont get it. I see nothing special in patriotism. What do I get out of flying a flag in my yard? Why is patriotism admirable?

I see nothing admirable or desirable about having patriotism. CMV. As a college student in the South, I see all these fraternities with their American flag shorts and "Back to back World War champs" bro-tanks and I just dont get it. I see nothing special in patriotism. What do I get out of flying a flag in my yard? Why is patriotism admirable?

t3_1ox24n

I believe that the "attorney client privilege" is just in almost every way. CMV.

I believe that the attorney client privilege(ACP) is right, due to several factors. **1)** the US criminal justice system is so complex, you *need* to be assigned a lawyer in order to be explained the workings of the law that effects you in that current time. without the ACP, people would be less likely to give an attorney all of the information needed to support them and actually be of help to the client. and because of this, the truth is revealed much more often than not, and a fair trial is provided. **2)** the ACP acts within the fundamental definition of a democracy "by the people, for the people", since the ACP gives security to the client, it is supporting the people as a whole. **3)** the ACP covers more than just "law breakers" and the "falsely accused". it also covers other things such as a person going to a lawyer for things such as a will. it keeps the client's intentions private, and prevents possible conflicts within the family. new arguments may be edited in based on responses and further elaboration due to those arguments. CMV. EDIT: CMV of the day? wat. so cool wow such awesome

I believe that the "attorney client privilege" is just in almost every way. CMV. I believe that the attorney client privilege(ACP) is right, due to several factors. **1)** the US criminal justice system is so complex, you *need* to be assigned a lawyer in order to be explained the workings of the law that effects you in that current time. without the ACP, people would be less likely to give an attorney all of the information needed to support them and actually be of help to the client. and because of this, the truth is revealed much more often than not, and a fair trial is provided. **2)** the ACP acts within the fundamental definition of a democracy "by the people, for the people", since the ACP gives security to the client, it is supporting the people as a whole. **3)** the ACP covers more than just "law breakers" and the "falsely accused". it also covers other things such as a person going to a lawyer for things such as a will. it keeps the client's intentions private, and prevents possible conflicts within the family. new arguments may be edited in based on responses and further elaboration due to those arguments. CMV. EDIT: CMV of the day? wat. so cool wow such awesome

t3_2a41ca

CMV: to downvote, you must leave a comment.

Downvoting around here is like the rules of fight club. Except it's often abused. The downvoting I see a lot of the time is the downvoting of opinions. Trolling seems very low. 1. People come to reddit for the community. However it plays out in their head: to feel superior, to vent, to put content out for opinion, for cerebral exercise... If you're here for community, it's chickenshit to stay hidden when you are already anonymous. 2. Hit and run Downvoting discourages content. I frequent r/debatereligion. It's heavily atheist. Theists sometimes participate, but I know they lurk due to the variety who comment. No one wants to get anonymously slapped for an opinion; no matter the opinion. At least give reason to your downvote. 3. Downvoting doesn't help Stubbornness in threads. Someone may be stuck in their opinion. Sometimes I change my opinion. Sometimes I stick to my guns. That's not worth a downvote. Again, if you have something to say, say it or walk away. 4. Downvoting is a reflex. It's really designed superficially. Log in, disagree, click, move on. There is no thought, no engagement, this doesn't make for a strong community. There is a hivemind. Hagel said it best. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. 5. Your voice is worthy. You should have something to say. Lobbing rocks from the back of the crowd serves no function but to encourage thoughtlessness. Now in the dialog box I am on the fence about a character count. I think at this point putting yourself up on the board is good enough. You may wonder about upvotes. Again, Hagel. If you support someone add to what they said or support it. An upvote probably means you could not have said it better. Sure the hivemind works the other way and people get supported for knee jerk reasons, but I think it is more important to support the contrary opinion.

CMV: to downvote, you must leave a comment. Downvoting around here is like the rules of fight club. Except it's often abused. The downvoting I see a lot of the time is the downvoting of opinions. Trolling seems very low. 1. People come to reddit for the community. However it plays out in their head: to feel superior, to vent, to put content out for opinion, for cerebral exercise... If you're here for community, it's chickenshit to stay hidden when you are already anonymous. 2. Hit and run Downvoting discourages content. I frequent r/debatereligion. It's heavily atheist. Theists sometimes participate, but I know they lurk due to the variety who comment. No one wants to get anonymously slapped for an opinion; no matter the opinion. At least give reason to your downvote. 3. Downvoting doesn't help Stubbornness in threads. Someone may be stuck in their opinion. Sometimes I change my opinion. Sometimes I stick to my guns. That's not worth a downvote. Again, if you have something to say, say it or walk away. 4. Downvoting is a reflex. It's really designed superficially. Log in, disagree, click, move on. There is no thought, no engagement, this doesn't make for a strong community. There is a hivemind. Hagel said it best. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. 5. Your voice is worthy. You should have something to say. Lobbing rocks from the back of the crowd serves no function but to encourage thoughtlessness. Now in the dialog box I am on the fence about a character count. I think at this point putting yourself up on the board is good enough. You may wonder about upvotes. Again, Hagel. If you support someone add to what they said or support it. An upvote probably means you could not have said it better. Sure the hivemind works the other way and people get supported for knee jerk reasons, but I think it is more important to support the contrary opinion.

t3_5yg59r

CMV: College athletes should not be paid

Paid? As in they shouldn't earn monetary rewards based on thier earning power. Ex: "College athletes make 1000000000000000 billion dollars for thier schools, they deserve a cut." No, they don't. They receive a four to five year all expenses paid ride through higher education, which is more than fair. Furthermore, the most important players on the most important teams who actually earn money for thier schools are paid. That's why you never hear of the starting QB at alabama or any other high-profile athlete fuss about this issue. I'll be the first to admit that the NCAA is a business. Thus, as is consistent with every business ever, the employees aren't paid anything more than the company needs to pay them to achieve the results they want. The NCAA is destroying the competition for top talent in basketball and baseball (there is no competition in football and I have a serious problem with the NFL rules on this. The NCAA cooperation on this rule is borderline collusion), so why offer more benefits to players? To add some context, I'm a former D1 football player. Earlier I stated high-profile athletes are being paid, I know this from seeing first hand. I was never paid, but many of my close friends were. I also attended a pre-college institution that all but facilitated payments and benefits. Also, Google ole miss football.

CMV: College athletes should not be paid. Paid? As in they shouldn't earn monetary rewards based on thier earning power. Ex: "College athletes make 1000000000000000 billion dollars for thier schools, they deserve a cut." No, they don't. They receive a four to five year all expenses paid ride through higher education, which is more than fair. Furthermore, the most important players on the most important teams who actually earn money for thier schools are paid. That's why you never hear of the starting QB at alabama or any other high-profile athlete fuss about this issue. I'll be the first to admit that the NCAA is a business. Thus, as is consistent with every business ever, the employees aren't paid anything more than the company needs to pay them to achieve the results they want. The NCAA is destroying the competition for top talent in basketball and baseball (there is no competition in football and I have a serious problem with the NFL rules on this. The NCAA cooperation on this rule is borderline collusion), so why offer more benefits to players? To add some context, I'm a former D1 football player. Earlier I stated high-profile athletes are being paid, I know this from seeing first hand. I was never paid, but many of my close friends were. I also attended a pre-college institution that all but facilitated payments and benefits. Also, Google ole miss football.

t3_1f3w96

I believe that our government shouldn't donate money to poor countries. CMV

I live in Canada. I don't think it's the role of the government to "do the charity", but to each person. Also, I think most of the money goes to corrupted people. Please submit sources to prove your point.

I believe that our government shouldn't donate money to poor countries. CMV. I live in Canada. I don't think it's the role of the government to "do the charity", but to each person. Also, I think most of the money goes to corrupted people. Please submit sources to prove your point.

t3_1ih4u9

"Fuck the troops." CMV.

Everyone can acknowledge the war crimes this country has committed. There are no secrets in 2013, people join the military fully aware of our current combat engagements throughout the globe. and if they'd take a moment to research these events they'd quickly realize that 99% of them are not for the benefit of the average American citizen or to protect their liberty or freedom, but rather to serve the interests of our ruling classes or to further some internal political agenda to maintain the electoral status quo. They are essentially tools of the government to keep themselves in power. The military is just the muscle of the feds; they don't stand for anything, or have any sort of just ideological basis for their existence, they simply exist to serve the interests of our government. In a way soldiers are amoral, simply doing what they are told. But the people telling them what to do are fuckin' evil, and so, by extension, they too are evil.

"Fuck the troops." CMV. Everyone can acknowledge the war crimes this country has committed. There are no secrets in 2013, people join the military fully aware of our current combat engagements throughout the globe. and if they'd take a moment to research these events they'd quickly realize that 99% of them are not for the benefit of the average American citizen or to protect their liberty or freedom, but rather to serve the interests of our ruling classes or to further some internal political agenda to maintain the electoral status quo. They are essentially tools of the government to keep themselves in power. The military is just the muscle of the feds; they don't stand for anything, or have any sort of just ideological basis for their existence, they simply exist to serve the interests of our government. In a way soldiers are amoral, simply doing what they are told. But the people telling them what to do are fuckin' evil, and so, by extension, they too are evil.