id
stringlengths 9
9
| title
stringlengths 9
300
| selftext
stringlengths 9
9.73k
| text
stringlengths 53
9.81k
|
|---|---|---|---|
t3_1ukuf9 | I think that in the US, the second amendment is outdated but this doesn't mean we should ban guns. CMV | In the US, the second amendment among other things guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. To the best of my knowledge, that was amended to protect citizens from the government. ~~I don't think that in modern times citizens would stand a chance against the US government regardless of the guns we are allowed to own.~~ Between military funding for advanced weaponry and the specialized urban warfare training our troops have due to the war on Iraq, I don't think that the purchase of guns would help or hinder a revolution effort. Furthermore revolution in modern times would no longer take the form of physical altercation but rather manipulation of officials and a sway in public opinion. This leads me to believe that the second amendment is completely outdated and cannot be used in an argument for or against gun control.
As a further point, I don't think a ban on guns is suitable for a nation like the US. Statistics from other nations often fail to compare the social and political environment. Simply put it is obvious that a reduction in gun ownership leads to a reduction in gun related violence just as a reduction in shoes leads to a reduction in shoelace tying. However, in a nation like the US there are far more areas of lawlessness where the matter of personal defense becomes more relevant than in other nations like the UK, Japan, and Sweden. I don't think a comparison in terms of gun violence versus gun regulation is sufficient to speak for the fact that some nations have better ability to maintain lawful order in protection of citizens. I think a nation's ability to police is an important factor in determining the affect of gun laws and that in better policed (more lawful) nations a reduction in gun ownership will lead to a safer society (less crime) and the converse is also true: a less policed nation (less lawful) reducing the gun ownership will lead to a less safe society (more crime). CMV
EDIT: I am now convinced that the US military wouldn't be able to overcome the US citizens. I am not convinced that the weapons we can use would be able to defend us well enough to justify their abuse in peace. | I think that in the US, the second amendment is outdated but this doesn't mean we should ban guns. CMV. In the US, the second amendment among other things guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. To the best of my knowledge, that was amended to protect citizens from the government. ~~I don't think that in modern times citizens would stand a chance against the US government regardless of the guns we are allowed to own.~~ Between military funding for advanced weaponry and the specialized urban warfare training our troops have due to the war on Iraq, I don't think that the purchase of guns would help or hinder a revolution effort. Furthermore revolution in modern times would no longer take the form of physical altercation but rather manipulation of officials and a sway in public opinion. This leads me to believe that the second amendment is completely outdated and cannot be used in an argument for or against gun control.
As a further point, I don't think a ban on guns is suitable for a nation like the US. Statistics from other nations often fail to compare the social and political environment. Simply put it is obvious that a reduction in gun ownership leads to a reduction in gun related violence just as a reduction in shoes leads to a reduction in shoelace tying. However, in a nation like the US there are far more areas of lawlessness where the matter of personal defense becomes more relevant than in other nations like the UK, Japan, and Sweden. I don't think a comparison in terms of gun violence versus gun regulation is sufficient to speak for the fact that some nations have better ability to maintain lawful order in protection of citizens. I think a nation's ability to police is an important factor in determining the affect of gun laws and that in better policed (more lawful) nations a reduction in gun ownership will lead to a safer society (less crime) and the converse is also true: a less policed nation (less lawful) reducing the gun ownership will lead to a less safe society (more crime). CMV
EDIT: I am now convinced that the US military wouldn't be able to overcome the US citizens. I am not convinced that the weapons we can use would be able to defend us well enough to justify their abuse in peace. |
t3_1kkuxg | CMV - I live with my best friend (a father) and his baby absolutely disgusts me. | I moved in with my friend at the age of 18 (literally moved in THE day i turned 18), and he has a 9/10 month-old baby that i absolutely refuse to take care of, (easy things like giving him a bottle he dropped or grabbing diapers and wipes when my friend needs them I do,) and to be perfectly honest, this... thing is incredibly disgusting, leaves messes everywhere, gets to play 20 questions with the parents (by this i mean the guessing game where everybody tries to determine what's wrong when he does something), of course it can't talk, it just cries and makes nasty, slobber-soaked noises all the time, and it half drives me nuts sometimes (I.E. when i get left alone in the living room with it for an hour).
My friend sometimes tells me things like, "when you see your son smile at you for the first time, your heart will melt." bullshit. that child smiles at me sometimes, and i just feel a powerful wave of disgust. | CMV - I live with my best friend (a father) and his baby absolutely disgusts me. I moved in with my friend at the age of 18 (literally moved in THE day i turned 18), and he has a 9/10 month-old baby that i absolutely refuse to take care of, (easy things like giving him a bottle he dropped or grabbing diapers and wipes when my friend needs them I do,) and to be perfectly honest, this... thing is incredibly disgusting, leaves messes everywhere, gets to play 20 questions with the parents (by this i mean the guessing game where everybody tries to determine what's wrong when he does something), of course it can't talk, it just cries and makes nasty, slobber-soaked noises all the time, and it half drives me nuts sometimes (I.E. when i get left alone in the living room with it for an hour).
My friend sometimes tells me things like, "when you see your son smile at you for the first time, your heart will melt." bullshit. that child smiles at me sometimes, and i just feel a powerful wave of disgust. |
t3_20q740 | I believe dueling should be legal. CMV | Dueling with swords that is, not pistols. But it seems to me that given out medical technology, and if we only used thin foils with blunted tips -so shallow cuts only- duels would scarcely be a fatal affair. Two people who have a grievance and wish to settle it could formally declare they will duel at a set place on a set time, observed by witnesses. A doctor will attend with equipment, and the two may duel. Maybe only to first blood, maybe only until they deem their honor settled. If we're only using thin swords capable of fairly shallow cuts, the risk will be much minimized and the available medical personal should be capable of dealing with any serious wounds that may occur.
| I believe dueling should be legal. CMV. Dueling with swords that is, not pistols. But it seems to me that given out medical technology, and if we only used thin foils with blunted tips -so shallow cuts only- duels would scarcely be a fatal affair. Two people who have a grievance and wish to settle it could formally declare they will duel at a set place on a set time, observed by witnesses. A doctor will attend with equipment, and the two may duel. Maybe only to first blood, maybe only until they deem their honor settled. If we're only using thin swords capable of fairly shallow cuts, the risk will be much minimized and the available medical personal should be capable of dealing with any serious wounds that may occur.
|
t3_1tz05r | I believe that constantly reporting about deaths in a war does not help me believe the war is a good idea. CMV. | In the UK, every time a soldier is killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's usually a 5 minute segment about them. It includes how they died, where, and who they leave behind.
Now whilst I appreciate all the men and women serving overseas and respect the things they do, I think that the reports of their deaths is not necessary.
Here are a couple reasons:
1) I would prefer for the family to grieve privately without lots of people knowing about the death of their family member.
2) The reports of death make me think that the war is not going successfully. This usually coincides with the limited number of reports showing the successes that go on.
I don't know if I do want my view changed on this, but I am very interested in hearing people's opinion on the matter. | I believe that constantly reporting about deaths in a war does not help me believe the war is a good idea. CMV. In the UK, every time a soldier is killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, there's usually a 5 minute segment about them. It includes how they died, where, and who they leave behind.
Now whilst I appreciate all the men and women serving overseas and respect the things they do, I think that the reports of their deaths is not necessary.
Here are a couple reasons:
1) I would prefer for the family to grieve privately without lots of people knowing about the death of their family member.
2) The reports of death make me think that the war is not going successfully. This usually coincides with the limited number of reports showing the successes that go on.
I don't know if I do want my view changed on this, but I am very interested in hearing people's opinion on the matter. |
t3_1g06ju | I think Freddie Mercury is an overrated singer and doesn't deserve to be known his status as a singing God. CMV | When people say he's the best or one of the best they never take into account that many people have a better range than Mercury. I think he's overrated and he has a harsh tone. Take this as an example.
http://youtu.be/22Br5N3jOes?t=18s
It sounds like a screech. I think people confuse the catchy showtune songs by Queen with a "great voice" when they are two completely different things. Having a catchy song doesn't make you a great singer. So given that, why is he praised as the best singer? | I think Freddie Mercury is an overrated singer and doesn't deserve to be known his status as a singing God. CMV. When people say he's the best or one of the best they never take into account that many people have a better range than Mercury. I think he's overrated and he has a harsh tone. Take this as an example.
http://youtu.be/22Br5N3jOes?t=18s
It sounds like a screech. I think people confuse the catchy showtune songs by Queen with a "great voice" when they are two completely different things. Having a catchy song doesn't make you a great singer. So given that, why is he praised as the best singer? |
t3_1lwh6c | I think Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines is rape-y and sexist. CMV | He spends the entire song assuring a girl that she "[wants] it," even though she clearly doesn't.
The video objectifies and sexualizes women. They're shown prancing around (near naked, of course) and are referred to as animals throughout the song.
The "blurred lines" refer to those of consent. He's clearly forcing himself on her. "I know you want it"? Why would he have to repeatedly assert this if she actually "[wanted] it"?
How could this possibly be considered anything but sexist? In its essence, this song is a man telling a woman that she wants to have sex with him when she has given no such indications. He refers to her as an animal, mentions domesticating her, and is clearly overstepping his boundaries. And I haven't even mentioned T.I.'s verse, which contains such progressive lyrics as "I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two."
What about this isn't gross? | I think Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines is rape-y and sexist. CMV. He spends the entire song assuring a girl that she "[wants] it," even though she clearly doesn't.
The video objectifies and sexualizes women. They're shown prancing around (near naked, of course) and are referred to as animals throughout the song.
The "blurred lines" refer to those of consent. He's clearly forcing himself on her. "I know you want it"? Why would he have to repeatedly assert this if she actually "[wanted] it"?
How could this possibly be considered anything but sexist? In its essence, this song is a man telling a woman that she wants to have sex with him when she has given no such indications. He refers to her as an animal, mentions domesticating her, and is clearly overstepping his boundaries. And I haven't even mentioned T.I.'s verse, which contains such progressive lyrics as "I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two."
What about this isn't gross? |
t3_26uz90 | CMV: If white people being scared of black people on the street is racist, then women being scared of men on the street is sexist. | I was just reading [this](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/an-open-letter-to-all-my-male-friends?CMP=fb_gu) article and was again reminded of an analogy I have heard a few times before that seems to me correct. If it is the case that it is racist for a white person to be afraid of a black person walking toward them, then it is sexist for a woman to be afraid of a man walking toward her. I have heard this analogy a few times but have yet to hear any good reasons for there being a morally relevant difference between the two cases - if one is wrong, so is the other.
To be clear, my view is **not** that women being afraid of men on the street **is** sexist or wrong. My view is slightly more subtle; it is that there is no morally relevant difference between a women being afraid of men on the street and a white person being afraid of a black person on the street. If one is wrong, so is the other.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
| CMV: If white people being scared of black people on the street is racist, then women being scared of men on the street is sexist. I was just reading [this](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/an-open-letter-to-all-my-male-friends?CMP=fb_gu) article and was again reminded of an analogy I have heard a few times before that seems to me correct. If it is the case that it is racist for a white person to be afraid of a black person walking toward them, then it is sexist for a woman to be afraid of a man walking toward her. I have heard this analogy a few times but have yet to hear any good reasons for there being a morally relevant difference between the two cases - if one is wrong, so is the other.
To be clear, my view is **not** that women being afraid of men on the street **is** sexist or wrong. My view is slightly more subtle; it is that there is no morally relevant difference between a women being afraid of men on the street and a white person being afraid of a black person on the street. If one is wrong, so is the other.
|
t3_1zcd2a | Use of Contraception CMV | I personally fully support the use of condoms, contraceptive pills and etc. I support these even though I am a Catholic. Since I live in the Philippines, most of the people here are Catholic and they believe that marriage before sex is the way to go. However, I believe that contraceptives, if used correctly, can benefit the society and economy. I understand how the religious group oppose against abortion, but I'm not sure why against contraceptives. You're not exactly killing them if they haven't lived yet. (Sorry for those who were offended) I'd very much like to see how you view the situation. | Use of Contraception CMV. I personally fully support the use of condoms, contraceptive pills and etc. I support these even though I am a Catholic. Since I live in the Philippines, most of the people here are Catholic and they believe that marriage before sex is the way to go. However, I believe that contraceptives, if used correctly, can benefit the society and economy. I understand how the religious group oppose against abortion, but I'm not sure why against contraceptives. You're not exactly killing them if they haven't lived yet. (Sorry for those who were offended) I'd very much like to see how you view the situation. |
t3_2ykrhi | [Mod Post] Announcement: DeltaBot needs your help! | Citizens of ChangeMyView!
As you may have noticed, DeltaBot has been acting pretty strangely the last couple of weeks. This is a result of a major code overhaul and lots and lots of new features and code being implemented and some mistakes on my part as well as some interesting learning experiences.
Here's what I need from you: If you see a delta that DeltaBot hasn't responded to, please let me know or [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview) so that I am made aware.
More information on DeltaBot, the new code, and all of that in the (hopefully) near future. Also, return of the scoreboard is on the horizon! Yay!
Stay tuned. | [Mod Post] Announcement: DeltaBot needs your help!. Citizens of ChangeMyView!
As you may have noticed, DeltaBot has been acting pretty strangely the last couple of weeks. This is a result of a major code overhaul and lots and lots of new features and code being implemented and some mistakes on my part as well as some interesting learning experiences.
Here's what I need from you: If you see a delta that DeltaBot hasn't responded to, please let me know or [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview) so that I am made aware.
More information on DeltaBot, the new code, and all of that in the (hopefully) near future. Also, return of the scoreboard is on the horizon! Yay!
Stay tuned. |
t3_3pb5ks | CMV: Harsh (screaming or growling) vocals add nothing to music | I've been listening to metal for a few months, and while it took a while, I can listen to music with harsh vocals. While I can bear harsh vocals if the rest of the music is good, I don't think they really add much to the music (or often take away).
My first reason is that they seem to unify the emotions is a song. I have heard people say that harsh vocals add to music by changing the atmosphere or making it more emotionally intense. To me, it makes every song sound angry and frantic which just makes the emotions in the song more unified. There are also much less dynamics in harsh vocals which even furthers this.
My second point is that they make the other parts of the song harder to hear. Most notably, the vocals are very hard to hear (in some songs more than others) which also feeds into point 1. It also makes guitars and bass harder to hear in many songs. I've listened to the album Colors by Between the Buried and Me (amazing album btw) many times and I honestly can barely hear the lower parts in some songs.
My final point is that it can drive a lot of people away from listening to the music. I know when I didn't listen to anything with harsh vocals, if a post in /r/progmetal (which flairs posts by vocal style) even had a tag of "mixed" it would totally drive me away from listening to it. A lot of metal would have a bigger audience if there weren't harsh vocals.
I really love a lot of music with harsh vocals, but I really think I might enjoy it more without harsh vocals for many reasons other than just "they sound bad". What do you think, Reddit?
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Harsh (screaming or growling) vocals add nothing to music. I've been listening to metal for a few months, and while it took a while, I can listen to music with harsh vocals. While I can bear harsh vocals if the rest of the music is good, I don't think they really add much to the music (or often take away).
My first reason is that they seem to unify the emotions is a song. I have heard people say that harsh vocals add to music by changing the atmosphere or making it more emotionally intense. To me, it makes every song sound angry and frantic which just makes the emotions in the song more unified. There are also much less dynamics in harsh vocals which even furthers this.
My second point is that they make the other parts of the song harder to hear. Most notably, the vocals are very hard to hear (in some songs more than others) which also feeds into point 1. It also makes guitars and bass harder to hear in many songs. I've listened to the album Colors by Between the Buried and Me (amazing album btw) many times and I honestly can barely hear the lower parts in some songs.
My final point is that it can drive a lot of people away from listening to the music. I know when I didn't listen to anything with harsh vocals, if a post in /r/progmetal (which flairs posts by vocal style) even had a tag of "mixed" it would totally drive me away from listening to it. A lot of metal would have a bigger audience if there weren't harsh vocals.
I really love a lot of music with harsh vocals, but I really think I might enjoy it more without harsh vocals for many reasons other than just "they sound bad". What do you think, Reddit? |
t3_1u7oly | CMV If by 2100 the world is going to be in catastrophe due to global warming, the signs of it will show soon enough for there to be a massive cut in emissions. | I was browsing through a few scientific websites and it was pretty clear by 2100 the climate isn't going to look very pretty. At first I was alarmed and trying to figure out if I'd die before the end of the world, but then I thought that maybe, just maybe we'd be able to see "hey, we should change up our actions a little bit before we die".
If indeed we're on a path to catastrophe, the avalanche has to start showing warning signs before coming down full throttle. If obvious evidence is obvious enough, I see no reason why we can't have a rapid shift away from mass pollution.
We reacted in extreme fashion to global nuclear war, and I can't see why it'd happen any differently here. All of our students were taught what to do in the threat of a nuclear bomb, massive shelters were built, and the overwhelming feeling procured by the nation was to be prepared.
| CMV If by 2100 the world is going to be in catastrophe due to global warming, the signs of it will show soon enough for there to be a massive cut in emissions. I was browsing through a few scientific websites and it was pretty clear by 2100 the climate isn't going to look very pretty. At first I was alarmed and trying to figure out if I'd die before the end of the world, but then I thought that maybe, just maybe we'd be able to see "hey, we should change up our actions a little bit before we die".
If indeed we're on a path to catastrophe, the avalanche has to start showing warning signs before coming down full throttle. If obvious evidence is obvious enough, I see no reason why we can't have a rapid shift away from mass pollution.
We reacted in extreme fashion to global nuclear war, and I can't see why it'd happen any differently here. All of our students were taught what to do in the threat of a nuclear bomb, massive shelters were built, and the overwhelming feeling procured by the nation was to be prepared.
|
t3_1w08vd | CMV - I believe in Jury Nullification in that not only is a person on trial, but also the law that's being used against that person in that instance. | [Jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) is the idea that juries can find a person not guilty even though they believe that she did commit the act with which she's being charged. I find this to be an amazing idea. If we assumed that all laws are perfect, then there's no need for trial by juries. Twelve judges with greater understanding of the law would make better jurist if all we're concerned with is if a person committed an act that's in violation of the law. With nullification, instead we have 12 reasonable people determining if the law is reasonable in this case. Not only is the person being put on trial, the law itself must be defended by the prosecutor as being justified in this specific case.
In the US, with its four levels of courts: local, county, state and federal; it provides a protection against abuses of jury nullification. For example, if a man murders a black lady is found not guilty by jury nullification in a county trial, the state and federal government can still convict him. The reason being though the murder was one act, the different levels of government each have their own laws against murder. The rules against double jeopardy do not apply in cases of different institutions convicting a person as they're different laws.
I not only think that jury nullification is a great idea, I believe it should be allowed for the defense to explain to juries about their right to acquit the defendant even if they believe he committed the crime. This in turn can help lead to changes in laws if legislatures begin to see that the people are not convicting other people for certain laws they find unjust.
To put it in perspective, I see the Appeals, District and Supreme Court as putting the law on trial in all cases. The Jury puts the law on trial for this one case.
Change my View. | CMV - I believe in Jury Nullification in that not only is a person on trial, but also the law that's being used against that person in that instance. [Jury nullification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) is the idea that juries can find a person not guilty even though they believe that she did commit the act with which she's being charged. I find this to be an amazing idea. If we assumed that all laws are perfect, then there's no need for trial by juries. Twelve judges with greater understanding of the law would make better jurist if all we're concerned with is if a person committed an act that's in violation of the law. With nullification, instead we have 12 reasonable people determining if the law is reasonable in this case. Not only is the person being put on trial, the law itself must be defended by the prosecutor as being justified in this specific case.
In the US, with its four levels of courts: local, county, state and federal; it provides a protection against abuses of jury nullification. For example, if a man murders a black lady is found not guilty by jury nullification in a county trial, the state and federal government can still convict him. The reason being though the murder was one act, the different levels of government each have their own laws against murder. The rules against double jeopardy do not apply in cases of different institutions convicting a person as they're different laws.
I not only think that jury nullification is a great idea, I believe it should be allowed for the defense to explain to juries about their right to acquit the defendant even if they believe he committed the crime. This in turn can help lead to changes in laws if legislatures begin to see that the people are not convicting other people for certain laws they find unjust.
To put it in perspective, I see the Appeals, District and Supreme Court as putting the law on trial in all cases. The Jury puts the law on trial for this one case.
Change my View. |
t3_1ptjdy | I feel that I am better than others because if they lived my life they would not have survived. CMV | I may have some trouble articulating this but I am a young male in my early 20's who came from a neighborhood where the life expectancy is about 17 and has experience many hardships physical, economical, and psychological.
I am somewhat middle class now. However, I've noticed that I find myself disgusted with my new peers and feel that I am better than all of them. They are weak, vapid, emotional, and usually terrible people who get joy out of the suffering of others.
I feel I am better than them because I have no doubt if they lived my life they would have ended up dead in an alley somewhere or in prison.
This is evidenced to me by their general fragility and how the describe minor event in their life.
They have no appreciation for trials or rites of passage so when I try to connect they seem to feel that having to earn your spot rather than having everything handed to you is some kind of joke.
It has become apparent to my new peers and I am often called "arrogant" because of it.
It is unfortunate since I find my peers to be weak and lacking in resolve that I am unable to connect with them. I may just have to accept that this is a burden I have to carry. It comes along with moving into a different social strata.
If anyone has any insight please CMV.
TL;DR: A quality person is not made from sunshine, roses, sedentary living, and having shit handed to them. Like steel a quality person is forged in fire between the hammer and anvil of adversity and hardship. CMV | I feel that I am better than others because if they lived my life they would not have survived. CMV. I may have some trouble articulating this but I am a young male in my early 20's who came from a neighborhood where the life expectancy is about 17 and has experience many hardships physical, economical, and psychological.
I am somewhat middle class now. However, I've noticed that I find myself disgusted with my new peers and feel that I am better than all of them. They are weak, vapid, emotional, and usually terrible people who get joy out of the suffering of others.
I feel I am better than them because I have no doubt if they lived my life they would have ended up dead in an alley somewhere or in prison.
This is evidenced to me by their general fragility and how the describe minor event in their life.
They have no appreciation for trials or rites of passage so when I try to connect they seem to feel that having to earn your spot rather than having everything handed to you is some kind of joke.
It has become apparent to my new peers and I am often called "arrogant" because of it.
It is unfortunate since I find my peers to be weak and lacking in resolve that I am unable to connect with them. I may just have to accept that this is a burden I have to carry. It comes along with moving into a different social strata.
If anyone has any insight please CMV.
TL;DR: A quality person is not made from sunshine, roses, sedentary living, and having shit handed to them. Like steel a quality person is forged in fire between the hammer and anvil of adversity and hardship. CMV |
t3_6n7eru | CMV: I believe the topic of abortion can be boiled down to where human life is defined | Hi everybody, this is my first post on Reddit, and it's something I've thought about a lot.
Abortion is such a fiercely debated topic, and I believe that is because people have different definitions of when human life begins. In this post, I am only talking about laws within the United States, because that's all I know.
The basic problem is that pro-life people think human life begins earlier than pro-choice people. Pro-lifers generally argue that human life begins when the sperm fertilizes, while pro-choicers argue that human life begins after a certain part in pregnancy (or even at birth). In the United States, we have a right to life, but the term "life" can be pretty vague. The law doesn't specify when exactly life begins, and that's why abortion can be legal or legal, depending on the state.
If the US were to define human life as beginning at conception, then there would be cases in which it would be illegal to have an abortion, when it might be the best choice (i.e. Pregnancy as a result of rape, Pregnancy threatening Mother's health).
However, if the US were to define human life beginning later on in pregnancies, then it would allow for discrimination before birth, if there are any genetic abnormalities detected early. I've also read articles saying fetuses can feel pain during the abortion, and that's just not a happy thought.
Is there more to abortion than this? Please take me to school on this, I'd love to hear your feedback!
BONUS DILEMMA: If human life was defined at fertilization, and pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother, how would one decide which right to life is more important?
EDIT: I've had an overwhelming amount of responses regarding bodily autonomy. I understand the concept now, and had a shady knowledge of it before these responses. Thank you all for showing me this new aspect to the debate, it really opened up new takes on the topic for me.
Δ's go to u/ExplainsSocialNorms and u/ZeusThunder369
FINAL EDIT: Thank you to everyone who read my post, and responded to my post. I find it frustrating how many people just read the word abortion and started spitting out their stances on it. I understand why my professors used to give me shitty grades when I wouldn't answer the prompt now. I understand abortion is such a hot topic, but that doesn't mean you can't take a step back and think critically on the area being inquired about. Please read people's posts in the future, I've had a few people hopping on me because they didn't read what my initial CMV was because their thumbs started typing away the second the word abortion came up. Bless the hearts of those who answered my prompt, I very much enjoyed reading all your stances! | CMV: I believe the topic of abortion can be boiled down to where human life is defined. Hi everybody, this is my first post on Reddit, and it's something I've thought about a lot.
Abortion is such a fiercely debated topic, and I believe that is because people have different definitions of when human life begins. In this post, I am only talking about laws within the United States, because that's all I know.
The basic problem is that pro-life people think human life begins earlier than pro-choice people. Pro-lifers generally argue that human life begins when the sperm fertilizes, while pro-choicers argue that human life begins after a certain part in pregnancy (or even at birth). In the United States, we have a right to life, but the term "life" can be pretty vague. The law doesn't specify when exactly life begins, and that's why abortion can be legal or legal, depending on the state.
If the US were to define human life as beginning at conception, then there would be cases in which it would be illegal to have an abortion, when it might be the best choice (i.e. Pregnancy as a result of rape, Pregnancy threatening Mother's health).
However, if the US were to define human life beginning later on in pregnancies, then it would allow for discrimination before birth, if there are any genetic abnormalities detected early. I've also read articles saying fetuses can feel pain during the abortion, and that's just not a happy thought.
Is there more to abortion than this? Please take me to school on this, I'd love to hear your feedback!
BONUS DILEMMA: If human life was defined at fertilization, and pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother, how would one decide which right to life is more important?
EDIT: I've had an overwhelming amount of responses regarding bodily autonomy. I understand the concept now, and had a shady knowledge of it before these responses. Thank you all for showing me this new aspect to the debate, it really opened up new takes on the topic for me.
Δ's go to u/ExplainsSocialNorms and u/ZeusThunder369
FINAL EDIT: Thank you to everyone who read my post, and responded to my post. I find it frustrating how many people just read the word abortion and started spitting out their stances on it. I understand why my professors used to give me shitty grades when I wouldn't answer the prompt now. I understand abortion is such a hot topic, but that doesn't mean you can't take a step back and think critically on the area being inquired about. Please read people's posts in the future, I've had a few people hopping on me because they didn't read what my initial CMV was because their thumbs started typing away the second the word abortion came up. Bless the hearts of those who answered my prompt, I very much enjoyed reading all your stances! |
t3_1x0904 | I think "just talk to her like a human being" is bad advice on how to get with girls. CMV | Ok, so Reddit frequently loves to hate on /r/seduction and /r/theredpill for teaching men how to game. Common responses tend to say "Just talk to her like a fucking human being". I believe that this is bad advice for a guy looking to get with a girl. The reason being that we all have different ways of communicating with different human beings. You're not getting the girl if you talk to her like you would to your friends. Well you might get a new friend but you won't get in her pants/a relationship/whatever. To get with the girl you shouldn't talk to her like you would to any human, you need to flirt and stuff. So Reddit, CMV | I think "just talk to her like a human being" is bad advice on how to get with girls. CMV. Ok, so Reddit frequently loves to hate on /r/seduction and /r/theredpill for teaching men how to game. Common responses tend to say "Just talk to her like a fucking human being". I believe that this is bad advice for a guy looking to get with a girl. The reason being that we all have different ways of communicating with different human beings. You're not getting the girl if you talk to her like you would to your friends. Well you might get a new friend but you won't get in her pants/a relationship/whatever. To get with the girl you shouldn't talk to her like you would to any human, you need to flirt and stuff. So Reddit, CMV |
t3_204vsi | CMV: The Barack Obama Between Two Ferns was actually the closest I have seen Obama to actually answering questions I give a shit about. | http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/18e820ec3f/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-president-barack-obama
Since the Presidential Debates I have not seen Obama actually answering questions that matter. Or at least questions that matter to some people. I would actually love to see Obama answer questions that regular people give a shit about. Seriously, what is he going to do about North Korea? Why the fuck is everyone in my town broke as fuck? Why wouldn't you get IBM to run Healthcare.gov from the start?
Obama even comes on Reddit and answers like 6 canned pre screened questions and the site crashed. How about answering why the people responsible for the 08' crash haven't even been arrested yet. How about asking about the NSA spying program. How about some real answers to real questions? | CMV: The Barack Obama Between Two Ferns was actually the closest I have seen Obama to actually answering questions I give a shit about. http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/18e820ec3f/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-president-barack-obama
Since the Presidential Debates I have not seen Obama actually answering questions that matter. Or at least questions that matter to some people. I would actually love to see Obama answer questions that regular people give a shit about. Seriously, what is he going to do about North Korea? Why the fuck is everyone in my town broke as fuck? Why wouldn't you get IBM to run Healthcare.gov from the start?
Obama even comes on Reddit and answers like 6 canned pre screened questions and the site crashed. How about answering why the people responsible for the 08' crash haven't even been arrested yet. How about asking about the NSA spying program. How about some real answers to real questions? |
t3_1mshug | A 757 airliner did not impact the Pentagon on 9/11. CMV. | 1) Why do you hold your view?
I have watched many documentaries including Loose Change 3rd ed (2013) and 911: In Plane Site. I don't want to reduce the videos to their end conclusions because the entire point is the presentation of the evidence. However the ideas seem inescapable. There is nothing but inconsistency at every single level from the story. There is not one part of the 757 impact story that is not just a little inconsistent, but totally inconsistent.
2) Is there any evidence you can use to support your view?
Debris analysis, fuel analysis, fuel BTU analysis, fuel levels and ground contamination evidence, fuselage analysis, impact analysis, simulation analysis. These are all based on a combination of photographs taken at the scene, comparable crashes of planes similar or equal to a 757 involving buildings.
Every way to explain away one aspect of inconsistency (for instance, lack of fuselage parts) introduces a logical fallacy in any other part of the story. (i.e. pentagon has a hardened steel outer casing which could explain the lack of fuselage, everything melted, but then the structural impact analysis - depth of impact, number of support columns destroyed, etc... dont follow).
Edit: I completely dismissed the 9-11 truth movement after I witnessed the meltdown of structural steel from gasoline on a local freeway in the Bay Area when a gasoline tanker crashed (the MacArthur 580 interchange maze). But shortly after the Snowden revelations exposing the NSA, all my concerns about what the Government *could* do greatly changed. Reading through all the comments thoroughly. | A 757 airliner did not impact the Pentagon on 9/11. CMV. 1) Why do you hold your view?
I have watched many documentaries including Loose Change 3rd ed (2013) and 911: In Plane Site. I don't want to reduce the videos to their end conclusions because the entire point is the presentation of the evidence. However the ideas seem inescapable. There is nothing but inconsistency at every single level from the story. There is not one part of the 757 impact story that is not just a little inconsistent, but totally inconsistent.
2) Is there any evidence you can use to support your view?
Debris analysis, fuel analysis, fuel BTU analysis, fuel levels and ground contamination evidence, fuselage analysis, impact analysis, simulation analysis. These are all based on a combination of photographs taken at the scene, comparable crashes of planes similar or equal to a 757 involving buildings.
Every way to explain away one aspect of inconsistency (for instance, lack of fuselage parts) introduces a logical fallacy in any other part of the story. (i.e. pentagon has a hardened steel outer casing which could explain the lack of fuselage, everything melted, but then the structural impact analysis - depth of impact, number of support columns destroyed, etc... dont follow).
Edit: I completely dismissed the 9-11 truth movement after I witnessed the meltdown of structural steel from gasoline on a local freeway in the Bay Area when a gasoline tanker crashed (the MacArthur 580 interchange maze). But shortly after the Snowden revelations exposing the NSA, all my concerns about what the Government *could* do greatly changed. Reading through all the comments thoroughly. |
t3_4h6i8e | cmv: i believe that all bathrooms should be unisex | i feel that distinguishing access to bathrooms based upon either sex or gender is redundant at this time for several reasons.
for one, its obviously very uncomfortable for a trans person to be forced into a position thats socially seen to be belonging to the other gender on the basis that they dont pass well enough. on top of that, there are people who identify as a different gender that isnt covered by our current binary and furthermore there are people whose sex couldnt even be properly placed in either bathroom.
if the reason for doing it is to prevent sexual harassment then thats redundant as well. a very large proportion of people currently and especially in the future arent heterosexual. half of young people arent a 0 on the kinsey scale and as progressive changes in society go onward this is only likely to increase.
_____
> *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 all bathrooms should be unisex. i feel that distinguishing access to bathrooms based upon either sex or gender is redundant at this time for several reasons.
for one, its obviously very uncomfortable for a trans person to be forced into a position thats socially seen to be belonging to the other gender on the basis that they dont pass well enough. on top of that, there are people who identify as a different gender that isnt covered by our current binary and furthermore there are people whose sex couldnt even be properly placed in either bathroom.
if the reason for doing it is to prevent sexual harassment then thats redundant as well. a very large proportion of people currently and especially in the future arent heterosexual. half of young people arent a 0 on the kinsey scale and as progressive changes in society go onward this is only likely to increase. |
t3_5saap2 | CMV: Nixon was the worst US president | When I look at rankinngs of [US Presidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States), I'm often amazed that Nixon is somewhere around the low-to-mid 30s, out of 42 presidents - the most recent survey puts him at 32.
To me this is a no-brainer - [this article](https://timeline.com/president-plot-kill-reporter-2739dc7351b8#.e8m1yfbj2) (earlier posted on TIL) sums up why pretty nicely. Nixon essentially tried - and sometimes succeeded - to subvert American democracy. He leaked classified information to eliminate political rivals, used the FBI to harass and intimidate reporters, and worst of all, plotted the assassination of one for simply doing his job.
To me that's the worst - before we even get into the Watergate break-in, Saturday Night Massacre, and other more commonly-cited Nixon scandals, plotting the assassination of a news reporter is a tough act to beat if you're running for worst president. It's the worst kind of abuse of authority - an attempt to eliminate the ability of the people to know what the government they're voting on is doing. This is largely how Putin seized power in Russia decades later.
Then you add on all that followed with Watergate and the like, and it's all the same idea - using criminal means to consolidate Nixon's power. It seems to me that's just about all Nixon did.
Now I'll admit that I'm not the biggest expert on the William Henry Harrison or Andrew Johnson or Warren Harding administrations, but I do know none of them resigned in disgrace. And with Nixon, the things he resigned for, ridiculous and criminal as they were, weren't even the worst things he did.
So maybe someone who knows more about the other "worst presidents" can explain what was so bad about them that can possibly compare to the criminal actions of the Nixon presidency.
_____
> *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: Nixon was the worst US president. When I look at rankinngs of [US Presidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States), I'm often amazed that Nixon is somewhere around the low-to-mid 30s, out of 42 presidents - the most recent survey puts him at 32.
To me this is a no-brainer - [this article](https://timeline.com/president-plot-kill-reporter-2739dc7351b8#.e8m1yfbj2) (earlier posted on TIL) sums up why pretty nicely. Nixon essentially tried - and sometimes succeeded - to subvert American democracy. He leaked classified information to eliminate political rivals, used the FBI to harass and intimidate reporters, and worst of all, plotted the assassination of one for simply doing his job.
To me that's the worst - before we even get into the Watergate break-in, Saturday Night Massacre, and other more commonly-cited Nixon scandals, plotting the assassination of a news reporter is a tough act to beat if you're running for worst president. It's the worst kind of abuse of authority - an attempt to eliminate the ability of the people to know what the government they're voting on is doing. This is largely how Putin seized power in Russia decades later.
Then you add on all that followed with Watergate and the like, and it's all the same idea - using criminal means to consolidate Nixon's power. It seems to me that's just about all Nixon did.
Now I'll admit that I'm not the biggest expert on the William Henry Harrison or Andrew Johnson or Warren Harding administrations, but I do know none of them resigned in disgrace. And with Nixon, the things he resigned for, ridiculous and criminal as they were, weren't even the worst things he did.
So maybe someone who knows more about the other "worst presidents" can explain what was so bad about them that can possibly compare to the criminal actions of the Nixon presidency. |
t3_2uibfp | CMV: People who claim to support a cause but not nonviolent civil disobedience in support of that cause are more harmful to social progress than people on the opposite side of the cause | 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!
People who claim to support a cause but not nonviolent civil disobedience in support of that cause are more harmful to social progress than people on the opposite side of the cause
> "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.’
Martin Luther King jr.
I love to use this quote because many people love to believe that in cases of extreme injustice that they would would take a stand in a meaningful way, but the reality is that the majority of them wouldn’t. People are far more content to nitpick the root causes and methods of a social movement as opposed to the underlying truth behind its message. It is of no value at all to support the Civil Rights Movement or Women’s Suffragists movements decades after the fact. What matters is what’s happening now, and the majority of people take no stance major societal problems.
Instead of focusing on the disproportionate harassment and brutalization of minorities at the hands of the police, people want to comb through the specifics of the individual shootings that caused the #blacklivesmatter movement to take off.
A huge percentage of the American populace believes wall street has an undue influence on public policy, but conversely when some people camp out in lower Manhattan to put pressure on officials to resolve the issue they are too easily brushed off as lazy, privileged brats with no clear message.
But actions are actions and words are words.
They did something. Most people did and continue to do nothing.
If you agree with the basic sentiment of a movement then you should focus on that instead of complaining about its flaws and giving cover to people who wish to maintain the status quo. If you have a better course of action then *do it*. Dedicating energy into poking holes in the methods of people who are requesting reforms should be redirected into specific actions instead of facile armchair intellectualism that makes people feel good in their apathy or chosen impotence. If you are more outraged by traffic being held up by a demonstration then you are at the root problems caused by the status quo you are more culpable than the people who support the the opposite side because you move the discussion away from the injustice that is being addressed to superficial issues of decorum and inconvenience that may resonate with a large number of people, but also give them an excuse to ignore the larger moral questions being posed.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: People who claim to support a cause but not nonviolent civil disobedience in support of that cause are more harmful to social progress than people on the opposite side of the cause. 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!
People who claim to support a cause but not nonviolent civil disobedience in support of that cause are more harmful to social progress than people on the opposite side of the cause
> "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.’
Martin Luther King jr.
I love to use this quote because many people love to believe that in cases of extreme injustice that they would would take a stand in a meaningful way, but the reality is that the majority of them wouldn’t. People are far more content to nitpick the root causes and methods of a social movement as opposed to the underlying truth behind its message. It is of no value at all to support the Civil Rights Movement or Women’s Suffragists movements decades after the fact. What matters is what’s happening now, and the majority of people take no stance major societal problems.
Instead of focusing on the disproportionate harassment and brutalization of minorities at the hands of the police, people want to comb through the specifics of the individual shootings that caused the #blacklivesmatter movement to take off.
A huge percentage of the American populace believes wall street has an undue influence on public policy, but conversely when some people camp out in lower Manhattan to put pressure on officials to resolve the issue they are too easily brushed off as lazy, privileged brats with no clear message.
But actions are actions and words are words.
They did something. Most people did and continue to do nothing.
If you agree with the basic sentiment of a movement then you should focus on that instead of complaining about its flaws and giving cover to people who wish to maintain the status quo. If you have a better course of action then *do it*. Dedicating energy into poking holes in the methods of people who are requesting reforms should be redirected into specific actions instead of facile armchair intellectualism that makes people feel good in their apathy or chosen impotence. If you are more outraged by traffic being held up by a demonstration then you are at the root problems caused by the status quo you are more culpable than the people who support the the opposite side because you move the discussion away from the injustice that is being addressed to superficial issues of decorum and inconvenience that may resonate with a large number of people, but also give them an excuse to ignore the larger moral questions being posed. |
t3_46t3kz | CMV: I don't consider myself a reliable source of information even though i am pretty well educated | I don't see myself as a reliable source of information. Specifically when it comes to gaining self knowledge. When i discover something for myself or i make a connection with something, i am extremely hesitant to conclude that its true or trust worthy, probably because i got to the conclusion with no help at all just from my own observations/awareness and experience. Maybe its because i got there by myself and i am not a "professional". Most of the time i intellectually know i have great reason too trust myself but i fail to. Even though I pretty much know 100% that my discoveries/connections are right. Im really open to changing this view of mine i just need some help (I know sounds a little pathetic). Change my view.
Example I change my perceptions, beliefs, about people and myself and what happens is the next month i feel less anxiety around people and i also stutter less than i normally do. I then think that changing perceptions and beliefs have power to lesson anxiety and lessen my slight speech impediment. I then test my discovery and change more negative beliefs and perceptions about people and myself. I change my perception about people judging my speech and i change the belief that i am not funny and interesting. I also change the belief that "people arent interested in what i have to say" The result is LESS ANXIETY and more FLUENT SPEECH. The problem is that even though i take note of this i still refuse to believe i alone discovered something reliable and trustworthy. -____-
| CMV: I don't consider myself a reliable source of information even though i am pretty well educated. I don't see myself as a reliable source of information. Specifically when it comes to gaining self knowledge. When i discover something for myself or i make a connection with something, i am extremely hesitant to conclude that its true or trust worthy, probably because i got to the conclusion with no help at all just from my own observations/awareness and experience. Maybe its because i got there by myself and i am not a "professional". Most of the time i intellectually know i have great reason too trust myself but i fail to. Even though I pretty much know 100% that my discoveries/connections are right. Im really open to changing this view of mine i just need some help (I know sounds a little pathetic). Change my view.
Example I change my perceptions, beliefs, about people and myself and what happens is the next month i feel less anxiety around people and i also stutter less than i normally do. I then think that changing perceptions and beliefs have power to lesson anxiety and lessen my slight speech impediment. I then test my discovery and change more negative beliefs and perceptions about people and myself. I change my perception about people judging my speech and i change the belief that i am not funny and interesting. I also change the belief that "people arent interested in what i have to say" The result is LESS ANXIETY and more FLUENT SPEECH. The problem is that even though i take note of this i still refuse to believe i alone discovered something reliable and trustworthy. -____-
|
t3_3lq3j0 | CMV:Citizens United should have been a 9-0 ruling instead of 5-4 for protecting free speech | Most of the arguments I see against the Citizens United ruling are misinformed.
Citizens United was not about rich people being able to hand politicians bags of money for political favors. That was illegal then and still is. We can have an argument about whether this is adequately enforced, but that is a separate question from the legal one.
The case was about whether or not the FEC could prohibit a movie critical of Hillary Clinton from being distributed too early to an election.
If the left had its way, the FEC could control how much money could be spent on political speech and how close to an election the speech was allowed. Who gets to decide how much is too much, what political speech entails, and how close is too close?
Consider the consequences of such a ruling. This would not just prohibit a movie critical of Hillary Clinton from being aired. It would mean the FEC could prosecute the NYTimes for publishing an editorial critical of Jeb Bush on the week of an election. The FEC could prohibit Bill Maher from airing a segment mocking Donald Trump a day before the Iowa primary. The FEC can prosecute a community organized Tea Party group from spending too much money buying radio ads supporting Ted Cruz a fortnight before a primary.
The only disgrace regarding the Citizens United ruling was that four Supreme Court justices think it was appropriate for the government to be involved in determining how much third parties can spend on "political" speech and when.
I'm interested to hear any arguments you have against the Citizens United ruling. I do believe there is way too much money in politics corrupting the system. I just don't believe limitations on third party's spending money on speech is constitutional. CMV!
Edit: Thank you for the conversation. I haven't changed my position on the Citizens United ruling but I enjoyed the thoughtful, respectful conversation. I will probably continue to respond to intelligent responses but not as often. I would especially like to thank /u/hacksoncode for a particularly productive and interesting conversation.
_____
> *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:Citizens United should have been a 9-0 ruling instead of 5-4 for protecting free speech. Most of the arguments I see against the Citizens United ruling are misinformed.
Citizens United was not about rich people being able to hand politicians bags of money for political favors. That was illegal then and still is. We can have an argument about whether this is adequately enforced, but that is a separate question from the legal one.
The case was about whether or not the FEC could prohibit a movie critical of Hillary Clinton from being distributed too early to an election.
If the left had its way, the FEC could control how much money could be spent on political speech and how close to an election the speech was allowed. Who gets to decide how much is too much, what political speech entails, and how close is too close?
Consider the consequences of such a ruling. This would not just prohibit a movie critical of Hillary Clinton from being aired. It would mean the FEC could prosecute the NYTimes for publishing an editorial critical of Jeb Bush on the week of an election. The FEC could prohibit Bill Maher from airing a segment mocking Donald Trump a day before the Iowa primary. The FEC can prosecute a community organized Tea Party group from spending too much money buying radio ads supporting Ted Cruz a fortnight before a primary.
The only disgrace regarding the Citizens United ruling was that four Supreme Court justices think it was appropriate for the government to be involved in determining how much third parties can spend on "political" speech and when.
I'm interested to hear any arguments you have against the Citizens United ruling. I do believe there is way too much money in politics corrupting the system. I just don't believe limitations on third party's spending money on speech is constitutional. CMV!
Edit: Thank you for the conversation. I haven't changed my position on the Citizens United ruling but I enjoyed the thoughtful, respectful conversation. I will probably continue to respond to intelligent responses but not as often. I would especially like to thank /u/hacksoncode for a particularly productive and interesting conversation.
|
t3_26oalr | CMV: I believe mathematical intelligence is the most superior of all intelligences | Hi, I'm new here on Reddit, and I badly need some help in changing this view of mine.Though there is some part of my mind that constantly tells me that this view is silly and shallow, I can't find enough reasons to challenge this view. In the job market today, those majoring in math related fields always get the higher pay than those majoring in the arts. It seems to me, though I may be wrong, that only the most talented writers, artists, actors,etc get a very high pay. Those that are about average can't really get a stable job, whereas average engineers can get a stable job. It just seems to me that society values mathematical intelligence the most. Also, I think that all those technological innovations like cars, internet,etc have impacted society and it's economy the most. So when I see people with good language skills, when compared with people with good mathematical skills, I tend to view the people with good mathematical skills as more intelligent. Since those in math related fields earn on average a higher pay, I conclude that they are more valued by society, and therefore have more worth than those that are not so mathematically inclined.
Basically, I need help changing this two views of mine that are interconnected, because those are the roots of a problem that I have. I will be very happy indeed if anyone here can help me in my problems, since you all seem very intelligent.
Growing up, my parents and teachers place the utmost importance on academic achievement and I seem to get the message that if you are not smart enough, then you are just not good enough. Smarter people are just better in some absolute sense. So I place my entire self worth on my intelligence and naturally, because of that, I would like to be smarter than average, because it boosts my ego. Although, I'm well aware that I'm not even clots to the smartest people out there,I find this constant comparison with my peers extremely narcissistic. One part of my mind wants to view myself as equal to everyone else, while the other doesn't because it diminishes my own self importance. So, I don't know how to deal with these two very conflicting thoughts of mine.
I do hope that you smart guys can help me out on my problem, though I know it is not a view. Otherwise, just comment on my view above. Thanks in advance. :)
_____
> *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 mathematical intelligence is the most superior of all intelligences. Hi, I'm new here on Reddit, and I badly need some help in changing this view of mine.Though there is some part of my mind that constantly tells me that this view is silly and shallow, I can't find enough reasons to challenge this view. In the job market today, those majoring in math related fields always get the higher pay than those majoring in the arts. It seems to me, though I may be wrong, that only the most talented writers, artists, actors,etc get a very high pay. Those that are about average can't really get a stable job, whereas average engineers can get a stable job. It just seems to me that society values mathematical intelligence the most. Also, I think that all those technological innovations like cars, internet,etc have impacted society and it's economy the most. So when I see people with good language skills, when compared with people with good mathematical skills, I tend to view the people with good mathematical skills as more intelligent. Since those in math related fields earn on average a higher pay, I conclude that they are more valued by society, and therefore have more worth than those that are not so mathematically inclined.
Basically, I need help changing this two views of mine that are interconnected, because those are the roots of a problem that I have. I will be very happy indeed if anyone here can help me in my problems, since you all seem very intelligent.
Growing up, my parents and teachers place the utmost importance on academic achievement and I seem to get the message that if you are not smart enough, then you are just not good enough. Smarter people are just better in some absolute sense. So I place my entire self worth on my intelligence and naturally, because of that, I would like to be smarter than average, because it boosts my ego. Although, I'm well aware that I'm not even clots to the smartest people out there,I find this constant comparison with my peers extremely narcissistic. One part of my mind wants to view myself as equal to everyone else, while the other doesn't because it diminishes my own self importance. So, I don't know how to deal with these two very conflicting thoughts of mine.
I do hope that you smart guys can help me out on my problem, though I know it is not a view. Otherwise, just comment on my view above. Thanks in advance. :)
|
t3_4sjw6y | CMV: Nothing really matters. | Simply put, we are our own reality engines, strictly powered by survival oriented perception. Things that "matter" are elevated by our perception with abstract labels such as "good" or "important". We attach our own meaning to things based on complex survival and reproduction agents: Things like pain, fear, sadness, hunger, and countless others.
In my own personal opinion, the biggest opponent to objective meaning is the relativity of morality. What is good for you may not be good for your neighbor. However, there is an illusion of universals created by common interests. I personally enjoy eating food and having sex. Two of my favorite hobbies to be completely honest; they are what I would consider subjectively "fucking awesome." Moral relativity would suggest that not everyone finds benefit or happiness in such activity. Alas... I have never met a person who did not share my exact sentiments on food or sex. This might lead me to believe there is such a thing as universal good. But I must consider the fact that I have never had a conversation with a rock or tree. Please humor me for a moment, and consider what that might be like. Trees might agree with me on things like food and sex, but may not share my very human opinions on things like shelter or clothing: Things we can all agree are "pretty dope." The rock on the other hand may very well not give a shit about anything. Rocks have no goals, or ambitions. There is no favorable endgame for a rock. It is all the same to them.
But us humans are different. We want and crave things. Our ability to do so generates a great sense of privilege, as if we were placed with great care by the hand of god himself above all the beasts of the earth, who themselves have certainly been placed above the likes of rocks.
This is where I disagree with human perception. We are not good. We are not bad. Nobody is important, and nothing anyone can do will matter. The reality generated by our own perception tends to tell us otherwise, but ultimately, our perception is flawed in a great many ways.
**EDIT: Many of you have pointed out my misuse of the word "matter". I had a warped definition of the word "matter", so the title should read "CMV: Nothing absolutely matters." I have awarded ∆s to the brave defenders of semantics accordingly.**
_____
> *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: Nothing really matters. Simply put, we are our own reality engines, strictly powered by survival oriented perception. Things that "matter" are elevated by our perception with abstract labels such as "good" or "important". We attach our own meaning to things based on complex survival and reproduction agents: Things like pain, fear, sadness, hunger, and countless others.
In my own personal opinion, the biggest opponent to objective meaning is the relativity of morality. What is good for you may not be good for your neighbor. However, there is an illusion of universals created by common interests. I personally enjoy eating food and having sex. Two of my favorite hobbies to be completely honest; they are what I would consider subjectively "fucking awesome." Moral relativity would suggest that not everyone finds benefit or happiness in such activity. Alas... I have never met a person who did not share my exact sentiments on food or sex. This might lead me to believe there is such a thing as universal good. But I must consider the fact that I have never had a conversation with a rock or tree. Please humor me for a moment, and consider what that might be like. Trees might agree with me on things like food and sex, but may not share my very human opinions on things like shelter or clothing: Things we can all agree are "pretty dope." The rock on the other hand may very well not give a shit about anything. Rocks have no goals, or ambitions. There is no favorable endgame for a rock. It is all the same to them.
But us humans are different. We want and crave things. Our ability to do so generates a great sense of privilege, as if we were placed with great care by the hand of god himself above all the beasts of the earth, who themselves have certainly been placed above the likes of rocks.
This is where I disagree with human perception. We are not good. We are not bad. Nobody is important, and nothing anyone can do will matter. The reality generated by our own perception tends to tell us otherwise, but ultimately, our perception is flawed in a great many ways.
**EDIT: Many of you have pointed out my misuse of the word "matter". I had a warped definition of the word "matter", so the title should read "CMV: Nothing absolutely matters." I have awarded ∆s to the brave defenders of semantics accordingly.**
|
t3_265oy8 | CMV: Being Pro- Life is a perfectly reasonable view and shouldn't be demonized. | I'll start off by saying I myself am pro choice, and have no horses in this race. But I do get bothered when I see the Pro-Life movement treated like hateful, crazy, or disillusioned.
A Pro Choice person like myself would be against abortions at 8 1/2 months pregnancy, even if it were safe. Let's say they're even fine with that, they'd be against terminating a pregnancy 5 minutes before going into labor. So a Pro Lifer would be against terminating a pregnancy say at 3 months instead of 8 1/2. My point here is that everyone has a line in their head of when the child is really alive, and shouldn't be aborted. And to the best of my knowledge, science doesn't have any conclusive answers of when we should consider that child alive. Meaning there is no right or wrong when it comes to determining that line. Terminating a pregnancy 5 minutes before birth can be as objectionable to a person as to terminating one 3 months in. Now personally, I don't have a problem with it, but *it's perfectly reasonable that some would*. Which is why I feel like a lot of the common arguments used by pro choicers are invalid. Especially "If you don't like abortions, don't get one". That doesn't make sense! If you truly consider it a living child, like you would 9 months in, you wouldn't turn the other way when they were being killed. You would want that banned. It's like saying "if you aren't okay with with smothering newborns, just don't smother your newborn". The reason people want abortions illegal is because they find it morally objectionable. And laws are set in place to stop the morally objectionable from occurring.
Now I understand there are parts of the pro life movement that give it a bad name. Religious fanatics, abortion clinic shooters, protestors yelling at women who terminated their pregnancy. None of that is okay. But I don't think it's fair that their image be extended to anyone who's pro life. | CMV: Being Pro- Life is a perfectly reasonable view and shouldn't be demonized. I'll start off by saying I myself am pro choice, and have no horses in this race. But I do get bothered when I see the Pro-Life movement treated like hateful, crazy, or disillusioned.
A Pro Choice person like myself would be against abortions at 8 1/2 months pregnancy, even if it were safe. Let's say they're even fine with that, they'd be against terminating a pregnancy 5 minutes before going into labor. So a Pro Lifer would be against terminating a pregnancy say at 3 months instead of 8 1/2. My point here is that everyone has a line in their head of when the child is really alive, and shouldn't be aborted. And to the best of my knowledge, science doesn't have any conclusive answers of when we should consider that child alive. Meaning there is no right or wrong when it comes to determining that line. Terminating a pregnancy 5 minutes before birth can be as objectionable to a person as to terminating one 3 months in. Now personally, I don't have a problem with it, but *it's perfectly reasonable that some would*. Which is why I feel like a lot of the common arguments used by pro choicers are invalid. Especially "If you don't like abortions, don't get one". That doesn't make sense! If you truly consider it a living child, like you would 9 months in, you wouldn't turn the other way when they were being killed. You would want that banned. It's like saying "if you aren't okay with with smothering newborns, just don't smother your newborn". The reason people want abortions illegal is because they find it morally objectionable. And laws are set in place to stop the morally objectionable from occurring.
Now I understand there are parts of the pro life movement that give it a bad name. Religious fanatics, abortion clinic shooters, protestors yelling at women who terminated their pregnancy. None of that is okay. But I don't think it's fair that their image be extended to anyone who's pro life. |
t3_1oiteo | China's economy and society will collapse CMV | For your information, I am Chinese but I have only lived there for less than three years (when I was a toddler). The reasons I am so critical of China includes: the housing market bubble, an education system where one's life is decided on just one exam, internet censorship, appealing racism towards the Japanese, people with black skin, and to some extent the western world, pollution (especially in Beijing), and the parenting strategies of Chinese parents (though that counts also for other Asian nations and the Asian diaspora in general). This is the first time I have posted anything on reddit so sorry if I do anything incorrectly. | China's economy and society will collapse CMV. For your information, I am Chinese but I have only lived there for less than three years (when I was a toddler). The reasons I am so critical of China includes: the housing market bubble, an education system where one's life is decided on just one exam, internet censorship, appealing racism towards the Japanese, people with black skin, and to some extent the western world, pollution (especially in Beijing), and the parenting strategies of Chinese parents (though that counts also for other Asian nations and the Asian diaspora in general). This is the first time I have posted anything on reddit so sorry if I do anything incorrectly. |
t3_26j4st | CMV: Students with learning disabilities should not be given special accommodations for exams, and doing so does them a disservice, because in the real world employers won't give you special accommodations for things that impact your work | In school there were lots of people who got extra time on exams (or even exams in a different format entirely) for reasons like having learning disorders, dyslexia, ADHD, etc. I contend that this is doing a disservice to those students, because rather than teaching them effective coping strategies to deal with the same kinds of things as everyone else, it's giving them special treatment that they won't get out in the real world.
I started thinking about this recently because I've been doing a lot of interviews for potential developer hires at my job recently, and none of us has ever even considered giving special accommodation to anyone. Everyone gets the same format of interview, and if you needed a lot more time to solve the problems we give for some reason, that probably means you'll take a lot more time to solve similar programming problems in the real workplace, meaning you'd be a slow developer and we wouldn't want you! I haven't heard of any employer anywhere giving special accommodations in interviews, as the interviews are intended to measure the performance that you'd expect out of the interviewee on the actual job.
What's the point of coddling students when they're young if those accommodations abruptly end as soon as the student graduates? It seems to me like we're setting them up for failure. The transition between schooling and working should be a smooth one, not a chasm so vast that it is unbridgeable. | CMV: Students with learning disabilities should not be given special accommodations for exams, and doing so does them a disservice, because in the real world employers won't give you special accommodations for things that impact your work. In school there were lots of people who got extra time on exams (or even exams in a different format entirely) for reasons like having learning disorders, dyslexia, ADHD, etc. I contend that this is doing a disservice to those students, because rather than teaching them effective coping strategies to deal with the same kinds of things as everyone else, it's giving them special treatment that they won't get out in the real world.
I started thinking about this recently because I've been doing a lot of interviews for potential developer hires at my job recently, and none of us has ever even considered giving special accommodation to anyone. Everyone gets the same format of interview, and if you needed a lot more time to solve the problems we give for some reason, that probably means you'll take a lot more time to solve similar programming problems in the real workplace, meaning you'd be a slow developer and we wouldn't want you! I haven't heard of any employer anywhere giving special accommodations in interviews, as the interviews are intended to measure the performance that you'd expect out of the interviewee on the actual job.
What's the point of coddling students when they're young if those accommodations abruptly end as soon as the student graduates? It seems to me like we're setting them up for failure. The transition between schooling and working should be a smooth one, not a chasm so vast that it is unbridgeable. |
t3_1uyrdm | I dont think any drugs should be illegal to of age adults. CMV | Labeling something an "illegal drug" is a counter productive thing to do. All it does is create desire and a profitable market for said now illegal product. But why are they labeling something as an illegal drug in the first place? Becuase its dangerous to our health or could corrupt the youth? Ok well this doesnt make sense because asprin, knives, cars, computer duster, draino, hughing gasoline, and shit tons of other things are completely legal and people abuse and kill themselves all the time. With regards to safety of underage children its always up to the parent to supervise them. You wouldnt let your child huff computer duster just like you wouldnt let them do heroin. But if we made computer duster illegal, there would be an underground market for it and it would create desire and cause possible violence over black market sales of it.
Edit- People keep bringing up that meth and heroin have no other practical application other than to abuse it. This is true, but isnt that the same thing with alcohol or cigarettes. If you are allowed to abuse and kill yourself with alcohol or cigarettes, then why not meth. As long as i dont put anyone else in danger like drive or run around fighting people then shouldnt i be allowed to abuse meth in my house like people abuse alcohol? | I dont think any drugs should be illegal to of age adults. CMV. Labeling something an "illegal drug" is a counter productive thing to do. All it does is create desire and a profitable market for said now illegal product. But why are they labeling something as an illegal drug in the first place? Becuase its dangerous to our health or could corrupt the youth? Ok well this doesnt make sense because asprin, knives, cars, computer duster, draino, hughing gasoline, and shit tons of other things are completely legal and people abuse and kill themselves all the time. With regards to safety of underage children its always up to the parent to supervise them. You wouldnt let your child huff computer duster just like you wouldnt let them do heroin. But if we made computer duster illegal, there would be an underground market for it and it would create desire and cause possible violence over black market sales of it.
Edit- People keep bringing up that meth and heroin have no other practical application other than to abuse it. This is true, but isnt that the same thing with alcohol or cigarettes. If you are allowed to abuse and kill yourself with alcohol or cigarettes, then why not meth. As long as i dont put anyone else in danger like drive or run around fighting people then shouldnt i be allowed to abuse meth in my house like people abuse alcohol? |
t3_69nn7p | CMV: Killing a hibernating isn't any worse than hunting an awake bear. | I see no issue with allowing the hunting of hibernating bears. I would argue that morally, it is no worse than hunting a bear that is fully awake. This is a hypothetical, and the two parameter's is that the hunting is done with an appropriate cause, i.e population controls, and it is also conducted in a way that allows the bears suffering to be taken into account.
I've seen the "fairness" argument pop up quite consistently. However, fairness is always ill defined. What constitutes fair hunting with a bear? If you argue for this, I'd like you to specify what you consider a fair hunt to be.
Provided that the kill is achieved cleanly, I see it being much less painful for the bear. It would also almost certainly keep hunters safer.
_____
> *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: Killing a hibernating isn't any worse than hunting an awake bear. I see no issue with allowing the hunting of hibernating bears. I would argue that morally, it is no worse than hunting a bear that is fully awake. This is a hypothetical, and the two parameter's is that the hunting is done with an appropriate cause, i.e population controls, and it is also conducted in a way that allows the bears suffering to be taken into account.
I've seen the "fairness" argument pop up quite consistently. However, fairness is always ill defined. What constitutes fair hunting with a bear? If you argue for this, I'd like you to specify what you consider a fair hunt to be.
Provided that the kill is achieved cleanly, I see it being much less painful for the bear. It would also almost certainly keep hunters safer.
|
t3_6qippf | CMV: The democratic party should completely drop gun control off of their agenda | I believe that the democratic party should completely drop gun control off of their agenda. They aren't going to lose voters based off of this, because there is no one else for the people for extreme gun control to vote for. The green party is a laughing stock that next to no one will vote for, and they aren't going to begin to vote for the extremely pro gun republicans. This will get the democratic party at minimum a decent number of crossover votes, and this has next to no downsides.
So, Change My View.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: The democratic party should completely drop gun control off of their agenda. I believe that the democratic party should completely drop gun control off of their agenda. They aren't going to lose voters based off of this, because there is no one else for the people for extreme gun control to vote for. The green party is a laughing stock that next to no one will vote for, and they aren't going to begin to vote for the extremely pro gun republicans. This will get the democratic party at minimum a decent number of crossover votes, and this has next to no downsides.
So, Change My View. |
t3_1ii632 | I think speeding and other traffic tickets are primarily designed to generate income for governments. CMV. | I realize that traffic fatalities are very common and that's a shame. However, speeding, for example, is loosely enforced and regularly ignored by motorists (doubt me? Drive on the interstate sometime). Most accidents are not caused by speeding, and most roads can support speeds faster than the posted limit. I am familiar with the way speed limits are supposed to be set (e.g. 85th percentile).
In fact, I recently read an article (which I can't find now, unfortunately) talking about how localities sometimes specifically ignore the recommendations of traffic engineers in order to allow more tickets to be issued.
State and local governments make a killing off of the fines from these tickets, and their enforcement, even lax as it is, detracts from the enforcement of actual crime. | I think speeding and other traffic tickets are primarily designed to generate income for governments. CMV. I realize that traffic fatalities are very common and that's a shame. However, speeding, for example, is loosely enforced and regularly ignored by motorists (doubt me? Drive on the interstate sometime). Most accidents are not caused by speeding, and most roads can support speeds faster than the posted limit. I am familiar with the way speed limits are supposed to be set (e.g. 85th percentile).
In fact, I recently read an article (which I can't find now, unfortunately) talking about how localities sometimes specifically ignore the recommendations of traffic engineers in order to allow more tickets to be issued.
State and local governments make a killing off of the fines from these tickets, and their enforcement, even lax as it is, detracts from the enforcement of actual crime. |
t3_6wevft | CMV: Difficult, if not impossible, is changing someone's degree of optimism or pessimism. | For brevity, I abbreviate:
X = an action or procedure that one is considering whether to do.
X+ = X's resulting as something good, happy, or pleasing.
X— = X's resulting as something bad, harmful, or hurting.
X can be as serious as life (Then X+ = one's future life's is better than one's life till this instant. X— = one's future life's is worse than one's life till this instant); or as banal as befriending and trusting new people, or trying anything new in general.
1. Predicting Pr(X+) and Pr(X-) is practically impossible, because life and the future cannot be quantified or predicted (much less for a layperson).
2. By 1, the reason for someone's level of optimism or pessimism then depends on other elusive reasons that I can't diagnose because I'm unlearned in this subject (is this psychology?).
3. Even if one believes Pr(X—) < Pr(X+) in general, one can never know the probability for a given instance for which one can rationally catastrophize or be pessimistic: i.e. for X_i, Pr(X_i—) > Pr(X_i+). E.g., even if a pessimist believes most (but not all) people to be selfish or evil, he/she can still rationally assume someone new as selfish or evil by default, while being open and receptive of changing his/her assessment after interacting more with this newcomer.
4. A counterargument based on Pr(X—) vs. Pr(X+) is unsound, because it is presumptuous and unsympathetic for:
4.1. an optimist to urge a pessimist to try X because Pr(X—) < Pr(X+) in general. By 3, an optimist can't guarantee 100% the absence of X—, and thus can't expect a pessimist to suffer possible X—.
4.2 (Analogous to 4.1). a pessimist to urge an optimist to avoid X because Pr(X—) > Pr(X+) in general. By 3, a pessimist can't 100% the absence of X+, and thus can't expect an optimist to avoid or forsake X+.
Conclusion and View to be Changed: It is difficult, if not impossible, to change someone's optimism to pessimism, or pessimism to optimism.
> *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: Difficult, if not impossible, is changing someone's degree of optimism or pessimism. For brevity, I abbreviate:
X = an action or procedure that one is considering whether to do.
X+ = X's resulting as something good, happy, or pleasing.
X— = X's resulting as something bad, harmful, or hurting.
X can be as serious as life (Then X+ = one's future life's is better than one's life till this instant. X— = one's future life's is worse than one's life till this instant); or as banal as befriending and trusting new people, or trying anything new in general.
1. Predicting Pr(X+) and Pr(X-) is practically impossible, because life and the future cannot be quantified or predicted (much less for a layperson).
2. By 1, the reason for someone's level of optimism or pessimism then depends on other elusive reasons that I can't diagnose because I'm unlearned in this subject (is this psychology?).
3. Even if one believes Pr(X—) < Pr(X+) in general, one can never know the probability for a given instance for which one can rationally catastrophize or be pessimistic: i.e. for X_i, Pr(X_i—) > Pr(X_i+). E.g., even if a pessimist believes most (but not all) people to be selfish or evil, he/she can still rationally assume someone new as selfish or evil by default, while being open and receptive of changing his/her assessment after interacting more with this newcomer.
4. A counterargument based on Pr(X—) vs. Pr(X+) is unsound, because it is presumptuous and unsympathetic for:
4.1. an optimist to urge a pessimist to try X because Pr(X—) < Pr(X+) in general. By 3, an optimist can't guarantee 100% the absence of X—, and thus can't expect a pessimist to suffer possible X—.
4.2 (Analogous to 4.1). a pessimist to urge an optimist to avoid X because Pr(X—) > Pr(X+) in general. By 3, a pessimist can't 100% the absence of X+, and thus can't expect an optimist to avoid or forsake X+.
Conclusion and View to be Changed: It is difficult, if not impossible, to change someone's optimism to pessimism, or pessimism to optimism.
> *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_4h00ox | CMV: When the U.S., U.N. or any Western leader "strongly denounces" ("condemns", etc.) a violent act in the world, it is a meaningless sentiment. | **The cycle:**
An atheist blogger is hacked to death in Myanmar... a suicide bomber goes off at a wedding in Pakistan... North Korea sentences a foreigner to hard labor...
World leaders go on TV and condemn the violent act ([Paris attacks, for example)](http://www.firstpost.com/world/attack-on-all-of-humanity-us-joins-canada-germany-uk-in-condemning-paris-attacks-2506148.html).
First off, *duh*. Of course we condemn it. Do world leaders think if they don't say anything it means we "support" it?
Further, it seems like little if any further action is taken (maybe only publicly, perhaps, but "Kony 2012", "Bring Back Our Girls", etc?), and these condemnations get more and more hollow.
EDIT: I'm close to being, if not already at, level delta. I've taken some notes that I need to address and I promise I'll come back and award deltas to those who helped delta me as soon as I can. Standby. And thanks to everyone who commented. I feel a little better about perceivably arbitrary foreign relations.
EDIT 2: As promised, got some ∆s to distribute. I see the answer as two-fold: First, as to why leaders **should say something**, /u/Virtuallyalive mentioned how, more importantly than how it affects me sitting on my couch, those, say, in Aleppo, might be inspired by Obama saying "we see your plight". Further, /u/5555512369874 explained how the tier of influence of the person making the statement impacts the intensity of that statement. Second, as to why leaders **should not-not say something**, /u/nohidden made it pretty clear with the implications made when Donald Drumpf *didn't* respond to the comment from his KKK supporter *implied his support* whether accurate or not. In summary, as /u/garnteller said first, "foreign policy is very complex." Thanks everyone at CMV... What a cool system!
_____
> *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: When the U.S., U.N. or any Western leader "strongly denounces" ("condemns", etc.) a violent act in the world, it is a meaningless sentiment. **The cycle:**
An atheist blogger is hacked to death in Myanmar... a suicide bomber goes off at a wedding in Pakistan... North Korea sentences a foreigner to hard labor...
World leaders go on TV and condemn the violent act ([Paris attacks, for example)](http://www.firstpost.com/world/attack-on-all-of-humanity-us-joins-canada-germany-uk-in-condemning-paris-attacks-2506148.html).
First off, *duh*. Of course we condemn it. Do world leaders think if they don't say anything it means we "support" it?
Further, it seems like little if any further action is taken (maybe only publicly, perhaps, but "Kony 2012", "Bring Back Our Girls", etc?), and these condemnations get more and more hollow.
EDIT: I'm close to being, if not already at, level delta. I've taken some notes that I need to address and I promise I'll come back and award deltas to those who helped delta me as soon as I can. Standby. And thanks to everyone who commented. I feel a little better about perceivably arbitrary foreign relations.
EDIT 2: As promised, got some ∆s to distribute. I see the answer as two-fold: First, as to why leaders **should say something**, /u/Virtuallyalive mentioned how, more importantly than how it affects me sitting on my couch, those, say, in Aleppo, might be inspired by Obama saying "we see your plight". Further, /u/5555512369874 explained how the tier of influence of the person making the statement impacts the intensity of that statement. Second, as to why leaders **should not-not say something**, /u/nohidden made it pretty clear with the implications made when Donald Drumpf *didn't* respond to the comment from his KKK supporter *implied his support* whether accurate or not. In summary, as /u/garnteller said first, "foreign policy is very complex." Thanks everyone at CMV... What a cool system! |
t3_4nlw0f | CMV: Media outlets should demonstrate they follow journalism standards before they can advertise themselves as a NEWS organization | TL:DR
For a media outlet to say they are reporting news, they should be required to follow standards. If they don't follow the standards, they should still be able to post, but not as NEWS.
To begin with, I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, and that a person/group should have the right to say whatever they want.
At the same time, I am ALSO a strong supporter of Truth in Advertising laws, so when a company uses speech as a form of making profit, they are required to adhere to FACTUAL communication. A car dealership cannot tell you they will sell you a car for $20 unless there is a car they're ready to sell you for $20.
In the same respect, I think that media outlets should be allowed to publish darn near anything they want, but should not be allowed to call it NEWS.
For it to be called news, there should be basic standards of journalism that are followed.
Based on the Society of Professional Journalism (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp), their ethics are
Journalists should:
– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
– Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
– Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
– Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
– Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
– Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
– Label advocacy and commentary.
– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
– Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
There is too much noise, propaganda, and advertising being passed off as news these days for a person to have an accurate view of what is happening in the world.
I feel that the easiest way for people to become better informed is for there to be a Gold Standard for what is FACTUALLY true.
And I think that LABELING different types of communication for what they are (news or not news), that would be a great first step.
Change my view.
| CMV: Media outlets should demonstrate they follow journalism standards before they can advertise themselves as a NEWS organization. TL:DR
For a media outlet to say they are reporting news, they should be required to follow standards. If they don't follow the standards, they should still be able to post, but not as NEWS.
To begin with, I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, and that a person/group should have the right to say whatever they want.
At the same time, I am ALSO a strong supporter of Truth in Advertising laws, so when a company uses speech as a form of making profit, they are required to adhere to FACTUAL communication. A car dealership cannot tell you they will sell you a car for $20 unless there is a car they're ready to sell you for $20.
In the same respect, I think that media outlets should be allowed to publish darn near anything they want, but should not be allowed to call it NEWS.
For it to be called news, there should be basic standards of journalism that are followed.
Based on the Society of Professional Journalism (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp), their ethics are
Journalists should:
– Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
– Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
– Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
– Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
– Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
– Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
– Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
– Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
– Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
– Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
– Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
– Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
– Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
– Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
– Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
– Label advocacy and commentary.
– Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
– Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
There is too much noise, propaganda, and advertising being passed off as news these days for a person to have an accurate view of what is happening in the world.
I feel that the easiest way for people to become better informed is for there to be a Gold Standard for what is FACTUALLY true.
And I think that LABELING different types of communication for what they are (news or not news), that would be a great first step.
Change my view.
|
t3_2och2d | CMV: I don't think the media should publish images of fatal traffic collisions. | First of all, my apologies if this has been posted before. I did try searching for it. Feel free to redirect me if we've already had this debate.
I don't think the media should publish, in print or online, images from fatal accidents because it does not achieve anything other than to (potentially) further traumatise, or at least anger, the grieving family and friends.
I'm not proposing a ban; as a journalist, I support freedom of the press. I just fail to see why images from the sites of fatal accidents are necessary or even useful. I think we either publish them out of habit and established practice, or morbid curiosity. I believe the images only serve to appeal to our unhelpful gawker instinct. I understand that not all news is good news, and the public has the right to know. Totally. I just don't think these stories need an image.
I get that images increase interest in a story. I do see the value in publishing graphic images from war, conflict, and other such issues that could benefit from increased exposure and understanding. But I think in the instance of your average teenager driving too fast and wrapping themselves around a pole, everyone already knows the dangers. Graphic images do not bring greater attention or change behaviour.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't think the media should publish images of fatal traffic collisions. First of all, my apologies if this has been posted before. I did try searching for it. Feel free to redirect me if we've already had this debate.
I don't think the media should publish, in print or online, images from fatal accidents because it does not achieve anything other than to (potentially) further traumatise, or at least anger, the grieving family and friends.
I'm not proposing a ban; as a journalist, I support freedom of the press. I just fail to see why images from the sites of fatal accidents are necessary or even useful. I think we either publish them out of habit and established practice, or morbid curiosity. I believe the images only serve to appeal to our unhelpful gawker instinct. I understand that not all news is good news, and the public has the right to know. Totally. I just don't think these stories need an image.
I get that images increase interest in a story. I do see the value in publishing graphic images from war, conflict, and other such issues that could benefit from increased exposure and understanding. But I think in the instance of your average teenager driving too fast and wrapping themselves around a pole, everyone already knows the dangers. Graphic images do not bring greater attention or change behaviour.
|
t3_35wduw | CMV: Reproducing is not/should not be a human right | Back in the day, before we had all of the technological and medical innovations of right now, having kids was really important because they would be the people who helped you with your farm/business and they would also take care of you when you're older.
Today, I feel that we've evolved enough so that, in developed countries, social services and modern conventions have replaced the need to have lots of kids to act as your safety net.
Therefore, perhaps society would benefit from there being some regulations that exist in order for people to produce offspring. While I acknowledge that this would be incredibly difficult to try and regulate, some very basic considerations would be whether or not one is emotionally competent to be responsible for another human being; or whether or not they would be able to afford to raise a child or could budget for one.
I know that, as a guy, maybe I'm missing out on some of the maternal instinct stuff that women, in some cases, feel, and that's why I really don't understand why freedom of reproduction is so important. Which is why, of course, I'm here.
_____
> *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: Reproducing is not/should not be a human right. Back in the day, before we had all of the technological and medical innovations of right now, having kids was really important because they would be the people who helped you with your farm/business and they would also take care of you when you're older.
Today, I feel that we've evolved enough so that, in developed countries, social services and modern conventions have replaced the need to have lots of kids to act as your safety net.
Therefore, perhaps society would benefit from there being some regulations that exist in order for people to produce offspring. While I acknowledge that this would be incredibly difficult to try and regulate, some very basic considerations would be whether or not one is emotionally competent to be responsible for another human being; or whether or not they would be able to afford to raise a child or could budget for one.
I know that, as a guy, maybe I'm missing out on some of the maternal instinct stuff that women, in some cases, feel, and that's why I really don't understand why freedom of reproduction is so important. Which is why, of course, I'm here. |
t3_2qdn3a | CMV:I think allowing immigrants from poor countries to work in a developed one is not beneficial for the natives. | Here is my argument:
A well developed country has a paintbrush factory. It pays it's 5 laborers with $1000/month. The profits is $10000 dollars per month, so $5000 goes to the laborers salaries and $5000 in the owner's pocket.
In come the immigrants from poor countries, which find a $500 dollar salary very attractive. They can do with this because they are used to living in shitty conditions and being frugal. The company hires them, and the owner now has $7500 in his pocket monthly.
Now the immigrants are lowering the wages, because recently nobody would work for less than $1000, now they have 2 options: be unemployed or hop on the bandwagon. There are too many people and not enough jobs.
Of course, with more profits, the company can afford to make a new production line and create more jobs. But these jobs are also payed with $500/month instead of $1000/month. So more money for the owner.
The sole beneficiary of this is the factory owner, who gets cheap labor at the same quality. Also, the immigrants are sending part of their money home, thus taking money out of the economy.
Shouldn't the government protect it's own citizens? Because not everybody has a business and relies on cheap labor to have bigger profits, you will always find unskilled labor in developed countries. The only reason they are paid less is that there is lots of it. I think the majority of people would prefer an office job than doing manual labor, yet office jobs are paid more, because there isn't such a big supply of skilled people. In a country full of people who want office jobs, the plumbers would be paid like kings.
So why isn't the government protecting it's own citizens from the risk of having to work for less because of immigrants? Could it be that the contributors to their political campaign is, you guessed it, the factory owners, who have a lot to gain from this immigration policy?
Before you tell me that Einstein was an immigrant, I'm referring here to hiring people in workplaces where you do not need extremely special skills (from bus drivers to nurses and assembly line workers). For example in some countries, you have to prove you can not find a native to do an immigrant's job before you hire the immigrant.
Before you accuse me of being a UKIP fan, I am just saying this because I think I have the ability to view things from a objective point of view. I am Romanian. And yes, they took urrr jubss is valid here, shouldn't the government put it's own citizens first?
_____
> *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 allowing immigrants from poor countries to work in a developed one is not beneficial for the natives. Here is my argument:
A well developed country has a paintbrush factory. It pays it's 5 laborers with $1000/month. The profits is $10000 dollars per month, so $5000 goes to the laborers salaries and $5000 in the owner's pocket.
In come the immigrants from poor countries, which find a $500 dollar salary very attractive. They can do with this because they are used to living in shitty conditions and being frugal. The company hires them, and the owner now has $7500 in his pocket monthly.
Now the immigrants are lowering the wages, because recently nobody would work for less than $1000, now they have 2 options: be unemployed or hop on the bandwagon. There are too many people and not enough jobs.
Of course, with more profits, the company can afford to make a new production line and create more jobs. But these jobs are also payed with $500/month instead of $1000/month. So more money for the owner.
The sole beneficiary of this is the factory owner, who gets cheap labor at the same quality. Also, the immigrants are sending part of their money home, thus taking money out of the economy.
Shouldn't the government protect it's own citizens? Because not everybody has a business and relies on cheap labor to have bigger profits, you will always find unskilled labor in developed countries. The only reason they are paid less is that there is lots of it. I think the majority of people would prefer an office job than doing manual labor, yet office jobs are paid more, because there isn't such a big supply of skilled people. In a country full of people who want office jobs, the plumbers would be paid like kings.
So why isn't the government protecting it's own citizens from the risk of having to work for less because of immigrants? Could it be that the contributors to their political campaign is, you guessed it, the factory owners, who have a lot to gain from this immigration policy?
Before you tell me that Einstein was an immigrant, I'm referring here to hiring people in workplaces where you do not need extremely special skills (from bus drivers to nurses and assembly line workers). For example in some countries, you have to prove you can not find a native to do an immigrant's job before you hire the immigrant.
Before you accuse me of being a UKIP fan, I am just saying this because I think I have the ability to view things from a objective point of view. I am Romanian. And yes, they took urrr jubss is valid here, shouldn't the government put it's own citizens first? |
t3_1a4hdi | I think that Anarcho-Capitalism is a really, really bad idea. CMV. | I've looked over /r/anarcho_capitalism many, many times. Still think it's a bad idea, even though I'm a bit confused on the subject.
Edit: It seems as if I forgot to mention why, my bad. I just think that in an anarcho-capitalist society, because there are no taxes, therefore people aren't forced to support public infrastructure companies, nothing would get done. Also, it seems as if an anarcho-capitalist society went to war, they wouldn't really stand a chance. Another reason is that I think corporations would just become so powerful and form monopolies in certain industries, eventually leading to just one huge corporation controlling every single factor of life, becoming somewhat totalitarian. | I think that Anarcho-Capitalism is a really, really bad idea. CMV. I've looked over /r/anarcho_capitalism many, many times. Still think it's a bad idea, even though I'm a bit confused on the subject.
Edit: It seems as if I forgot to mention why, my bad. I just think that in an anarcho-capitalist society, because there are no taxes, therefore people aren't forced to support public infrastructure companies, nothing would get done. Also, it seems as if an anarcho-capitalist society went to war, they wouldn't really stand a chance. Another reason is that I think corporations would just become so powerful and form monopolies in certain industries, eventually leading to just one huge corporation controlling every single factor of life, becoming somewhat totalitarian. |
t3_1o961v | Inception was a dumb science fiction feature. CMV | The feature Inception is praised by many as being a mind-bending experience, but on first view and reexamination, I found the concepts it explored to be poorly conceived and inconsistent. Here is a representative, but likely not comprehensive list of the issues I had with it.
* The method of placing a thought inside someone's mind was poorly explained. In particular, it seems unreasonable that inception would be possible to impose upon someone who is simply an unsuspecting participant in someone else's dream as depicted.
* It was never adequately explained why a participant's subconscious would generate an army of soldiers in someone else's dream. Until the last sequence, the extras in the dreams were always populated from the dreamer's subconscious.
* If the link between the hotel dream and the city dream meant that falling in the city dream removed gravity from the hotel, why would this not pass down to the alpine fortress?
* When inception is successful, most of the team is shown to wake up in the van where they pull themselves out of the water. This is expressed as at most a few hours spent at this reality, meaning that they have nearly the entire week to survive in this environment with hostiles trying to kill them or they are sent to 'limbo'.
* If the team is experiencing time at a similar level of distortion between the three dreams, then how are they able to recognize the music in the alpine dream? It would be playing so incredibly slowly that it would just sound like long notes.
* Why does Cobb's (DiCaprio) totem work in a way contrary to everyone else's? The presumption is that a totem posesses special properties not known to others so that if you are in their dream, the totem, if present, will operate without this special characteristic. Cobb's totem seems to work like a normal top in the real world, but in the dream world it gains some special characteristic of not stopping when spinning.
* Even if this was 'all just a dream', Cobb should have recognized that things weren't behaving according to the rules which he explained to the audience and knew so well. Hand-waving away inconsistencies of this nature with a dream is already weak, but Cobb should have known better had it been the case.
Smart science fiction can still compromise a bit in order to tell a compelling story, but the inconsistencies here suggest that the film makers just stopped caring about consistency of the concept. It can still be an entertaining feature and I don't begrudge people for enjoying it, but the concept was dumb science fiction. | Inception was a dumb science fiction feature. CMV. The feature Inception is praised by many as being a mind-bending experience, but on first view and reexamination, I found the concepts it explored to be poorly conceived and inconsistent. Here is a representative, but likely not comprehensive list of the issues I had with it.
* The method of placing a thought inside someone's mind was poorly explained. In particular, it seems unreasonable that inception would be possible to impose upon someone who is simply an unsuspecting participant in someone else's dream as depicted.
* It was never adequately explained why a participant's subconscious would generate an army of soldiers in someone else's dream. Until the last sequence, the extras in the dreams were always populated from the dreamer's subconscious.
* If the link between the hotel dream and the city dream meant that falling in the city dream removed gravity from the hotel, why would this not pass down to the alpine fortress?
* When inception is successful, most of the team is shown to wake up in the van where they pull themselves out of the water. This is expressed as at most a few hours spent at this reality, meaning that they have nearly the entire week to survive in this environment with hostiles trying to kill them or they are sent to 'limbo'.
* If the team is experiencing time at a similar level of distortion between the three dreams, then how are they able to recognize the music in the alpine dream? It would be playing so incredibly slowly that it would just sound like long notes.
* Why does Cobb's (DiCaprio) totem work in a way contrary to everyone else's? The presumption is that a totem posesses special properties not known to others so that if you are in their dream, the totem, if present, will operate without this special characteristic. Cobb's totem seems to work like a normal top in the real world, but in the dream world it gains some special characteristic of not stopping when spinning.
* Even if this was 'all just a dream', Cobb should have recognized that things weren't behaving according to the rules which he explained to the audience and knew so well. Hand-waving away inconsistencies of this nature with a dream is already weak, but Cobb should have known better had it been the case.
Smart science fiction can still compromise a bit in order to tell a compelling story, but the inconsistencies here suggest that the film makers just stopped caring about consistency of the concept. It can still be an entertaining feature and I don't begrudge people for enjoying it, but the concept was dumb science fiction. |
t3_71ju8l | CMV: Following your passion and finding the right job is more important than making a lot of money | I am in a period of my life now where I have decided to follow my passion and quit my job for something better, in this case I will pursue the role of a leader down the road, in technology. A first step is learning how to follow, then learning how to create, then learning how to lead. Altough, it's not the tech aspect that I am interested, nor the money, it's the people that I can influence along the way to become better versions of themselves, and to achieve the best as a team.
I am passionate about people, and about inspiring them and bringing the best out of them (and me).
With that said, I am flunking my current jobs because of that, since I view them as not something as fulfilling; more repetitive grunt work, that brings in money.
The conflict here inside my head is that I believe playing for the late game, sticking to my direction, whatever it may be as long as it is something I want to do in life in order to be fulfilled and in my best possible environment, and this view opposes to the idea that you have to be a succesful and mature person and do what pays well and what you are supposed to do, and fight for the day, for the month to pay your bills and put food on the table.
I view that looking ahead is more important than sticking to what is easy and pays well, especially if you do not have affinity for it.
In the business world, what I see that is a main focus of the leaders is money as a metric, when I know that money is just a means and other aspects and values of my life is way more important than that.
CMV
---
First ∆ update: My view has changed in the way that when living in poverty, the priority and importance shifts towards money (when you don't have the basic needs set). I agree that money is more important in that case, because you simply cannot have the time, energy and strength to focus your entire time on chasing your dream, since you are starving and on the streets.
**Updated statement: "Following your passion and finding the right job is more important than making a lot of money (once you have your basic needs in check)"**
---
Second (many) ∆ update: From this thread, what I understood thanks to the users and Mike Rowe, is that there are two things: First you have to make a living, and bring the passion with you. Secondly, you have to live your life in the free time that you have and the fuel you get from your job.
**Updated statement: "Don't follow your passion, bring it with you and find the right job in order to make a living. Then, use that fuel to live your life and take care of you and your loved ones."** | CMV: Following your passion and finding the right job is more important than making a lot of money. I am in a period of my life now where I have decided to follow my passion and quit my job for something better, in this case I will pursue the role of a leader down the road, in technology. A first step is learning how to follow, then learning how to create, then learning how to lead. Altough, it's not the tech aspect that I am interested, nor the money, it's the people that I can influence along the way to become better versions of themselves, and to achieve the best as a team.
I am passionate about people, and about inspiring them and bringing the best out of them (and me).
With that said, I am flunking my current jobs because of that, since I view them as not something as fulfilling; more repetitive grunt work, that brings in money.
The conflict here inside my head is that I believe playing for the late game, sticking to my direction, whatever it may be as long as it is something I want to do in life in order to be fulfilled and in my best possible environment, and this view opposes to the idea that you have to be a succesful and mature person and do what pays well and what you are supposed to do, and fight for the day, for the month to pay your bills and put food on the table.
I view that looking ahead is more important than sticking to what is easy and pays well, especially if you do not have affinity for it.
In the business world, what I see that is a main focus of the leaders is money as a metric, when I know that money is just a means and other aspects and values of my life is way more important than that.
CMV
---
First ∆ update: My view has changed in the way that when living in poverty, the priority and importance shifts towards money (when you don't have the basic needs set). I agree that money is more important in that case, because you simply cannot have the time, energy and strength to focus your entire time on chasing your dream, since you are starving and on the streets.
**Updated statement: "Following your passion and finding the right job is more important than making a lot of money (once you have your basic needs in check)"**
---
Second (many) ∆ update: From this thread, what I understood thanks to the users and Mike Rowe, is that there are two things: First you have to make a living, and bring the passion with you. Secondly, you have to live your life in the free time that you have and the fuel you get from your job.
**Updated statement: "Don't follow your passion, bring it with you and find the right job in order to make a living. Then, use that fuel to live your life and take care of you and your loved ones."** |
t3_259m8g | CMV: All prisoners should be on solitary confinement and never allowed to see each other. | There is a ton of violence in prisons and I feel like it could be easily solved with just keeping everyone in solitary confinement with no outside time. I understand prisons are overcrowded to the point where this may not work at first, but in the long run it could keep people from not wanting to go to jail in the first place. There are gang members who don't care if they go to prison because they have friends on the inside, but making this change could start to change their attitudes.
Boredom can drive someone mentally crazy, so to have some human interaction, they can have access to counselors and therapists when they want to talk. Priests and teachers would be available upon request as well. They could have access to books or anything that could take them away from a bad life path and help rehabilitate them. They just would not be allowed to leave their rooms. This would help to ensure IMO that once they got out of prison, they would never want to go back, either because they don't want to deal with the sheer boredom again, or because they have been off the streets and away from other negative people for so long they have legitimately changed.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: All prisoners should be on solitary confinement and never allowed to see each other. There is a ton of violence in prisons and I feel like it could be easily solved with just keeping everyone in solitary confinement with no outside time. I understand prisons are overcrowded to the point where this may not work at first, but in the long run it could keep people from not wanting to go to jail in the first place. There are gang members who don't care if they go to prison because they have friends on the inside, but making this change could start to change their attitudes.
Boredom can drive someone mentally crazy, so to have some human interaction, they can have access to counselors and therapists when they want to talk. Priests and teachers would be available upon request as well. They could have access to books or anything that could take them away from a bad life path and help rehabilitate them. They just would not be allowed to leave their rooms. This would help to ensure IMO that once they got out of prison, they would never want to go back, either because they don't want to deal with the sheer boredom again, or because they have been off the streets and away from other negative people for so long they have legitimately changed.
|
t3_22vu3h | CMV: I believe that in a heterosexual relationship the woman should take the man's last name in marriage. No hyphening and no keeping her own. CMV | Edit: Poor word choice in title. Couples should obviously be allowed to discuss this issue individually and if they want to hyphen, she keeps her name, or they both take her name they should have the right to do so. I didn't mean that I wanted a state mandated "woman MUST take man's name."
____
I saw this [picture](http://i.imgur.com/3K95gNV.png) last night and asked my girlfriend what she thought of it. She didn't agree with most of it except for the keeping her own name at marriage part. This is not something I have put much thought into in the past since growing up nearly everyone I know has a mother with their husband's last name and now that I'm getting older my friends are getting married and taking their husband's last name. I never thought about it potentially being an issue of equality and I am almost offended that my girlfriend doesn't want my last name.
A couple reasons I hold my view:
1. I always thought it was just the way it is and don't understand why some disagree with it.
Edit: Although tradition is non-progressive and in some cases can be detrimental to society (slavery, unequal pay, etc) I do not see taking a man's surname as anything that can hold feminism back.
2. ~~It almost seems a bit like she doesn't love me enough to do so.~~ Edit: Sorry for saying that. Very shitty word choice. As I said in a comment below I feel that although she loves me enough to marry me I still feel like she wants me but not all of me when she says that she refuses to take my name.
3. I already know that this argument can be easily reversed by saying "Well if that's the case then you don't love her enough to take her name" which is a very fair response and it puts it into a bit of perspective for me but it still doesn't entirely change my view.
4. Editing this one in late. I am the last male in my family capable of producing offspring and therefore the last one who can keep our name going. This is probably the largest reason my last name is important to me.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
| CMV: I believe that in a heterosexual relationship the woman should take the man's last name in marriage. No hyphening and no keeping her own. CMV. Edit: Poor word choice in title. Couples should obviously be allowed to discuss this issue individually and if they want to hyphen, she keeps her name, or they both take her name they should have the right to do so. I didn't mean that I wanted a state mandated "woman MUST take man's name."
____
I saw this [picture](http://i.imgur.com/3K95gNV.png) last night and asked my girlfriend what she thought of it. She didn't agree with most of it except for the keeping her own name at marriage part. This is not something I have put much thought into in the past since growing up nearly everyone I know has a mother with their husband's last name and now that I'm getting older my friends are getting married and taking their husband's last name. I never thought about it potentially being an issue of equality and I am almost offended that my girlfriend doesn't want my last name.
A couple reasons I hold my view:
1. I always thought it was just the way it is and don't understand why some disagree with it.
Edit: Although tradition is non-progressive and in some cases can be detrimental to society (slavery, unequal pay, etc) I do not see taking a man's surname as anything that can hold feminism back.
2. ~~It almost seems a bit like she doesn't love me enough to do so.~~ Edit: Sorry for saying that. Very shitty word choice. As I said in a comment below I feel that although she loves me enough to marry me I still feel like she wants me but not all of me when she says that she refuses to take my name.
3. I already know that this argument can be easily reversed by saying "Well if that's the case then you don't love her enough to take her name" which is a very fair response and it puts it into a bit of perspective for me but it still doesn't entirely change my view.
4. Editing this one in late. I am the last male in my family capable of producing offspring and therefore the last one who can keep our name going. This is probably the largest reason my last name is important to me.
|
t3_27vto0 | CMV. The Vergara v. CA decision was a mistake. | This decision declared tenure unconstitutional.
Part of my argument can be summed up here: http://www.reddit.com/r/education/comments/27t13g/a_los_angeles_superior_court_judge_ruled_tuesday/ci47frs
For any job, you need to attract talent. You need skilled individuals who can do their job well and innovate. You see this with Google. Google is a prime example of what hiring for talent does.
With the investment I made in my education I can easily make double what I make now. Double as of now. Triple a year ago as we had to pay the entire premium for HC. Many talented teachers ( as well as shitty teachers) do just that. At a rate of 40% every 5 years. Turnover is the most destructive force in any organization.
Teaching isn't attractive for a number of reasons. 1) pay. 2) there is no profit motive, so I am at the mercy of educational fads 3) admin is often incompetent. The turnover is higher than teachers 4) the incompetency of our upper level of admin is unbearable. My last principal did not report a pedophile, and he was able to take another job with kids.
What does bad teaching mean? Define this for me. Criminal acts? Sure. Fuck that scum. A stray rude comment? I've seen 170x 10 yrs worth of kids + 30 summer kids x 10 yrs. I'm going to slip or piss some immature kid off. I'm going to get 1 parent pissed at me. Should I lose my job over this? Guaranteed if one parent goes to the district over giving little Johnny a C+, the teacher is going down. 1/3 of parents are bullies. Especially the lawyers and the stay at home moms.
Older teachers? I can tell you after ten years, much of the time, whatever practices I have are window dressing. Most teacher will get defensive about this, but I try to be honest. Little Suzy won't do her homework? There is little I can do. Timmy has ADD? I can have accommodations for everyone, but giving individual attention will only hurt and I don't have the time to drill cognitive behavioral coping. After 30+ years the kids who will fail will fail. The kids who pass will pass. I've given hundreds of pep talks with zero growth in output. Zero.
Most of your incompetent teachers are new and thinking of quitting anyways.
But there are zero data on this. There are no studies into what effective means. Again, zero.
I've seen the argument that NO job has security. So? This is a tu quoque fallacy. Just because you have to prove your value every day doesn't mean it's a good model. Besides, in a free market situation value is easy to deduce. In teaching, it isn't. Why should your work be at the whim of incompetency?
I've seen the argument that tenure allows criminals to stay in teaching. Well, it allows people who have been accused of a crime to maintain their status. If convicted, after 2 weeks it's job abandonment and they're let go. If a client accused you of of assault, would it make sense to be fired on an accusation. I've had two colleagues suffer an accusation because a kid thought it would get them a higher grade.
I think I covered most of it. CMV. | CMV. The Vergara v. CA decision was a mistake. This decision declared tenure unconstitutional.
Part of my argument can be summed up here: http://www.reddit.com/r/education/comments/27t13g/a_los_angeles_superior_court_judge_ruled_tuesday/ci47frs
For any job, you need to attract talent. You need skilled individuals who can do their job well and innovate. You see this with Google. Google is a prime example of what hiring for talent does.
With the investment I made in my education I can easily make double what I make now. Double as of now. Triple a year ago as we had to pay the entire premium for HC. Many talented teachers ( as well as shitty teachers) do just that. At a rate of 40% every 5 years. Turnover is the most destructive force in any organization.
Teaching isn't attractive for a number of reasons. 1) pay. 2) there is no profit motive, so I am at the mercy of educational fads 3) admin is often incompetent. The turnover is higher than teachers 4) the incompetency of our upper level of admin is unbearable. My last principal did not report a pedophile, and he was able to take another job with kids.
What does bad teaching mean? Define this for me. Criminal acts? Sure. Fuck that scum. A stray rude comment? I've seen 170x 10 yrs worth of kids + 30 summer kids x 10 yrs. I'm going to slip or piss some immature kid off. I'm going to get 1 parent pissed at me. Should I lose my job over this? Guaranteed if one parent goes to the district over giving little Johnny a C+, the teacher is going down. 1/3 of parents are bullies. Especially the lawyers and the stay at home moms.
Older teachers? I can tell you after ten years, much of the time, whatever practices I have are window dressing. Most teacher will get defensive about this, but I try to be honest. Little Suzy won't do her homework? There is little I can do. Timmy has ADD? I can have accommodations for everyone, but giving individual attention will only hurt and I don't have the time to drill cognitive behavioral coping. After 30+ years the kids who will fail will fail. The kids who pass will pass. I've given hundreds of pep talks with zero growth in output. Zero.
Most of your incompetent teachers are new and thinking of quitting anyways.
But there are zero data on this. There are no studies into what effective means. Again, zero.
I've seen the argument that NO job has security. So? This is a tu quoque fallacy. Just because you have to prove your value every day doesn't mean it's a good model. Besides, in a free market situation value is easy to deduce. In teaching, it isn't. Why should your work be at the whim of incompetency?
I've seen the argument that tenure allows criminals to stay in teaching. Well, it allows people who have been accused of a crime to maintain their status. If convicted, after 2 weeks it's job abandonment and they're let go. If a client accused you of of assault, would it make sense to be fired on an accusation. I've had two colleagues suffer an accusation because a kid thought it would get them a higher grade.
I think I covered most of it. CMV. |
t3_2kvtup | CMV: There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. | The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway.
In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway.
In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
|
t3_1zqwqv | Family life was much better in the 1950s: CMV | In the 1950s, the world was recovering from WWII. The recent baby boom has created massive amounts of children in families, creating a high demand for goods and services like the world has never seen before. People were happy. The world was willing to put the war behind them and political tensions would not rise again until 1959. It was a good time to be alive and it was when the "nuclear famil" model was working in full effect. [We can even see divorce rates dropping in the 50s](http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg)
So Reddit, is family life better now? CMV. | Family life was much better in the 1950s: CMV. In the 1950s, the world was recovering from WWII. The recent baby boom has created massive amounts of children in families, creating a high demand for goods and services like the world has never seen before. People were happy. The world was willing to put the war behind them and political tensions would not rise again until 1959. It was a good time to be alive and it was when the "nuclear famil" model was working in full effect. [We can even see divorce rates dropping in the 50s](http://www.vanneman.umd.edu/socy441/trends/divorce.jpg)
So Reddit, is family life better now? CMV. |
t3_4f7qwx | CMV: All governments should be replaced with computers. New legislation should be determined by A.I without human interference. | The ultimate goal of a government is to implement new policies based on what the populous wants in a way which doesn't enact something that they don't want (e.g. People want cheaper healthcare without having their taxes raised beyond a certain point.) The solution to giving voters what they want without giving them what they don't want needs to be achieved by following the rules of whichever government is in place, for example a socialist solution to a democratic problem might be perfect but implementing it might either cause more problems or be flat out illegal.
These types of systems are too complex for most humans to understand, as such we in America have a non-representative government. This can be seen most (in my opinion) in the droves of people who this election will be voting against a candidate instead of for one because the docket isn't representative of their values. The reason these people don't have a candidate is because of human inefficiency. The ideals of the U.S. population are constantly changing and undergoing scrutiny, by comparison the Government is a slow, ineffective human machine which is in a constant state of inner-conflict. Over the years we've seen nearly every aspect of human awfulness demonstrated in our government officials and while Automated machines and AI replace human workers in order to slim a relatively small margin of human error, a government who occasionally stops working altogether isn't even a candidate for Artificial Intelligence?
A.I is designed to find solutions within certain perimeters. If there are multiple solutions it's encouraged to engage the one within an even more specific set of perimeters and so on and so forth. This can be done in a few seconds and the solution reached would objectively be "the best" one. Compare this to the Government which might take years to come up with a solution to a similar problem.
Here's exactly how I think this should work: Through some process like voting the population gives the details of exactly how they want their country to be. This data is given to an A.I. who proposed new legislation based on what the citizens want.
| CMV: All governments should be replaced with computers. New legislation should be determined by A.I without human interference. The ultimate goal of a government is to implement new policies based on what the populous wants in a way which doesn't enact something that they don't want (e.g. People want cheaper healthcare without having their taxes raised beyond a certain point.) The solution to giving voters what they want without giving them what they don't want needs to be achieved by following the rules of whichever government is in place, for example a socialist solution to a democratic problem might be perfect but implementing it might either cause more problems or be flat out illegal.
These types of systems are too complex for most humans to understand, as such we in America have a non-representative government. This can be seen most (in my opinion) in the droves of people who this election will be voting against a candidate instead of for one because the docket isn't representative of their values. The reason these people don't have a candidate is because of human inefficiency. The ideals of the U.S. population are constantly changing and undergoing scrutiny, by comparison the Government is a slow, ineffective human machine which is in a constant state of inner-conflict. Over the years we've seen nearly every aspect of human awfulness demonstrated in our government officials and while Automated machines and AI replace human workers in order to slim a relatively small margin of human error, a government who occasionally stops working altogether isn't even a candidate for Artificial Intelligence?
A.I is designed to find solutions within certain perimeters. If there are multiple solutions it's encouraged to engage the one within an even more specific set of perimeters and so on and so forth. This can be done in a few seconds and the solution reached would objectively be "the best" one. Compare this to the Government which might take years to come up with a solution to a similar problem.
Here's exactly how I think this should work: Through some process like voting the population gives the details of exactly how they want their country to be. This data is given to an A.I. who proposed new legislation based on what the citizens want.
|
t3_666une | CMV:There is no such thing as masculinity and femininity. | I've noticed when someone says something is masculine or something is feminine it is all based upon stereotypes and anecdotes. The concepts has even been used scientifically. The theory of "Brain Sex" asserts that there are male and female brains. The BBC website even has a test to determine it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/brain_sex.shtml. Some of the questions include: How much words you can associate with one word? And can you rearrange different shapes? The theory has been debunked by this recent study:http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468 which sampled more than 5,500 people. The study concluded that the brain is more like a mosaic instead of "male"or "female"
It's also worth mentioning "brain plasticity" and brain development does not finish till the age of 25.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV:There is no such thing as masculinity and femininity. I've noticed when someone says something is masculine or something is feminine it is all based upon stereotypes and anecdotes. The concepts has even been used scientifically. The theory of "Brain Sex" asserts that there are male and female brains. The BBC website even has a test to determine it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/brain_sex.shtml. Some of the questions include: How much words you can associate with one word? And can you rearrange different shapes? The theory has been debunked by this recent study:http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468 which sampled more than 5,500 people. The study concluded that the brain is more like a mosaic instead of "male"or "female"
It's also worth mentioning "brain plasticity" and brain development does not finish till the age of 25.
|
t3_701fav | CMV: I believe that the preservation of Earths nature isn't particularly important. Our only priority should be our own species survival. | Just for clarification, I don't mean this as an expression that global warming isn't important and I believe that the wastefulness of resources is unnecessary.
However, the idea that we need to put our Earth's natural habitats survival on an environmental pedestal seems unnecessary. I believe as humans we should simply be focusing on continuing our existence, such as building colonies on Mars and the Moon, if that means we need to mine the North Pole or chop down some trees for these resources then so be it.
We need to go onward and upwards, we should be thinking for the good of our species foremost, not the planet.
Well, that and dogs.
| CMV: I believe that the preservation of Earths nature isn't particularly important. Our only priority should be our own species survival. Just for clarification, I don't mean this as an expression that global warming isn't important and I believe that the wastefulness of resources is unnecessary.
However, the idea that we need to put our Earth's natural habitats survival on an environmental pedestal seems unnecessary. I believe as humans we should simply be focusing on continuing our existence, such as building colonies on Mars and the Moon, if that means we need to mine the North Pole or chop down some trees for these resources then so be it.
We need to go onward and upwards, we should be thinking for the good of our species foremost, not the planet.
Well, that and dogs.
|
t3_1bcdi4 | Marriage is stupid. Especially if you're a male. Change my view, but it will be damn hard. | I'll chime in more once I read some posts.
With the way the court system is setup and the actual benefits from a state contract marriage, I do not see why a male should ever get married. Marriage is basically there to support a woman, and is out dated. | Marriage is stupid. Especially if you're a male. Change my view, but it will be damn hard. I'll chime in more once I read some posts.
With the way the court system is setup and the actual benefits from a state contract marriage, I do not see why a male should ever get married. Marriage is basically there to support a woman, and is out dated. |
t3_1qqf2j | I don't understand why people want the old YouTube comment system back. CMV. | Seriously, people were having nationalist discussions and throwing insults around on classical music videos. Now the stuff is sorted out of view, and I actually feel comfortable looking at the comments now, though Bob's tank (from all the armchair anti-Google+ protesters) is pretty annoying to look at.
Of course, YouTube's comment system is still pretty damn horrible, since you can't start threads or effectively reply. But I don't see why anyone would prefer the *old* system of comments, which was little more than comments in a time sequential order. | I don't understand why people want the old YouTube comment system back. CMV. Seriously, people were having nationalist discussions and throwing insults around on classical music videos. Now the stuff is sorted out of view, and I actually feel comfortable looking at the comments now, though Bob's tank (from all the armchair anti-Google+ protesters) is pretty annoying to look at.
Of course, YouTube's comment system is still pretty damn horrible, since you can't start threads or effectively reply. But I don't see why anyone would prefer the *old* system of comments, which was little more than comments in a time sequential order. |
t3_1r1p7y | I believe that Reddit (in general) has an extremely poor understanding of feminism CMV. | Now let me make this clear, I said in general, I know I am generalizing and I am doing it intentionally. Please do not come in with "but quotationstation, Reddit is a collection of people and doesn't follow any one particular belief", I get it, I understand it, I am generalizing, let's move on.
I am a man who took four courses in women's studies, eight in sociology, two in gender studies, and a whole bunch of unrelated courses. Of my teachers I had two liberal feminists one socialist feminist, and a radical feminist, when Reddit (again, this will always be in the general sense throughout this writing) thinks of a feminist they think of a radical.
[Here](http://amptoons.com/blog/2005/02/23/what-distinguishes-each-form-of-feminism-from-the-other/) is a great article explaining the different forms of feminism, there are more that are not mentioned here such as lesbian feminism, but these are the mainstream forms of feminism.
Now to those of you who argue against feminism, do you really have any problem with any of these forms other than radicals? Radicals are *not* a majority, they are a minority in a group. The difference is that liberal feminists tend to work through the system and seek to change it through proper channels. Just like with muslim groups today all you see are the extremists, because they are the attention seekers.
Feminism was born out of necessity to equalize gender issues, it has evolved to a state of desiring equality amongst all. Some feminists hate men sure, even some liberal feminists hate men, these are misandrists. They are misandrists in the same way that some men are misogynists. Does this mean that they can't be feminists? No, of course not, but they do not represent the group or the ideology as a whole.
I have heard the argument on here that if feminism is actually about equality, then it should not be called feminism. And you know what? I honestly think this is a fair point. It is an archaic word akin to firemen, policemen, or xmen (ha... humour). I address this here to save anyone the trouble of mentioning it, because I have no argument for this point, I completely agree.
To me feminism is about equality, equality for people regardless of:
Gender
Gender identity
Sexuality
Race
Class
Religion
Able bodiedness
etc...
If we define feminism as such a concept, then is there really anyone here against the idea?
My favourite professor was a woman named [Vicki Nygaard](http://kamino.tru.ca/experts/home/main/bio.html?id=vnygaard), she is the one who helped me understand what feminism was truly about. Before I studied with her I thought like many of you, that feminists were by nature hypocritical. I first had her for sociology and enjoyed learning from her so much that I took her women's studies class. In this class we talked about everything you can think of involving inequality. We talked about the court system in terms of children of divorce/divorce settlements, male penile mutilation, male adoption, domestic violence perpetrated by *and* towards men, the growing gender gap in education, and all sorts of other men's rights issues.
My point here is that by demonizing feminists you are just the equivalent of the radicals on the other side, unable to see past those of a group who wish to oppress you and realize that the group is actually about something much different.
Edit: Fixed some spelling errors. | I believe that Reddit (in general) has an extremely poor understanding of feminism CMV. Now let me make this clear, I said in general, I know I am generalizing and I am doing it intentionally. Please do not come in with "but quotationstation, Reddit is a collection of people and doesn't follow any one particular belief", I get it, I understand it, I am generalizing, let's move on.
I am a man who took four courses in women's studies, eight in sociology, two in gender studies, and a whole bunch of unrelated courses. Of my teachers I had two liberal feminists one socialist feminist, and a radical feminist, when Reddit (again, this will always be in the general sense throughout this writing) thinks of a feminist they think of a radical.
[Here](http://amptoons.com/blog/2005/02/23/what-distinguishes-each-form-of-feminism-from-the-other/) is a great article explaining the different forms of feminism, there are more that are not mentioned here such as lesbian feminism, but these are the mainstream forms of feminism.
Now to those of you who argue against feminism, do you really have any problem with any of these forms other than radicals? Radicals are *not* a majority, they are a minority in a group. The difference is that liberal feminists tend to work through the system and seek to change it through proper channels. Just like with muslim groups today all you see are the extremists, because they are the attention seekers.
Feminism was born out of necessity to equalize gender issues, it has evolved to a state of desiring equality amongst all. Some feminists hate men sure, even some liberal feminists hate men, these are misandrists. They are misandrists in the same way that some men are misogynists. Does this mean that they can't be feminists? No, of course not, but they do not represent the group or the ideology as a whole.
I have heard the argument on here that if feminism is actually about equality, then it should not be called feminism. And you know what? I honestly think this is a fair point. It is an archaic word akin to firemen, policemen, or xmen (ha... humour). I address this here to save anyone the trouble of mentioning it, because I have no argument for this point, I completely agree.
To me feminism is about equality, equality for people regardless of:
Gender
Gender identity
Sexuality
Race
Class
Religion
Able bodiedness
etc...
If we define feminism as such a concept, then is there really anyone here against the idea?
My favourite professor was a woman named [Vicki Nygaard](http://kamino.tru.ca/experts/home/main/bio.html?id=vnygaard), she is the one who helped me understand what feminism was truly about. Before I studied with her I thought like many of you, that feminists were by nature hypocritical. I first had her for sociology and enjoyed learning from her so much that I took her women's studies class. In this class we talked about everything you can think of involving inequality. We talked about the court system in terms of children of divorce/divorce settlements, male penile mutilation, male adoption, domestic violence perpetrated by *and* towards men, the growing gender gap in education, and all sorts of other men's rights issues.
My point here is that by demonizing feminists you are just the equivalent of the radicals on the other side, unable to see past those of a group who wish to oppress you and realize that the group is actually about something much different.
Edit: Fixed some spelling errors. |
t3_1ecm41 | Our knowledge is only a collection of scraps and fragments that we put together into a pleasing design, and often the discovery of one new fragment would cause us to alter utterly the whole design” . CMV | Ive always wondered whether or not everything we learn in life are just fragments being added into a big thing we call knowledge.
I know that this is a very broad statement however I have heard it many time before; thus it is something I have often wondered about.
Any thoughts?
BTW this is my first CMV so, sorry if I have done something wrong or if I have forgotten to include something :) | Our knowledge is only a collection of scraps and fragments that we put together into a pleasing design, and often the discovery of one new fragment would cause us to alter utterly the whole design” . CMV. Ive always wondered whether or not everything we learn in life are just fragments being added into a big thing we call knowledge.
I know that this is a very broad statement however I have heard it many time before; thus it is something I have often wondered about.
Any thoughts?
BTW this is my first CMV so, sorry if I have done something wrong or if I have forgotten to include something :) |
t3_4wl2xa | CMV: A corporation that requests tax breaks and subsidies from a government should be required to hand over preferred stock of equal value to that government | Corporations have learned how to play local, county, and state governments. A corporation, in order to get lower taxes/subsidized land/free training for its workers/reduced utilities/guaranteed loans/you name it has only to threaten to move to another location. The government of that new location will, often, offer generous incentives for the company to move, forcing the PRESENT location to make similar offers.
The result is often that these companies can garner massive benefits at the expense of the people in their location, then renege on their promises of increased tax revenue, increased employment, higher wages, you name it.
A solution would make it more painful for companies to get those incentives. I believe that forcing a company to offer up preferred stock in the value of the incentives, a seat on the corporate board, or some criminal and civil penalties to the corporate officers of those companies that renege on their agreements is a suitable solution.
Examples
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/06/399138/hit-and-run-boeing-35-billion/
http://www.wkow.com/story/11106876/board-approves-sales-tax-increase-to-fund-mercury-marine-incentives
http://cbs4indy.com/2016/02/15/following-carrier-move-company-may-have-to-pay-millions-back-in-tax-incentives/
Personally, I would prefer a more, ahem, direct method of dealing with corporations that renege on their incentive agreements (tearing up all the roads around the company, turning off their utilities, seizing company property under eminent domain), but understand those are a bit drastic.
The final goal would be that companies would ALL have to play under the same, UNIFORM set of laws, regulations, and rules.
| CMV: A corporation that requests tax breaks and subsidies from a government should be required to hand over preferred stock of equal value to that government. Corporations have learned how to play local, county, and state governments. A corporation, in order to get lower taxes/subsidized land/free training for its workers/reduced utilities/guaranteed loans/you name it has only to threaten to move to another location. The government of that new location will, often, offer generous incentives for the company to move, forcing the PRESENT location to make similar offers.
The result is often that these companies can garner massive benefits at the expense of the people in their location, then renege on their promises of increased tax revenue, increased employment, higher wages, you name it.
A solution would make it more painful for companies to get those incentives. I believe that forcing a company to offer up preferred stock in the value of the incentives, a seat on the corporate board, or some criminal and civil penalties to the corporate officers of those companies that renege on their agreements is a suitable solution.
Examples
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/01/06/399138/hit-and-run-boeing-35-billion/
http://www.wkow.com/story/11106876/board-approves-sales-tax-increase-to-fund-mercury-marine-incentives
http://cbs4indy.com/2016/02/15/following-carrier-move-company-may-have-to-pay-millions-back-in-tax-incentives/
Personally, I would prefer a more, ahem, direct method of dealing with corporations that renege on their incentive agreements (tearing up all the roads around the company, turning off their utilities, seizing company property under eminent domain), but understand those are a bit drastic.
The final goal would be that companies would ALL have to play under the same, UNIFORM set of laws, regulations, and rules.
|
t3_5lbmga | CMV: Taking pictures of a funeral is unacceptable | My grandmother died a couple months ago and I became a bit upset that one of the family members took pictures of the funeral. I never liked her honestly, yet I felt upset that funeral pictures were taken. Funerals should have been a moment where you focus on your emotion and grieve. Taking pictures is unsettling. I can't find the words to describe how I feel but it feels wrong. Funeral is a time to grieve and should be kept in the mind, not in pictures. It's something to remember, not to look in at pictures. Why take pictures of your dead grandmother and your family members crying? It's a selfish way of being lazy to remember. | CMV: Taking pictures of a funeral is unacceptable. My grandmother died a couple months ago and I became a bit upset that one of the family members took pictures of the funeral. I never liked her honestly, yet I felt upset that funeral pictures were taken. Funerals should have been a moment where you focus on your emotion and grieve. Taking pictures is unsettling. I can't find the words to describe how I feel but it feels wrong. Funeral is a time to grieve and should be kept in the mind, not in pictures. It's something to remember, not to look in at pictures. Why take pictures of your dead grandmother and your family members crying? It's a selfish way of being lazy to remember. |
t3_1fdfed | I think active assisted suicide should be legal. CMV. | Sorry just read the rules.
People deserve the right to chose if they live or die. Especially if terminally ill. It is a ridiculous notion that you don't decide the fate of your own life in the most basic sense of existing or not.
EDIT: sorry just read the rules added why I believe it | I think active assisted suicide should be legal. CMV. Sorry just read the rules.
People deserve the right to chose if they live or die. Especially if terminally ill. It is a ridiculous notion that you don't decide the fate of your own life in the most basic sense of existing or not.
EDIT: sorry just read the rules added why I believe it |
t3_1x2htn | CMV: I don't think sexism towards woman is still an issue at large today. | Maybe it's just because I haven't seen it first hand, but I don't see it any where. If anything, from my background as an engineering student, women are favored over men in the form of easier admissions and more access to scholarships specifically to women. From a diversity standpoint, this doesn't bother me at all, just like any diversity scholarship. But it really irks me when I see feminists making big deals out of seemingly small issues.
Take [this article](https://medium.com/p/85f70e865749) for example. A phase used on the fly in a meeting was interpreted as a rape joke, simply because it had the potential to be, and is publicly shamed as such on twitter. There is some dialogue between two executives towards the end of the article which is a little edgy, but I would attribute that to them being ass holes making light of a situation that got blown out of proportion. I have a particular problem with this part of the closing paragraph:
> Attempts to solve sexist issues are met with ridicule
Honestly, I don't see any issues in the first place, and 'issues' that are brought up are either isolated incidences or simply aren't that big of a deal.
Are there people in the world in a position of authority over women, and are sexist? Sure.
Are there 'gender roles' that are perpetuated by society? Yes.
Are women discriminated against in the workplace and society as a whole? I don't think so.
| CMV: I don't think sexism towards woman is still an issue at large today. Maybe it's just because I haven't seen it first hand, but I don't see it any where. If anything, from my background as an engineering student, women are favored over men in the form of easier admissions and more access to scholarships specifically to women. From a diversity standpoint, this doesn't bother me at all, just like any diversity scholarship. But it really irks me when I see feminists making big deals out of seemingly small issues.
Take [this article](https://medium.com/p/85f70e865749) for example. A phase used on the fly in a meeting was interpreted as a rape joke, simply because it had the potential to be, and is publicly shamed as such on twitter. There is some dialogue between two executives towards the end of the article which is a little edgy, but I would attribute that to them being ass holes making light of a situation that got blown out of proportion. I have a particular problem with this part of the closing paragraph:
> Attempts to solve sexist issues are met with ridicule
Honestly, I don't see any issues in the first place, and 'issues' that are brought up are either isolated incidences or simply aren't that big of a deal.
Are there people in the world in a position of authority over women, and are sexist? Sure.
Are there 'gender roles' that are perpetuated by society? Yes.
Are women discriminated against in the workplace and society as a whole? I don't think so.
|
t3_1tuz9e | I do not believe in an empirically provable afterlife. CMV | Simple. I do not believe that an afterlife may exist, and that if it does it is not scientifically provable. We may never know if there is an afterlife or not.
"But what about NDEs and OOBEs?"
Scientists have proven that NDEs and OOBEs can be simulated by electronically stimulating the brain. During one OOBE test, a scientist placed a playing card in the room in plain sight. Not one test subject was able to identify that a card was there, let alone what it was. So essentially, I believe that OOBEs and NDEs can be explained by the brain processing memories.
As to how they can occur at the same time, well, it's been chalked up to our own neuroscience being imperfect. Perhaps in the future, we will find the answer. However, I do not believe that said answer necessitates the invocation of a lofty afterlife.
As to the existence of a God, well, I do not believe that the nonexistence of an afterlife proves the nonexistence of God. Einstein and Benjamin Franklin believed in a God who did not care about us, and as such would not bother creating an afterlife for us. Even the Bible describes death being a dreamless slumber, at least until God raises us up for judgement. (See Ecclesiastes 9:5). Therefore, it is possible that we may never know of God's existence for certain.
But that's besides the main question. I don't believe in an empirically testable afterlife. CMV
| I do not believe in an empirically provable afterlife. CMV. Simple. I do not believe that an afterlife may exist, and that if it does it is not scientifically provable. We may never know if there is an afterlife or not.
"But what about NDEs and OOBEs?"
Scientists have proven that NDEs and OOBEs can be simulated by electronically stimulating the brain. During one OOBE test, a scientist placed a playing card in the room in plain sight. Not one test subject was able to identify that a card was there, let alone what it was. So essentially, I believe that OOBEs and NDEs can be explained by the brain processing memories.
As to how they can occur at the same time, well, it's been chalked up to our own neuroscience being imperfect. Perhaps in the future, we will find the answer. However, I do not believe that said answer necessitates the invocation of a lofty afterlife.
As to the existence of a God, well, I do not believe that the nonexistence of an afterlife proves the nonexistence of God. Einstein and Benjamin Franklin believed in a God who did not care about us, and as such would not bother creating an afterlife for us. Even the Bible describes death being a dreamless slumber, at least until God raises us up for judgement. (See Ecclesiastes 9:5). Therefore, it is possible that we may never know of God's existence for certain.
But that's besides the main question. I don't believe in an empirically testable afterlife. CMV
|
t3_1rzvif | The state is illegitimate because it incorrectly assumes that organizations can give rights to individuals that no automomous individual posseses. CMV | Preamble
This is a repost of an over hauled version of a previous post. The over hauled version didn't get any feedback so I am reposting. I hope this does not break any rules.
Introduction
If there does not exist a single person who, when acting on his own behalf, may legitimately do a certain act, say put people in cages, then there is no way that a person may legitimately do such a thing when acting as a member of an organization.
The reason is that people may give rights to organizations (ex I may give my bank the right to move my money to certain places) and an organization may only give members rights that have been given to it by other individuals (usually members). The above bank may then authorize its agents to move my money according to my wishes. But the bank does not have any rights other than those given to it by other individuals, possibly via other organizations.
Moitivation/Application:
Confirming your intuition in the positive: when I join a gym I get the right to work out at the gym.
The right in question: to work out at Smith's Gym
Membership: Gym membership
Does there exist at least one individual with this right: Yes, the owners of the gym (Mr Smith)
Status: OK
Since there is an individual with this right, this right may be transfered to other individuals via the organizational membership.
Confirming your intuition in the negative: married people get to wedgie those with pet goldfish.
The right in question: to wedgie people with pet goldfish
Membership: Marriage
Does there exist at least one individual with this right: No, no individual acting on his own behalf may
legitimately wedgie all people with pet goldfish.
Status: Invalid
Since no individual has this right no individual may use an organization to transfer this right to its members.
Challenging the accepted wisdom: police get to cage/jail those who grow cannibis.
The right in question: to cage/jail those with cannibis plants
Membership: Police
Does there exist at least one individual with this right: No, no individual act on his own behalf may
legitimately cage/jail all people with cannibis plants.
Status: Invalid
Since no individual has this right then no individual may use an organization to transfer this right to its members. | The state is illegitimate because it incorrectly assumes that organizations can give rights to individuals that no automomous individual posseses. CMV. Preamble
This is a repost of an over hauled version of a previous post. The over hauled version didn't get any feedback so I am reposting. I hope this does not break any rules.
Introduction
If there does not exist a single person who, when acting on his own behalf, may legitimately do a certain act, say put people in cages, then there is no way that a person may legitimately do such a thing when acting as a member of an organization.
The reason is that people may give rights to organizations (ex I may give my bank the right to move my money to certain places) and an organization may only give members rights that have been given to it by other individuals (usually members). The above bank may then authorize its agents to move my money according to my wishes. But the bank does not have any rights other than those given to it by other individuals, possibly via other organizations.
Moitivation/Application:
Confirming your intuition in the positive: when I join a gym I get the right to work out at the gym.
The right in question: to work out at Smith's Gym
Membership: Gym membership
Does there exist at least one individual with this right: Yes, the owners of the gym (Mr Smith)
Status: OK
Since there is an individual with this right, this right may be transfered to other individuals via the organizational membership.
Confirming your intuition in the negative: married people get to wedgie those with pet goldfish.
The right in question: to wedgie people with pet goldfish
Membership: Marriage
Does there exist at least one individual with this right: No, no individual acting on his own behalf may
legitimately wedgie all people with pet goldfish.
Status: Invalid
Since no individual has this right no individual may use an organization to transfer this right to its members.
Challenging the accepted wisdom: police get to cage/jail those who grow cannibis.
The right in question: to cage/jail those with cannibis plants
Membership: Police
Does there exist at least one individual with this right: No, no individual act on his own behalf may
legitimately cage/jail all people with cannibis plants.
Status: Invalid
Since no individual has this right then no individual may use an organization to transfer this right to its members. |
t3_4oba44 | CMV: There is usually nothing wrong with 'politicizing' a tragedy | I really dislike Donald Trump and many of his opinions (climate change, healthcare, foreign policy, gun policy, and his personality in general).
With that said, and my conscience cleared, I believe Donald had by far the best response to the recent Orlando massacre (between himself and Hillary, at least). I don't agree with his response, but just because he communicated ideas, I believe he wins this 'round' by default.
Yet, many people seem to really hate his response; it's thought of as shameless politicizing, as if his ideas for preventing another tragedy (even though I disagree with them) indicate less caring than a typical politician's condolences.
I don't believe this is true. I don't believe Obama was guilty of 'politicizing' the Sandy Hook school shooting when he had victims' families appear behind him during a speech, either.
I believe politicizing something is wrong if it's by means of using a tragedy to promote unrelated legislation, but I don't believe this is the case with Obama's response to Sandy Hook, or Trump's response to Orlando, or most comments accused of politicizing. | CMV: There is usually nothing wrong with 'politicizing' a tragedy. I really dislike Donald Trump and many of his opinions (climate change, healthcare, foreign policy, gun policy, and his personality in general).
With that said, and my conscience cleared, I believe Donald had by far the best response to the recent Orlando massacre (between himself and Hillary, at least). I don't agree with his response, but just because he communicated ideas, I believe he wins this 'round' by default.
Yet, many people seem to really hate his response; it's thought of as shameless politicizing, as if his ideas for preventing another tragedy (even though I disagree with them) indicate less caring than a typical politician's condolences.
I don't believe this is true. I don't believe Obama was guilty of 'politicizing' the Sandy Hook school shooting when he had victims' families appear behind him during a speech, either.
I believe politicizing something is wrong if it's by means of using a tragedy to promote unrelated legislation, but I don't believe this is the case with Obama's response to Sandy Hook, or Trump's response to Orlando, or most comments accused of politicizing. |
t3_2exb10 | CMV: I believe that the United States should be broken up into an eight separate governments and interact similar to the European Union. | [Refer to this map for organisation](https://united-states.reaproject.org/img/maps/BEA_Regions.png).
I think a lot of the issues my country has between regional differences could be solved by creating governments more focused on their locations.
It would allow more emphasis to be handled on the economic, geographical, and cultural differences between them. With how large and how many people we have, that the diversity is too great to adequately group everyone into a signal nation. It will also force us to think more domestically, as I think we've been too focused outwards to our own detriment. Not that looking out is bad, not at all. Foreign nations interacting is incredibly important, but I do think we have downplayed our own domestic concerns to our detriment.
I will be honest, this is a relatively new stance and idea for me. I do not have as much information or have done enough research as I would have liked. That is partly the impetus for this post. I want challenges and information from others to refine or alter my thinking.
Edit: There's a lot of things I did not consider or think through. I feel exceptionally stupid now. Props to everyone who posted, damn.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I believe that the United States should be broken up into an eight separate governments and interact similar to the European Union. [Refer to this map for organisation](https://united-states.reaproject.org/img/maps/BEA_Regions.png).
I think a lot of the issues my country has between regional differences could be solved by creating governments more focused on their locations.
It would allow more emphasis to be handled on the economic, geographical, and cultural differences between them. With how large and how many people we have, that the diversity is too great to adequately group everyone into a signal nation. It will also force us to think more domestically, as I think we've been too focused outwards to our own detriment. Not that looking out is bad, not at all. Foreign nations interacting is incredibly important, but I do think we have downplayed our own domestic concerns to our detriment.
I will be honest, this is a relatively new stance and idea for me. I do not have as much information or have done enough research as I would have liked. That is partly the impetus for this post. I want challenges and information from others to refine or alter my thinking.
Edit: There's a lot of things I did not consider or think through. I feel exceptionally stupid now. Props to everyone who posted, damn. |
t3_2qz7h0 | CMV:Mother fatally shot by concealed gun from 2 year old son is at fault for her incident. | Nuclear scientist and dux of her school was obessed about guns.
She had a right to concelaed carry license.
She was given a purse with gun compartment for a present.
While shopping with her family. She left her purse unattented, and came back to her son shooting her in the head with her pistol.
She must be at fault as she left the purse. She did not educate her child on gun safety, remeber guns where a large part of her lifestyle. She also choose to take the risks assoicated with having guns around a persons home.
_____
> *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:Mother fatally shot by concealed gun from 2 year old son is at fault for her incident. Nuclear scientist and dux of her school was obessed about guns.
She had a right to concelaed carry license.
She was given a purse with gun compartment for a present.
While shopping with her family. She left her purse unattented, and came back to her son shooting her in the head with her pistol.
She must be at fault as she left the purse. She did not educate her child on gun safety, remeber guns where a large part of her lifestyle. She also choose to take the risks assoicated with having guns around a persons home.
|
t3_21tdqe | CMV: It is completely contradictory to say that abortion isn't murder, but at the same time call it murder if a person terminates someone else's fetus. | I'm not sure about the rest of the world or even every state, but in many states, including California, killing a fetus is considered murder. For example punching a pregnant woman to intentionally make her miscarry/kill her fetus will be charged as a 187. I think that it is completely contradictory to say on the one hand that a woman can get an abortion because a fetus isn't a living being yet, and then to say that it's murder if someone else kills a fetus.
Just for the record, I am pro-choice and anti-fetus-killing. I still think killing a fetus is a terrible deed, and I acknowledge that it should be punished. I just think that in either scenario the baby should be either considered alive or not alive, and that either way if nothing is done there will almost certainly be another living being born. In both cases a person makes a conscious decision to stop the baby from being born. In one case we as a society say it is okay (obviously not a good thing or something to celebrate, but still allowable) and in the other it is murder.
I realize that in these scenarios the situation for the pregnant woman and the murderer are not the same. The woman may make the choice because she is not capable of raising the child, or because of health complications that could result from the pregnancy, etc. I'm not saying that I think abortion is murder. But hypothetically a mother could be in a situation where she would probably bring her baby into a terrible life, but if someone forcibly aborted that baby that would still be considered murder. On the other hand a multi-millionaire in an amazing relationship with a perfect home life who would make an amazing mother could decide to abort her baby. So arguments that it's what's best for the child etc. don't seem to remedy the contradiction.
The main reason I've seen for why it is okay to kill the fetus is that it isn't a living being yet. Other reasons such as a woman's right to autonomy are all good reasons for why a woman should have the right to choose, but are secondary. If someone thinks that a fetus is alive in the way that a one year old is alive then those arguments fall flat. Therefore, the fetus should either be considered alive (and thus abortion is murder), or not alive (and thus terminating it isn't murder, though still some other evil act). 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: It is completely contradictory to say that abortion isn't murder, but at the same time call it murder if a person terminates someone else's fetus. I'm not sure about the rest of the world or even every state, but in many states, including California, killing a fetus is considered murder. For example punching a pregnant woman to intentionally make her miscarry/kill her fetus will be charged as a 187. I think that it is completely contradictory to say on the one hand that a woman can get an abortion because a fetus isn't a living being yet, and then to say that it's murder if someone else kills a fetus.
Just for the record, I am pro-choice and anti-fetus-killing. I still think killing a fetus is a terrible deed, and I acknowledge that it should be punished. I just think that in either scenario the baby should be either considered alive or not alive, and that either way if nothing is done there will almost certainly be another living being born. In both cases a person makes a conscious decision to stop the baby from being born. In one case we as a society say it is okay (obviously not a good thing or something to celebrate, but still allowable) and in the other it is murder.
I realize that in these scenarios the situation for the pregnant woman and the murderer are not the same. The woman may make the choice because she is not capable of raising the child, or because of health complications that could result from the pregnancy, etc. I'm not saying that I think abortion is murder. But hypothetically a mother could be in a situation where she would probably bring her baby into a terrible life, but if someone forcibly aborted that baby that would still be considered murder. On the other hand a multi-millionaire in an amazing relationship with a perfect home life who would make an amazing mother could decide to abort her baby. So arguments that it's what's best for the child etc. don't seem to remedy the contradiction.
The main reason I've seen for why it is okay to kill the fetus is that it isn't a living being yet. Other reasons such as a woman's right to autonomy are all good reasons for why a woman should have the right to choose, but are secondary. If someone thinks that a fetus is alive in the way that a one year old is alive then those arguments fall flat. Therefore, the fetus should either be considered alive (and thus abortion is murder), or not alive (and thus terminating it isn't murder, though still some other evil act). CMV.
|
t3_5ztk61 | CMV: It's rude to talk when watching TV or a movie unless you've agreed that it's fine or if it's at a party or likewise. | I enjoy watching TV with my family, whether it's a movie or a show or whatever. When I do it however, I'm there of course to hang out with my family, but I really want to watch what's on screen. I feel like my family is rude for talking over a TV show I really want to watch. Someone comes with the argument that it's pointless to watch a show if we can't talk, then we might as well just watch it alone in our own rooms. I disagree with that, I enjoy their presence even if we're not constantly talking. We've been talking all day, is an hour or two of silence too much to ask for? It's not a huge deal, but might as well make it one for the sake of this CMV. It does really annoy me and my mother in particular is the most annoying one when it comes to this. She'll mention something that's *on the screen* and make an obvious comment. I love her, but it's so obnoxious.
There are a few scenarios (and some that I will forget here probably. I might say that your scenario is fine but still not consider part of my view changed) in which talking during TV is okay: **Party**, like the title says, **when you're hanging out with friends** (unless a person really wants to watch it, then I might be quiet just to be kind, but I certainly don't think it's SUPER necessary in this case), **a date** (obviously unless it's at the cinema) or when you're watching something with someone else who's a bigger fan of it and they talk (or when you're showing a new show or movie to a person and they talk).
I'm sure there are other things that will change my mind, but I'm definitely gonna hand out a delta if you can change my mind about my family being rude.
_____
> *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: It's rude to talk when watching TV or a movie unless you've agreed that it's fine or if it's at a party or likewise. I enjoy watching TV with my family, whether it's a movie or a show or whatever. When I do it however, I'm there of course to hang out with my family, but I really want to watch what's on screen. I feel like my family is rude for talking over a TV show I really want to watch. Someone comes with the argument that it's pointless to watch a show if we can't talk, then we might as well just watch it alone in our own rooms. I disagree with that, I enjoy their presence even if we're not constantly talking. We've been talking all day, is an hour or two of silence too much to ask for? It's not a huge deal, but might as well make it one for the sake of this CMV. It does really annoy me and my mother in particular is the most annoying one when it comes to this. She'll mention something that's *on the screen* and make an obvious comment. I love her, but it's so obnoxious.
There are a few scenarios (and some that I will forget here probably. I might say that your scenario is fine but still not consider part of my view changed) in which talking during TV is okay: **Party**, like the title says, **when you're hanging out with friends** (unless a person really wants to watch it, then I might be quiet just to be kind, but I certainly don't think it's SUPER necessary in this case), **a date** (obviously unless it's at the cinema) or when you're watching something with someone else who's a bigger fan of it and they talk (or when you're showing a new show or movie to a person and they talk).
I'm sure there are other things that will change my mind, but I'm definitely gonna hand out a delta if you can change my mind about my family being rude. |
t3_2o0o1w | CMV: Fear is a status symbol in contemporary society. | Subscribing to the culture of fear is an attempt to demonstrate to people that you have no problems in your life. You are trying to show people that you are of such high-status and trouble-free, that you are able to worry about ebola, terrorism or gangs of hoodlums breaking into your house to rape your dog and murder you.
Obviously, some people are genuinely afraid of these things, so I'm not speaking about those people, who either have mental health problems or are just dumb. The rest of the people who are caught up in climate of fear, can't possibly be dumb enough to think they are in real danger.
The reason I think it is an attempted signifier of high-status is according to Biologist Amotz Zahavi's 1975 'handicap principle' suggests that a signal of strength (or high status) is one that is costly to the signaler (as this could not be afforded by an individual who is weak), as well as highly visible. Buying hazmat suits, guns, security cameras, etc, meets Zahavi's criteria as costly and highly visible.
EDIT: I don't mean fear in general, but the kind of panicky fear espoused by journalist and politicians, ie: Ebola, terrorism, maniacal criminals. [Here is how wikipedia explains it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear)
EDIT 2: Status just isn't socioeconomic.
EDIT 3: [Here is wikipedia's definition of social status.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status)
EDIT 4: I can't tell if you guys are playing a prank on me or not, but I clearly stated in my first paragraph by fear, I was referring to the culture of fear. It was also reasonably clear that I was speaking of social status not economic. I even explained what I meant in my comments. If you don't know what the culture of fear or social status is, then why wouldn't you look them up before commenting? | CMV: Fear is a status symbol in contemporary society. Subscribing to the culture of fear is an attempt to demonstrate to people that you have no problems in your life. You are trying to show people that you are of such high-status and trouble-free, that you are able to worry about ebola, terrorism or gangs of hoodlums breaking into your house to rape your dog and murder you.
Obviously, some people are genuinely afraid of these things, so I'm not speaking about those people, who either have mental health problems or are just dumb. The rest of the people who are caught up in climate of fear, can't possibly be dumb enough to think they are in real danger.
The reason I think it is an attempted signifier of high-status is according to Biologist Amotz Zahavi's 1975 'handicap principle' suggests that a signal of strength (or high status) is one that is costly to the signaler (as this could not be afforded by an individual who is weak), as well as highly visible. Buying hazmat suits, guns, security cameras, etc, meets Zahavi's criteria as costly and highly visible.
EDIT: I don't mean fear in general, but the kind of panicky fear espoused by journalist and politicians, ie: Ebola, terrorism, maniacal criminals. [Here is how wikipedia explains it.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear)
EDIT 2: Status just isn't socioeconomic.
EDIT 3: [Here is wikipedia's definition of social status.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status)
EDIT 4: I can't tell if you guys are playing a prank on me or not, but I clearly stated in my first paragraph by fear, I was referring to the culture of fear. It was also reasonably clear that I was speaking of social status not economic. I even explained what I meant in my comments. If you don't know what the culture of fear or social status is, then why wouldn't you look them up before commenting? |
t3_3c839i | CMV: Entrapment should not be used by law enforcement. | If you don't know what entrapment is, it's basically when cops, detectives, or other members of law enforcement present random people an opportunity to commit a crime. When someone takes the "bait," the law enforces arrest the person and charge them with the crime committed.
Ex. An agent/actor parks a car in a low-income neighborhood and runs away from it, looking like they were in an urgent situation. The doors are left open, keys in ignition. Cops watch on cameras and when some citizen comes and steals the car, the cops come pull them over and arrest them.
Ex. A plainclothes officer goes up to random individuals and asks them if they want to buy some illegal drugs.. If the individual agrees and engages in the deal with the fake drug dealer, they get arrested.
Ex. A plainclothes officer/actor lays a wad of money on a payphone or somewhere else in public, when someone picks it up and walks away officers that are secretly watching come and arrest that person.
The key aspect of these examples is that the people targeted by the police officers are random citizens, such as by asking random people if they want to buy drugs, or just waiting for someone to come take the car/money. This is different than a plainclothes officer targeting an individual who has a case against them, such as someone that the officers know most likely is a drug dealer through prior tips and surveillance, because the police then have a reason to pursue this kind of discourse with that person. Rather than trying to create a case against a random civilian (entrapment), the police would be adding onto an ongoing case with a specific person.
(Also, an example people like to bring up for entrapment is "To Catch a Predator." The difference is, the people who are falsely led into meeting underage kids for sex have already sought out that kind of sexual contact by going into internet chatrooms and MESSAGING THE "kids" FIRST. The predators initiated the contact with "minors" in a sexual way, so it is not entrapment.)
Yes, by using entrapment techniques you can arrest people who have a criminal mindset before they commit crimes that actually harm people and aren't fabricated. However, entrapment isn't as simple as it seems. A plainclothes officer could go up to someone random, ask to buy pain pills because "their father is in severe pain and really needs them right now," and when the individual complies they get arrested for selling drugs. The arrested individual may be someone who would never sell drugs for their own gain, but in this particular scenario they see it as less of a crime and more of a moral opportunity. Entrapment isn't as cut-and-dry as "hey can I buy drugs from you" etc. Perhaps in the stolen car example it's more cut-and-dry, but then goes into the issue of how extensive entrapment can be utilized.
Basically, though, my main argument is that law enforcement is there to respond to crimes, not try to egg people onto becoming criminals. Instead of creating criminal scenarios for random individuals to take part in, the money and time of law enforcement should be focused on catching people who have already committed crimes, or watching for real crimes that are about to be committed against real people and stopping them. 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: Entrapment should not be used by law enforcement. If you don't know what entrapment is, it's basically when cops, detectives, or other members of law enforcement present random people an opportunity to commit a crime. When someone takes the "bait," the law enforces arrest the person and charge them with the crime committed.
Ex. An agent/actor parks a car in a low-income neighborhood and runs away from it, looking like they were in an urgent situation. The doors are left open, keys in ignition. Cops watch on cameras and when some citizen comes and steals the car, the cops come pull them over and arrest them.
Ex. A plainclothes officer goes up to random individuals and asks them if they want to buy some illegal drugs.. If the individual agrees and engages in the deal with the fake drug dealer, they get arrested.
Ex. A plainclothes officer/actor lays a wad of money on a payphone or somewhere else in public, when someone picks it up and walks away officers that are secretly watching come and arrest that person.
The key aspect of these examples is that the people targeted by the police officers are random citizens, such as by asking random people if they want to buy drugs, or just waiting for someone to come take the car/money. This is different than a plainclothes officer targeting an individual who has a case against them, such as someone that the officers know most likely is a drug dealer through prior tips and surveillance, because the police then have a reason to pursue this kind of discourse with that person. Rather than trying to create a case against a random civilian (entrapment), the police would be adding onto an ongoing case with a specific person.
(Also, an example people like to bring up for entrapment is "To Catch a Predator." The difference is, the people who are falsely led into meeting underage kids for sex have already sought out that kind of sexual contact by going into internet chatrooms and MESSAGING THE "kids" FIRST. The predators initiated the contact with "minors" in a sexual way, so it is not entrapment.)
Yes, by using entrapment techniques you can arrest people who have a criminal mindset before they commit crimes that actually harm people and aren't fabricated. However, entrapment isn't as simple as it seems. A plainclothes officer could go up to someone random, ask to buy pain pills because "their father is in severe pain and really needs them right now," and when the individual complies they get arrested for selling drugs. The arrested individual may be someone who would never sell drugs for their own gain, but in this particular scenario they see it as less of a crime and more of a moral opportunity. Entrapment isn't as cut-and-dry as "hey can I buy drugs from you" etc. Perhaps in the stolen car example it's more cut-and-dry, but then goes into the issue of how extensive entrapment can be utilized.
Basically, though, my main argument is that law enforcement is there to respond to crimes, not try to egg people onto becoming criminals. Instead of creating criminal scenarios for random individuals to take part in, the money and time of law enforcement should be focused on catching people who have already committed crimes, or watching for real crimes that are about to be committed against real people and stopping them. CMV. |
t3_5zhvej | CMV: A child's nontraditional gender identity can be written off as "just a phase" | I don't believe that adults who identify as transgender are just "going through a phase." Clearly they've given this thought and consideration and as adults I believe they are (hopefully) mature enough to make a calculated and informed decision about how they choose to identify. Children, on the other hand, are not; we are perfectly willing to write off things like the "emo/jock/rebel/introvert/rocker/only vintage clothing" phase, we're perfectly willing to write off first loves as nothing important or long-lasting, but for some reason if a 12-year-old decides that suddenly they're a different gender, it should be treated with the utmost seriousness and respect. I'm not advocating that if a young boy suddenly tells his parents, "I'm a girl," they should say, "No you're not" and force him to ask more masculine. But I think there's nothing wrong with a parent shrugging and saying, "Yeah whatever," because by next year the child might say, "Psh I'm so over that."
EDIT: Wow this blew up more than I expected. Will attempt to go through all the comments and respond as I have time, though also please read through other comments to avoid repeating points. Also, anecdotal evidence is bad evidence.
EDIT 2: Two things I want to emphasize that I realize were not made apparent from my initial prompt.
- A parent shrugging and saying "Whatever" is not them ignoring their child or pretending they're lying/wrong, it's them saying, "I'm not making a big deal out of this because it doesn't really matter for right now." As time passes, *then* a parent can give it more attention.
- The main reason I am against parents whole-heartedly supporting a child's decision to come out as transgender (buying them opposite clothes, getting them a drastic haircut, changing their name, etc.) is because of the social persecution they potentially face. People are right that it's little skin off a parent's back to support their child, but I think too much of these comments are focusing on just the home life and ignoring the outside life.
EDIT 3: Blatant hostility or claims without substantiation will no longer be responded to.
EDIT 4: There are multiple distinct issues at play here that I think need to be separated.
1. I don't think that the majority of prepubescent children are well-equipped to make life-changing decisions, as children are typically rash and impulsive, and make choices without understanding or appreciating consequences.
2. If a child decides they are transgender but does not decide that they need to transition or have any outward and immediately recognizable signs/behaviors, then they're not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about children who decide they are transgender and then are going to take steps that will make this realization publicly known (and thus will likely make them targets.)
3. Many people are bringing up the fact (and I recognize that it's a fact) that trans children who have poor familial support are at higher risks for suicide, yet are conveniently ignoring or downplaying the effect that social persecution has on them as well. As I said in another reply, I am far more concerned that my child would become a victim of bullying and outright abuse and are not equipped to deal with that, so I'd rather not encourage ("not encourage" =/= "discourage") their transition until I was sure they'd be able to deal with that.
_____
> *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: A child's nontraditional gender identity can be written off as "just a phase". I don't believe that adults who identify as transgender are just "going through a phase." Clearly they've given this thought and consideration and as adults I believe they are (hopefully) mature enough to make a calculated and informed decision about how they choose to identify. Children, on the other hand, are not; we are perfectly willing to write off things like the "emo/jock/rebel/introvert/rocker/only vintage clothing" phase, we're perfectly willing to write off first loves as nothing important or long-lasting, but for some reason if a 12-year-old decides that suddenly they're a different gender, it should be treated with the utmost seriousness and respect. I'm not advocating that if a young boy suddenly tells his parents, "I'm a girl," they should say, "No you're not" and force him to ask more masculine. But I think there's nothing wrong with a parent shrugging and saying, "Yeah whatever," because by next year the child might say, "Psh I'm so over that."
EDIT: Wow this blew up more than I expected. Will attempt to go through all the comments and respond as I have time, though also please read through other comments to avoid repeating points. Also, anecdotal evidence is bad evidence.
EDIT 2: Two things I want to emphasize that I realize were not made apparent from my initial prompt.
- A parent shrugging and saying "Whatever" is not them ignoring their child or pretending they're lying/wrong, it's them saying, "I'm not making a big deal out of this because it doesn't really matter for right now." As time passes, *then* a parent can give it more attention.
- The main reason I am against parents whole-heartedly supporting a child's decision to come out as transgender (buying them opposite clothes, getting them a drastic haircut, changing their name, etc.) is because of the social persecution they potentially face. People are right that it's little skin off a parent's back to support their child, but I think too much of these comments are focusing on just the home life and ignoring the outside life.
EDIT 3: Blatant hostility or claims without substantiation will no longer be responded to.
EDIT 4: There are multiple distinct issues at play here that I think need to be separated.
1. I don't think that the majority of prepubescent children are well-equipped to make life-changing decisions, as children are typically rash and impulsive, and make choices without understanding or appreciating consequences.
2. If a child decides they are transgender but does not decide that they need to transition or have any outward and immediately recognizable signs/behaviors, then they're not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about children who decide they are transgender and then are going to take steps that will make this realization publicly known (and thus will likely make them targets.)
3. Many people are bringing up the fact (and I recognize that it's a fact) that trans children who have poor familial support are at higher risks for suicide, yet are conveniently ignoring or downplaying the effect that social persecution has on them as well. As I said in another reply, I am far more concerned that my child would become a victim of bullying and outright abuse and are not equipped to deal with that, so I'd rather not encourage ("not encourage" =/= "discourage") their transition until I was sure they'd be able to deal with that. |
t3_4bzbo0 | CMV: I don't think people dying/being killed in 3rd world countries is news-worthy | Right, just to start off, I don't mean kids starving and things promoting charities, I'm talking more about the 'How come France/Belgium gets news support and 3rd world countries don't?!?!?' people.
I think saying this is a call for attention and to look like you're some upstanding person or something, nobody looks at the deaths in 3rd world countries and thinks 'lol', but, if we look at the terrorist attacks in France/Belgium as apposed to Kenya, or somewhere in Africa, people in the western world generally think 'Oh, I could have been there', I was personally in France last year, and in Paris 5 years ago; this strikes more fear than a group of people being killed in Africa, if I clicked to the news and seen a load of dead people in Africa I'd think 'Oh, shit, that's unfortunate', I'd feel sympathy, but, I wouldn't be *very* interested, of course, I'd want some details, but, if I clicked onto the news and the same thing happened in Europe? I'd be intrigued and ensure I kept up with every little detail, I'd want to make sure it's not going to happen again, or, how it happened, how to prevent it from happening etc, people dying in Africa just doesn't have as many people interested, and, therefore isn't news-worthy compared to other stories that can be shown, news outlets are businesses, they're not just showing everything that happens in the world, it also needs to be interesting and something for people to view.
You can't blame news companies for the general public not being interested in viewing something, fuck, the people who complain that these countries get no media attention most likely wouldn't view the story themselves.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't think people dying/being killed in 3rd world countries is news-worthy. Right, just to start off, I don't mean kids starving and things promoting charities, I'm talking more about the 'How come France/Belgium gets news support and 3rd world countries don't?!?!?' people.
I think saying this is a call for attention and to look like you're some upstanding person or something, nobody looks at the deaths in 3rd world countries and thinks 'lol', but, if we look at the terrorist attacks in France/Belgium as apposed to Kenya, or somewhere in Africa, people in the western world generally think 'Oh, I could have been there', I was personally in France last year, and in Paris 5 years ago; this strikes more fear than a group of people being killed in Africa, if I clicked to the news and seen a load of dead people in Africa I'd think 'Oh, shit, that's unfortunate', I'd feel sympathy, but, I wouldn't be *very* interested, of course, I'd want some details, but, if I clicked onto the news and the same thing happened in Europe? I'd be intrigued and ensure I kept up with every little detail, I'd want to make sure it's not going to happen again, or, how it happened, how to prevent it from happening etc, people dying in Africa just doesn't have as many people interested, and, therefore isn't news-worthy compared to other stories that can be shown, news outlets are businesses, they're not just showing everything that happens in the world, it also needs to be interesting and something for people to view.
You can't blame news companies for the general public not being interested in viewing something, fuck, the people who complain that these countries get no media attention most likely wouldn't view the story themselves.
|
t3_2s7c57 | CMV: Appointing Ted Cruz as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness is like appointing Kim Kardashian to chair the Itty Bitty Titty Committee. | The title is a joke, but there is truth in jest. Ted Cruz is a spending hawk, who will do more to set back NASA than any failed shuttle/rocket launch ever could. Not to mention that this dude [denies climate change](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/20/cruz-to-cnn-global-warming-not-supported-by-data/), and has been [likened to Joe McCarthy](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/18/ted-cruz-the-reincarnation-of-joe-mccarthy/).
The fact that someone who denies climate change is leading this subcommittee is just one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. **How could this be a good thing for NASA, and in a wider sense, tech progress in America?**
_____
> *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: Appointing Ted Cruz as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness is like appointing Kim Kardashian to chair the Itty Bitty Titty Committee. The title is a joke, but there is truth in jest. Ted Cruz is a spending hawk, who will do more to set back NASA than any failed shuttle/rocket launch ever could. Not to mention that this dude [denies climate change](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/20/cruz-to-cnn-global-warming-not-supported-by-data/), and has been [likened to Joe McCarthy](http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/02/18/ted-cruz-the-reincarnation-of-joe-mccarthy/).
The fact that someone who denies climate change is leading this subcommittee is just one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. **How could this be a good thing for NASA, and in a wider sense, tech progress in America?**
|
t3_2csx7m | CMV: If we knew everything about the state of a person's brain and controlled the sensory input perfectly, we would be able to predict the person's actions perfectly. | I believe this falls under reductionism and naturalism and determinism, but I might be wrong about those classifications.
The consciousness is fully reducible to physical matter, and the evidence for this is overwhelming. Damaging specific parts of the brain affects consciousness is very predictable ways. We know what parts of the brain do what and we know which neurotransmitters and hormones do what.
If we knew everything about every part of a car and its environment, we could predict whether it would accelerate, decelerate or remain at constant speed, or turn.
If you made an identical copy of me and put us both in a sensory deprivation chamber, we would act in the exact same way.
Disregard quantum randomness. CMV!
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: If we knew everything about the state of a person's brain and controlled the sensory input perfectly, we would be able to predict the person's actions perfectly. I believe this falls under reductionism and naturalism and determinism, but I might be wrong about those classifications.
The consciousness is fully reducible to physical matter, and the evidence for this is overwhelming. Damaging specific parts of the brain affects consciousness is very predictable ways. We know what parts of the brain do what and we know which neurotransmitters and hormones do what.
If we knew everything about every part of a car and its environment, we could predict whether it would accelerate, decelerate or remain at constant speed, or turn.
If you made an identical copy of me and put us both in a sensory deprivation chamber, we would act in the exact same way.
Disregard quantum randomness. CMV! |
t3_2a9sec | CMV: I believe that the culture surrounding rocks, crystals, and their 'energy' is juvenile and has no real worth to any of us. | I have seen countless posts recently on facebook and other social media websites that talk about using crystals and other rocks to clear 'negative energy' from one's soul. Perhaps the best example of what I'm talking about would be an article like this one:
http://thespiritscience.net/2014/05/23/this-8-year-old-prodigy-uses-crystal-grids-to-transmute-dark-energy-and-explains-how-it-works/
In this example we see an eight year old boy arranging rocks in some sort of pattern to remove or "transmute" the dark energy out of the room that he is in. When I first read the article I expected to get to a part where someone explained the actual electrical use of this arrangement, but obviously there was no such explanation. While I certainly applaud creativity in children(and adults for that matter), I can't help but think that calling someone like this a 'prodigy' is to be ignorant of science and frankly unintelligent. | CMV: I believe that the culture surrounding rocks, crystals, and their 'energy' is juvenile and has no real worth to any of us. I have seen countless posts recently on facebook and other social media websites that talk about using crystals and other rocks to clear 'negative energy' from one's soul. Perhaps the best example of what I'm talking about would be an article like this one:
http://thespiritscience.net/2014/05/23/this-8-year-old-prodigy-uses-crystal-grids-to-transmute-dark-energy-and-explains-how-it-works/
In this example we see an eight year old boy arranging rocks in some sort of pattern to remove or "transmute" the dark energy out of the room that he is in. When I first read the article I expected to get to a part where someone explained the actual electrical use of this arrangement, but obviously there was no such explanation. While I certainly applaud creativity in children(and adults for that matter), I can't help but think that calling someone like this a 'prodigy' is to be ignorant of science and frankly unintelligent. |
t3_4o4m1v | CMV: BlackLivesMatter has misplaced priorities. | The BlackLivesMatter movement appears to care most about how racism hurts African Americans today. This is the apparent source of the "lives matter" part of its name. The movement should pay more attention to other issues affecting the African American community if they want to improve the quality of life of African Americans. Issues such as the African American high school graduation rate or the Black on Black homicide rate are, I think, more meriting of attention than some racism here and there. Also, it appears to me, as a minority(Hispanic), that it is easier to get ahead being part of disadvantaged minority groups. Colleges are more likely to admit an underrepresented minority than a white person even though they have the same credentials.
Edit: I am done here. I tried to change my view, and it was probably adjusted in small respects. However, I'm tired by the childish accusations I have received and I frankly doubt I can be swayed anymore. Thanks to all the polite commenters for responding.
_____
> *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: BlackLivesMatter has misplaced priorities. The BlackLivesMatter movement appears to care most about how racism hurts African Americans today. This is the apparent source of the "lives matter" part of its name. The movement should pay more attention to other issues affecting the African American community if they want to improve the quality of life of African Americans. Issues such as the African American high school graduation rate or the Black on Black homicide rate are, I think, more meriting of attention than some racism here and there. Also, it appears to me, as a minority(Hispanic), that it is easier to get ahead being part of disadvantaged minority groups. Colleges are more likely to admit an underrepresented minority than a white person even though they have the same credentials.
Edit: I am done here. I tried to change my view, and it was probably adjusted in small respects. However, I'm tired by the childish accusations I have received and I frankly doubt I can be swayed anymore. Thanks to all the polite commenters for responding.
|
t3_5rcn6q | CMV: Most of the "It" girls at the time in the movie industry got there by sleeping around. | I just saw a picture of Emily Ratajowski (or w/e) and it made me wonder where she came from. How did she become an actress? I saw her get naked in Gone Girl but that's about it.
So it made me research a little bit and I found that there's something called "Weinstein Girls" and other very common similar situations.
Combine this with the notion that a surprisingly large number of wanna be actors and actresses out there are actually good enough, but they have no backing behind their names. So in most fluffy movies, the current "it" girl gets to play a nice easy role where jokes are underhand pitched to them and their character gets to show range.
But a lot of these old timers are sleazeballs and they happen to have the most money.
So there's hundreds of girls competing for the same spot and almost all are qualified to handle the responsibilities. The ones that end up getting further are the ones that put out.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Most of the "It" girls at the time in the movie industry got there by sleeping around. I just saw a picture of Emily Ratajowski (or w/e) and it made me wonder where she came from. How did she become an actress? I saw her get naked in Gone Girl but that's about it.
So it made me research a little bit and I found that there's something called "Weinstein Girls" and other very common similar situations.
Combine this with the notion that a surprisingly large number of wanna be actors and actresses out there are actually good enough, but they have no backing behind their names. So in most fluffy movies, the current "it" girl gets to play a nice easy role where jokes are underhand pitched to them and their character gets to show range.
But a lot of these old timers are sleazeballs and they happen to have the most money.
So there's hundreds of girls competing for the same spot and almost all are qualified to handle the responsibilities. The ones that end up getting further are the ones that put out. |
t3_1u0pd8 | The notion of swear words and having an order of words more socially unacceptable than another is utterly ridiculous. CMV | How is it that in language we have saying a word that is more unacceptable than others? What feature of it actually makes it any more insulting/rude than another word that means the same?
What I also find ridiculous is that there's the order of swearing and how even within swearing there's a hierarcy and severity of words. What makes fuck/shit/cunt so different from 'milder' swear words like bollocks/crap? (I understand there's a view that these words aren't bonafide swear words, but they still can bump up age ratings for films and can have a tendency to offend).
It seems to me that within language this concept of worse words than others ridiculous, as there's no reason why they are worse to me. CMV | The notion of swear words and having an order of words more socially unacceptable than another is utterly ridiculous. CMV. How is it that in language we have saying a word that is more unacceptable than others? What feature of it actually makes it any more insulting/rude than another word that means the same?
What I also find ridiculous is that there's the order of swearing and how even within swearing there's a hierarcy and severity of words. What makes fuck/shit/cunt so different from 'milder' swear words like bollocks/crap? (I understand there's a view that these words aren't bonafide swear words, but they still can bump up age ratings for films and can have a tendency to offend).
It seems to me that within language this concept of worse words than others ridiculous, as there's no reason why they are worse to me. CMV |
t3_6ucro6 | CMV: Creating and/or sharing the post asking users to identify tiki-torch people at the Unite The Right rally is wrong. | CMV: Creating and/or sharing the post asking users to identify tiki-torch people at the Unite The Right rally is wrong.
a) Calling for the identification of people inherently and inevitably leads to a witch hunt that results in both unfair and illegal treatment of the identified individuals, but also collateral damage to incorrectly identified individuals. I believe this is wrong and the moral equivalent of Trump requesting the names of everyone in the DEA and DOE that support climate change.
b) I'm obviously anti-Trump and anti-KKK/anti-Nazi, but I'm also fundamentally anti-doxxing and I'm struggling with my principles.
I'm less willing to bend on the issues of whether it's morally justifiable for amateur internet detectives to attempt identification themselves. That's a moral line I wouldn't cross, because I believe it invariably leads to witch hunts. However, simple act of sharing a photo that says "Have you seen me? Are you my employer? I willingly attended a rally with White Supremacists" is, imo, morally debatable. I guess the question is whether or not the act is far enough removed from inciting a witch hunt that the participants bear no responsibility for misidentification or a vigilante response. I would argue that the [person who posts on social media] still bears responsibility, but I'm open to this view changing.
EDIT: Two points of clarification.
1) I agree that the racists who participated in the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville don't enjoy "reasonable expectations of privacy." They were out in public and they choose to making a public statement by showing up. My issue is with the act of sharing their likeness on social media, which I believe encourages illegal retribution and misidentification of innocents.
2) Misidentification has [already happened.](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/17/543980653/kyle-quinn-hid-at-a-friend-s-house-after-being-misidentified-on-twitter-as-a-rac?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170817)
Edit 2: Clarified that who I mean by the "participant" aren't the people harassing individuals, but the people who facilitate this harassment by forwarding/posting the image on social media. | CMV: Creating and/or sharing the post asking users to identify tiki-torch people at the Unite The Right rally is wrong. CMV: Creating and/or sharing the post asking users to identify tiki-torch people at the Unite The Right rally is wrong.
a) Calling for the identification of people inherently and inevitably leads to a witch hunt that results in both unfair and illegal treatment of the identified individuals, but also collateral damage to incorrectly identified individuals. I believe this is wrong and the moral equivalent of Trump requesting the names of everyone in the DEA and DOE that support climate change.
b) I'm obviously anti-Trump and anti-KKK/anti-Nazi, but I'm also fundamentally anti-doxxing and I'm struggling with my principles.
I'm less willing to bend on the issues of whether it's morally justifiable for amateur internet detectives to attempt identification themselves. That's a moral line I wouldn't cross, because I believe it invariably leads to witch hunts. However, simple act of sharing a photo that says "Have you seen me? Are you my employer? I willingly attended a rally with White Supremacists" is, imo, morally debatable. I guess the question is whether or not the act is far enough removed from inciting a witch hunt that the participants bear no responsibility for misidentification or a vigilante response. I would argue that the [person who posts on social media] still bears responsibility, but I'm open to this view changing.
EDIT: Two points of clarification.
1) I agree that the racists who participated in the Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville don't enjoy "reasonable expectations of privacy." They were out in public and they choose to making a public statement by showing up. My issue is with the act of sharing their likeness on social media, which I believe encourages illegal retribution and misidentification of innocents.
2) Misidentification has [already happened.](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/08/17/543980653/kyle-quinn-hid-at-a-friend-s-house-after-being-misidentified-on-twitter-as-a-rac?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170817)
Edit 2: Clarified that who I mean by the "participant" aren't the people harassing individuals, but the people who facilitate this harassment by forwarding/posting the image on social media. |
t3_1bz0an | I believe the institution of legal marriage should be abolished. CMV. | Marriage is a religious institution. The agreement to become lifelong partners has no business in the legal system.
Moreover, the argument for legalizing gay marriage can be solved by removing marriage completely from the government lexicon. If you choose to be with someone, then do it! That's great! There's no need for a legally binding contract. | I believe the institution of legal marriage should be abolished. CMV. Marriage is a religious institution. The agreement to become lifelong partners has no business in the legal system.
Moreover, the argument for legalizing gay marriage can be solved by removing marriage completely from the government lexicon. If you choose to be with someone, then do it! That's great! There's no need for a legally binding contract. |
t3_2fu345 | CMV: Whenever any video depicting racially charged violence comes out on Reddit, racist people show up in droves. | Just look at any video about Ferguson, the recent assault in Memphis, etc. In every case comments that are racially charged or have severely hateful undertones are upvoted to the top.
It's obligatory someone at the top claim that "blacks can't be racist or commit hate crimes /s" or that it's okay to say racial slurs in reference to people in the video, because calling someone a nigger is just a reference to a *bad* black person.
It's terrible and nothing good ever comes of it. Influencing people to be even more racist doesn't help anyone out. The only reason people don't just straight up say how they hate black people is because society doesn't think that's okay anymore. Instead, racists resort to using undertones to influence your perception. And Reddit has been doing it a lot lately, and I really think other racist websites are trying to shift overall thought on the subject in their favor.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Whenever any video depicting racially charged violence comes out on Reddit, racist people show up in droves. Just look at any video about Ferguson, the recent assault in Memphis, etc. In every case comments that are racially charged or have severely hateful undertones are upvoted to the top.
It's obligatory someone at the top claim that "blacks can't be racist or commit hate crimes /s" or that it's okay to say racial slurs in reference to people in the video, because calling someone a nigger is just a reference to a *bad* black person.
It's terrible and nothing good ever comes of it. Influencing people to be even more racist doesn't help anyone out. The only reason people don't just straight up say how they hate black people is because society doesn't think that's okay anymore. Instead, racists resort to using undertones to influence your perception. And Reddit has been doing it a lot lately, and I really think other racist websites are trying to shift overall thought on the subject in their favor.
|
t3_19ztx1 | I've only dated shy girls because I fear any other type (e.g. outgoing) will be more susceptible to cheating. CMV | I've had a relatively short dating life, currently 21. I've been in two relationships, one at 17 that lasted 2 years and one at 20 that lasted one. I'm currently single and I believe that due to the fact that my relationships have lasted longer than the average (6 months) couple speaks volumes about the type of people I've been dating. No has been no suspicion of cheating by either side and the break ups were mutual with no hard feelings. | I've only dated shy girls because I fear any other type (e.g. outgoing) will be more susceptible to cheating. CMV. I've had a relatively short dating life, currently 21. I've been in two relationships, one at 17 that lasted 2 years and one at 20 that lasted one. I'm currently single and I believe that due to the fact that my relationships have lasted longer than the average (6 months) couple speaks volumes about the type of people I've been dating. No has been no suspicion of cheating by either side and the break ups were mutual with no hard feelings. |
t3_5g1467 | CMV: There was little to no valid reason to vote for Trump. | I realize this is controversial, but I figure that's what this sub is for. I've been trying to see the side of Trump voters and I just cannot understand why they voted the way they did.
IMO, a vote for Trump is a vote against:
- [Net Neutrality](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fcc-idUSKBN13H02B)
- [Access to healthcare for the sick, elderly, or those with chronic/pre-existing conditions]( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/tom-price-a-radical-choice-for-health-secretary.html)
- [Planned Parenthood’s affordable women’s health care]( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-donald-trump-presidency-could-mean-for-planned-parenthood-womens-health/) [for homeless and/or low-income women]( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/01/ted-cruz/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-planned-parenthood/)
- [Making the planet healthy and habitable for our children and grandchildren]( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/)
- [A reasonable tax plan that won’t place more burden on single mothers and others living in poverty]( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/06/hillary-clinton/would-51-single-parents-see-taxes-rise-under-donal/)
- [Civil](https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/799974635274194947?lang=en), [mature]( http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/), [honest discourse]( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html)
- [Efforts to remove money in politics and conflicts of interest]( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest_us_582a24bde4b0c4b63b0e07af)
- [Politicians who contribute their fair share to the country]( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html)
- [Free speech](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/flag-burning-poll_us_5840a544e4b017f37fe3cbea)
- Edit: would also like to add his support for stop and frisk.
I could go on and on. Was Clinton a great candidate? No, not really. But IMO she was a far cry better than Trump, even if his voters would have us all believe she is a she-devil and the epitome of corruption. However, I also have a hard time thinking that the half of the nation that did vote for him didn't have *any* reason for it, so I want to know what those reasons are, and how they stand up to scrutiny.
_____
> *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 was little to no valid reason to vote for Trump. I realize this is controversial, but I figure that's what this sub is for. I've been trying to see the side of Trump voters and I just cannot understand why they voted the way they did.
IMO, a vote for Trump is a vote against:
- [Net Neutrality](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fcc-idUSKBN13H02B)
- [Access to healthcare for the sick, elderly, or those with chronic/pre-existing conditions]( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/tom-price-a-radical-choice-for-health-secretary.html)
- [Planned Parenthood’s affordable women’s health care]( http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-donald-trump-presidency-could-mean-for-planned-parenthood-womens-health/) [for homeless and/or low-income women]( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/01/ted-cruz/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-planned-parenthood/)
- [Making the planet healthy and habitable for our children and grandchildren]( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/)
- [A reasonable tax plan that won’t place more burden on single mothers and others living in poverty]( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/06/hillary-clinton/would-51-single-parents-see-taxes-rise-under-donal/)
- [Civil](https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/799974635274194947?lang=en), [mature]( http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/donald-trump-lawsuits/), [honest discourse]( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html)
- [Efforts to remove money in politics and conflicts of interest]( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest_us_582a24bde4b0c4b63b0e07af)
- [Politicians who contribute their fair share to the country]( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html)
- [Free speech](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/flag-burning-poll_us_5840a544e4b017f37fe3cbea)
- Edit: would also like to add his support for stop and frisk.
I could go on and on. Was Clinton a great candidate? No, not really. But IMO she was a far cry better than Trump, even if his voters would have us all believe she is a she-devil and the epitome of corruption. However, I also have a hard time thinking that the half of the nation that did vote for him didn't have *any* reason for it, so I want to know what those reasons are, and how they stand up to scrutiny.
|
t3_5rqf0a | CMV: A scholarship for only white males is racist | Recently, as many of you may know, Milo Yiannopoulos created a scholarship fund that is only for white males. My belief (I'm white) is that this is propping up an already advantaged group. Historically, European-Americans have dominated nearly all affairs and institutions in the United States. They created the social institutions this country is founded on and that continue today. I believe whites, especially men, have more power than other groups. Typically, I don't believe a white male would need a scholarship as much as other gender and racial groups.
I did, however, just have a very interesting conversation with my mother on the phone. I stated my disbelief at the establishment of this scholarship, and my mother replied, "what about scholarships that are specific to women? specific to people of color? a scholarship given out by a Catholic parish or a Jewish social organization? If they can do it, so can Milo."
EDIT: My mom's point made me begin to ponder, but I'm not convinced, and that's why I'm here. Conversely, what would be the argument against my mother's claims?
EDIT 2: Thanks everyone. This has opened my eyes to the fact that *any* scholarship, white or not, that gives preference to any race is inherently racist. This makes sense now. Just because you are white, advantages are not guaranteed, albeit more likely. From the comments below, I guess one has to decide whether they can consciously defend other race-based scholarships while saying one for only whites is wrong, even though it's founded on the same principle.
_____
> *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: A scholarship for only white males is racist. Recently, as many of you may know, Milo Yiannopoulos created a scholarship fund that is only for white males. My belief (I'm white) is that this is propping up an already advantaged group. Historically, European-Americans have dominated nearly all affairs and institutions in the United States. They created the social institutions this country is founded on and that continue today. I believe whites, especially men, have more power than other groups. Typically, I don't believe a white male would need a scholarship as much as other gender and racial groups.
I did, however, just have a very interesting conversation with my mother on the phone. I stated my disbelief at the establishment of this scholarship, and my mother replied, "what about scholarships that are specific to women? specific to people of color? a scholarship given out by a Catholic parish or a Jewish social organization? If they can do it, so can Milo."
EDIT: My mom's point made me begin to ponder, but I'm not convinced, and that's why I'm here. Conversely, what would be the argument against my mother's claims?
EDIT 2: Thanks everyone. This has opened my eyes to the fact that *any* scholarship, white or not, that gives preference to any race is inherently racist. This makes sense now. Just because you are white, advantages are not guaranteed, albeit more likely. From the comments below, I guess one has to decide whether they can consciously defend other race-based scholarships while saying one for only whites is wrong, even though it's founded on the same principle. |
t3_28579x | CMV: To reduce the public burden of poverty, parents should have a minimum earned income | States control who can occupy their territory. People can enter their territory through immigration or birth. States can set restrictions on who can enter their territory and impose minimum earned income.
Canada requires three years minimum earned income, http://www.canadavisa.com/necessary-income-levels-for-family-sponsorship.html
Since most residents enter through birth having these restriction just on immigrants is not completely effective.
Children who grow up in poverty do not do well, http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=53&articleid=284&sectionid=1868
The causes are both a result of lack of resources and poor genetics from parents who lack the ability to earn an adequate income. That is why the requirement would be earned income.
Those who get pregnant without the three years minimum income would be subject to forced abortions. Those discovered after birth would be deported.
A deleted comment had a good name for this law: No Child Born in Poverty Act.
_____
> *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: To reduce the public burden of poverty, parents should have a minimum earned income. States control who can occupy their territory. People can enter their territory through immigration or birth. States can set restrictions on who can enter their territory and impose minimum earned income.
Canada requires three years minimum earned income, http://www.canadavisa.com/necessary-income-levels-for-family-sponsorship.html
Since most residents enter through birth having these restriction just on immigrants is not completely effective.
Children who grow up in poverty do not do well, http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=53&articleid=284&sectionid=1868
The causes are both a result of lack of resources and poor genetics from parents who lack the ability to earn an adequate income. That is why the requirement would be earned income.
Those who get pregnant without the three years minimum income would be subject to forced abortions. Those discovered after birth would be deported.
A deleted comment had a good name for this law: No Child Born in Poverty Act.
|
t3_1xmgwt | Only idiots yell at customer service workers. CMV | Chances are the reason you feel upset is not the worker's fault, it's the company's. They're not your friends, they only want your money, and they'll do anything to get it. Customer service workers are useful as shields to the backlash that will likely come from what businesses tend to do to bleed more out of you. Try writing a letter to the CEO (ie, customer service) instead saying how much you hate a certain policy. They'll then waive the policy just for you until the next time you complain about it because you're not a big enough threat to get them to change anything. Just take your business someplace else, it's the only thing you can do that'll make any kind of difference, depending on how much you're worth. (hint: chances are it's nowhere near enough to make a significant dent in their profits)
As for the workers themselves, attempt to understand why a person may not be throwing themselves at your feet every time you enter their establishment. If you've never worked customer service then your faith in humanity must still be intact. Ours however is lowered significantly the longer we work in customer service. You know what I used to do whenever a customer would start to yell at me? I'd just watch them freak out until they either stopped or left, just like when a child throws a tantrum. (or I'd tell them to GTFO and never come back, but that was a liquor store where it's fine) In the end though it all comes back to the above paragraph, you're not powerful enough to make any kind of changes to how a company does business and thus all you can do is shop someplace else. CMV
EDIT: Thanks everyone for your replies. I used the wrong wording for this post for sure, not everyone who yells at a customer service employee is an idiot. They're assholes, irrational, just having a bad day, or they want something for free. Idiot doesn't fall into any of those categories, so my apologies. | Only idiots yell at customer service workers. CMV. Chances are the reason you feel upset is not the worker's fault, it's the company's. They're not your friends, they only want your money, and they'll do anything to get it. Customer service workers are useful as shields to the backlash that will likely come from what businesses tend to do to bleed more out of you. Try writing a letter to the CEO (ie, customer service) instead saying how much you hate a certain policy. They'll then waive the policy just for you until the next time you complain about it because you're not a big enough threat to get them to change anything. Just take your business someplace else, it's the only thing you can do that'll make any kind of difference, depending on how much you're worth. (hint: chances are it's nowhere near enough to make a significant dent in their profits)
As for the workers themselves, attempt to understand why a person may not be throwing themselves at your feet every time you enter their establishment. If you've never worked customer service then your faith in humanity must still be intact. Ours however is lowered significantly the longer we work in customer service. You know what I used to do whenever a customer would start to yell at me? I'd just watch them freak out until they either stopped or left, just like when a child throws a tantrum. (or I'd tell them to GTFO and never come back, but that was a liquor store where it's fine) In the end though it all comes back to the above paragraph, you're not powerful enough to make any kind of changes to how a company does business and thus all you can do is shop someplace else. CMV
EDIT: Thanks everyone for your replies. I used the wrong wording for this post for sure, not everyone who yells at a customer service employee is an idiot. They're assholes, irrational, just having a bad day, or they want something for free. Idiot doesn't fall into any of those categories, so my apologies. |
t3_1idzui | It should be illegal for a juror to make money off discussing a trial they served on. CMV | Jury members are performing a civic duty, ostensibly without conflicting interests. How is it that we allow them to make money off telling the details of a trial-- wouldn't the verdict potentially have an impact on how lucrative a book deal they could get their hands on (the more controversial, the better)? Additionally, they're acting as agents of the state, right? Like judges and prosectors. I get why defense attorneys make money off these cases-- they work for a private citizen. But the people who work for "the people" (either of the state or the country) shouldn't have any personal considerations or stake in the case. We bar convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes (Son of Sam Laws); why can't we extend that to representatives of the people as well?
I live in the United States, if that isn't evident. | It should be illegal for a juror to make money off discussing a trial they served on. CMV. Jury members are performing a civic duty, ostensibly without conflicting interests. How is it that we allow them to make money off telling the details of a trial-- wouldn't the verdict potentially have an impact on how lucrative a book deal they could get their hands on (the more controversial, the better)? Additionally, they're acting as agents of the state, right? Like judges and prosectors. I get why defense attorneys make money off these cases-- they work for a private citizen. But the people who work for "the people" (either of the state or the country) shouldn't have any personal considerations or stake in the case. We bar convicted criminals from profiting from their crimes (Son of Sam Laws); why can't we extend that to representatives of the people as well?
I live in the United States, if that isn't evident. |
t3_1sh311 | I believe many racial stereotypes are true. Examples: Black people are better at sports than every other race and Asians are better at math than other races. CMV | I don't think it's racist at all to say that black people are better at sports than other races. The NFL is currently 70% black. The NBA is made up of an even higher percentage of black people. The stereotype that black people are naturally more athletically gfted is a true one and there's nothing racist about saying it.
The stereotype about Asians being better at math than other races is also true. But people like to call it racist when you point that out.
I think people overuse "racism" to deny pretty obvious things that are true and it should be stopped. CMV | I believe many racial stereotypes are true. Examples: Black people are better at sports than every other race and Asians are better at math than other races. CMV. I don't think it's racist at all to say that black people are better at sports than other races. The NFL is currently 70% black. The NBA is made up of an even higher percentage of black people. The stereotype that black people are naturally more athletically gfted is a true one and there's nothing racist about saying it.
The stereotype about Asians being better at math than other races is also true. But people like to call it racist when you point that out.
I think people overuse "racism" to deny pretty obvious things that are true and it should be stopped. CMV |
t3_652a3n | CMV: Willie Mays is objectively the best baseball position player of all time. | I’m always puzzled when I see people consistently rank Babe Ruth as the best baseball player of all time, as it has always seemed to me that Willie Mays is clearly the greatest all-around player to ever play the game.
1. Willie was certainly one of the greatest offensive threats in baseball history. He has 660 career home runs, (only about 50 shy of Ruth) and achieved this while missing the better part of two full years of his prime due to Military service and playing in the cavernous Polo Grounds. Had he played those years its very conceivable he would have surpassed Ruth in HR’s. Throughout his prime he was a .320-.340 hitter, and consistently had over 100 RBI and 100 runs scored. His WAR was also consistently very high, matching or outpacing other greats like Bonds or Cobb. Finally, he was a menace on the base paths to boot, leading the league many times in stolen bases and reaching the ‘30-30’ club several times. Combining these, Mays is clearly one of the most potent offensive weapons in baseball, being in the same ballpark (haha) as a Ruth, Aaron or Williams.
2. More importantly however, while those players are known mostly for their offense, Mays was also one of the greatest, if not the greatest fielders of all time. He played flawless center field (the most difficult outfield pos.) in one of the largest parks, earning 12 gold glove awards. His speed and tracking were so good he transformed the way his team could play around him, as he could play very shallow to cut off short flies, relying on his speed to catch balls over his head (see ‘the catch’).
As a final point, I’ll quickly note that Mays played in an era with significantly more travel pressure and pitching competition than Ruth did, and encountered shocking amounts of racism and poor treatment during his career as well.
Therefore, I think combining Mays’ top-notch offense, with his unparalleled defense, base running, and class, that he is unquestionably the greatest position baseball player of all time. No other candidate can match all these strengths.
_____
> *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: Willie Mays is objectively the best baseball position player of all time. I’m always puzzled when I see people consistently rank Babe Ruth as the best baseball player of all time, as it has always seemed to me that Willie Mays is clearly the greatest all-around player to ever play the game.
1. Willie was certainly one of the greatest offensive threats in baseball history. He has 660 career home runs, (only about 50 shy of Ruth) and achieved this while missing the better part of two full years of his prime due to Military service and playing in the cavernous Polo Grounds. Had he played those years its very conceivable he would have surpassed Ruth in HR’s. Throughout his prime he was a .320-.340 hitter, and consistently had over 100 RBI and 100 runs scored. His WAR was also consistently very high, matching or outpacing other greats like Bonds or Cobb. Finally, he was a menace on the base paths to boot, leading the league many times in stolen bases and reaching the ‘30-30’ club several times. Combining these, Mays is clearly one of the most potent offensive weapons in baseball, being in the same ballpark (haha) as a Ruth, Aaron or Williams.
2. More importantly however, while those players are known mostly for their offense, Mays was also one of the greatest, if not the greatest fielders of all time. He played flawless center field (the most difficult outfield pos.) in one of the largest parks, earning 12 gold glove awards. His speed and tracking were so good he transformed the way his team could play around him, as he could play very shallow to cut off short flies, relying on his speed to catch balls over his head (see ‘the catch’).
As a final point, I’ll quickly note that Mays played in an era with significantly more travel pressure and pitching competition than Ruth did, and encountered shocking amounts of racism and poor treatment during his career as well.
Therefore, I think combining Mays’ top-notch offense, with his unparalleled defense, base running, and class, that he is unquestionably the greatest position baseball player of all time. No other candidate can match all these strengths.
|
t3_1ranc5 | I believe the best system would be a basic income, and don't understand why it hasn't already been implemented. CMV | I think that a [basic income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) system and then getting rid of the minimum wage would be far more efficient than our current system.
The minimum wage is very inefficient in that it has created a massive shortage of jobs. Currently it is better to have a minimum wage than not, because if we got rid of it we would have far more people in an unescapable poverty cycle. But if we introduced a basic income then they would not be in this cycle.
Essentially the way the system would work is that you do not *have* to work if you don't want to, as you can live off your basic income. But you could not afford any luxuries. And if you wanted to be able to afford luxuries like smartphones or cable television then you would have to work. And it would be relatively easy to find a job, and even if it only pays 4$ an hour you could now eventually acquire these luxuries.
I haven't heard any decent counter-arguments to the basic income system. So CMV. | I believe the best system would be a basic income, and don't understand why it hasn't already been implemented. CMV. I think that a [basic income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income) system and then getting rid of the minimum wage would be far more efficient than our current system.
The minimum wage is very inefficient in that it has created a massive shortage of jobs. Currently it is better to have a minimum wage than not, because if we got rid of it we would have far more people in an unescapable poverty cycle. But if we introduced a basic income then they would not be in this cycle.
Essentially the way the system would work is that you do not *have* to work if you don't want to, as you can live off your basic income. But you could not afford any luxuries. And if you wanted to be able to afford luxuries like smartphones or cable television then you would have to work. And it would be relatively easy to find a job, and even if it only pays 4$ an hour you could now eventually acquire these luxuries.
I haven't heard any decent counter-arguments to the basic income system. So CMV. |
t3_301ljs | CMV: Pirating/emulation of movies/video games/etc. is acceptable if and *only* if there is no way to legally obtain them from the original producer. | For a lot of media out there, there is a limit to its availability. Whether it be because it is not available in your country or in your language, because it is too old, or because the company that produced it no longer exists, sometimes it simply becomes impossible to obtain the media in such a way that the original producer gets any money from it.
It especially becomes an issue in the case of old media; if you want to play, say, an old popular Gamecube game, your only choice is to pirate it, or to pay some collector upwards of $100, not a cent of which makes it back to the original developers.
However, if there is a way to get that movie or game from the source, you should pay for the experience, *especially* if it's an older title. Most of the time, it will be for substantially less than what it originally cost, and will hopefully send a message to the producer that they should make more content similar to it. | CMV: Pirating/emulation of movies/video games/etc. is acceptable if and *only* if there is no way to legally obtain them from the original producer. For a lot of media out there, there is a limit to its availability. Whether it be because it is not available in your country or in your language, because it is too old, or because the company that produced it no longer exists, sometimes it simply becomes impossible to obtain the media in such a way that the original producer gets any money from it.
It especially becomes an issue in the case of old media; if you want to play, say, an old popular Gamecube game, your only choice is to pirate it, or to pay some collector upwards of $100, not a cent of which makes it back to the original developers.
However, if there is a way to get that movie or game from the source, you should pay for the experience, *especially* if it's an older title. Most of the time, it will be for substantially less than what it originally cost, and will hopefully send a message to the producer that they should make more content similar to it. |
t3_1t3i7j | I believe that naming your child something odd, different, or "unique" will make their life more difficult than a "normal" name CMV | [Clip that inspired this post](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TWt_9ARrg) but I don't think it applies to only black people although they are probably negatively affected by it more than any other race.
But I also think white people who name their children absurd things like Echo, Water, etc. are also setting up their kids for a life that would be more difficult than someone named Micheal or James or something similar.
I understand every parent thinks their kid is a special snowflake and their name should reflect as such, but one would hope that the person the child is and grows up to be is what would make the "special" rather than just being the person with the weird name. CMV
EDIT: For clarification purposes I'm talking about first names only for this post. | I believe that naming your child something odd, different, or "unique" will make their life more difficult than a "normal" name CMV. [Clip that inspired this post](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9TWt_9ARrg) but I don't think it applies to only black people although they are probably negatively affected by it more than any other race.
But I also think white people who name their children absurd things like Echo, Water, etc. are also setting up their kids for a life that would be more difficult than someone named Micheal or James or something similar.
I understand every parent thinks their kid is a special snowflake and their name should reflect as such, but one would hope that the person the child is and grows up to be is what would make the "special" rather than just being the person with the weird name. CMV
EDIT: For clarification purposes I'm talking about first names only for this post. |
t3_6ca52d | CMV: Only a Man and a Woman Should Be Allowed to Marry. | **Hear me out this is my genuine view but the reasons are very different to most, I have never seen them mirrored/discussed.**
The reason I believe this (understandably controversial) view:
Its evident based on marriage vows, performed during the ceremony (from religious texts) that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. ^(Involving some pretty one sided {submission of the woman to the man mostly}, strange, and downright archaic promises. But that's not my point here.)
The main point of this is that it is a religious ceremony/union - secondarily that it is between a man and a woman.
Unfortunately there are legal and financial implications of marriage in a number of countries, some that are only *technically* religious. In these countries there should be an alternative process for **any** two persons that offers the **exact** same legal/financial (I'm hesitant to say real) implications as marriage. They may choose to have a ceremony if they like, but it wouldn't have to be religious.
Essentially, marriage is religious despite religious adherence gradually waning among many. And so should adhere to religious rules as and how religions choose to interpret and implicate them. You should be able to get a marriage from your choice of religion - if they allow you. But any non-religious aspect of marriage should be available to partnerships of any two persons.
I also think marriage should be separated from state/government entirely in non-practicing yet still technically "religious" countries.
I see no downsides to this and would like to see if anyone can change my view!
Thanks.
Potential Biases:
* I'm not religious (in fact I'm opposed to the majority of content from the majority of religions);
* I'm fairly heterosexual (though not entirely);
* I'm not transgender;
* I don't have a desire to ever get married and see it as having more negatives than positives even removing religious aspects.
_____
> *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!*
---------------------
There's a lot of good points here. I think I still disagree that what we now use the word marriage the mean should be called marriage. Which is entrenched in a religious backgroubf.
Though I've changed my mind as to the importance of the distinction. And sorry that I'm bailing before three hours but my sisters just called and needs help with her kid!
Thanks for the input. Also next time I post I'll remember to add a big disclaimer that I'm not American to avoid a lot of assumptions. | CMV: Only a Man and a Woman Should Be Allowed to Marry. **Hear me out this is my genuine view but the reasons are very different to most, I have never seen them mirrored/discussed.**
The reason I believe this (understandably controversial) view:
Its evident based on marriage vows, performed during the ceremony (from religious texts) that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. ^(Involving some pretty one sided {submission of the woman to the man mostly}, strange, and downright archaic promises. But that's not my point here.)
The main point of this is that it is a religious ceremony/union - secondarily that it is between a man and a woman.
Unfortunately there are legal and financial implications of marriage in a number of countries, some that are only *technically* religious. In these countries there should be an alternative process for **any** two persons that offers the **exact** same legal/financial (I'm hesitant to say real) implications as marriage. They may choose to have a ceremony if they like, but it wouldn't have to be religious.
Essentially, marriage is religious despite religious adherence gradually waning among many. And so should adhere to religious rules as and how religions choose to interpret and implicate them. You should be able to get a marriage from your choice of religion - if they allow you. But any non-religious aspect of marriage should be available to partnerships of any two persons.
I also think marriage should be separated from state/government entirely in non-practicing yet still technically "religious" countries.
I see no downsides to this and would like to see if anyone can change my view!
Thanks.
Potential Biases:
* I'm not religious (in fact I'm opposed to the majority of content from the majority of religions);
* I'm fairly heterosexual (though not entirely);
* I'm not transgender;
* I don't have a desire to ever get married and see it as having more negatives than positives even removing religious aspects.
---------------------
There's a lot of good points here. I think I still disagree that what we now use the word marriage the mean should be called marriage. Which is entrenched in a religious backgroubf.
Though I've changed my mind as to the importance of the distinction. And sorry that I'm bailing before three hours but my sisters just called and needs help with her kid!
Thanks for the input. Also next time I post I'll remember to add a big disclaimer that I'm not American to avoid a lot of assumptions. |
t3_19t39m | My family wants to go to Disney in Florida, and I don't want to. I don't like roller coasters and think I'm too old. CMV. | My Dad out of nowhere sprung up and asked if I wanted to go to Disney over spring break. I don't really want to go because I would be surrounded by kids, and I've never liked Disney movies or the like. | My family wants to go to Disney in Florida, and I don't want to. I don't like roller coasters and think I'm too old. CMV. My Dad out of nowhere sprung up and asked if I wanted to go to Disney over spring break. I don't really want to go because I would be surrounded by kids, and I've never liked Disney movies or the like. |
t3_6zmhxk | CMV: the pizza Hut memo about Irma is fine | [I'm talking about this memo ](https://mobile.twitter.com/imjohnnyasana/status/907044525914423296/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2017%2F09%2F11%2Fnews%2Fcompanies%2Fpizza-hut-irma%2Findex.html).
People are saying it shows a lack of compassion and is inhumane, and I don't see it.
The memo has a few points:
1- our top priority is the safety of employees but we have a job to do.
Much flack has been given about the language "responsibility and commitment to our community," and while it is self important it isn't untrue. People order from local stores. People who don't have power or are displaced are more likely to order food.
It clearly states safety is the most important. Wanting the store to be open as much as is safe isn't cruel or uncaring.
2- The store closes 6-12 hours before a storm
I can see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
3- let me know if you leave town, don't leave more than a day before the storm and if you don't let anyone know is a no call no show
24 hours is a reasonable amount of time. I have evacuated from many hurricanes, it's more than ample time to evacuate.
Requiring you to contact work makes total sense. It's a good idea. I can't see why it is unreasonable to say "lemme know if you are leaving, but if you don't say you are you still gotta work."
4- prep early
Clearly this man is a monster requesting his employees prep and plan.
5- the store is open until it is closed, if you aren't evacuating you still have to work. You can't skip town for more that three days.
Do people just assume because it's a food service job you don't really have to come in? I don't think most people would freak out is their office said "hey you didn't come in Monday and its Thursday, I know there was a hurricane but you have to tell people if you leave and you still have to do your job eventually "
6- share numbers so we can make sure you are safe and the store is still standing
I see no flaw
7- after the storm we are going to open
Once again what is the issue?
Food service is a job, and whether or not you like it during times of weather related emergencies, people order pizza.
I see this memo as a man who first cares that his employees are safe, second wants the store open and lastly wants to be clear that if you don't communicate your intentions he isn't going to try to divine then for you. CMV | CMV: the pizza Hut memo about Irma is fine. [I'm talking about this memo ](https://mobile.twitter.com/imjohnnyasana/status/907044525914423296/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2017%2F09%2F11%2Fnews%2Fcompanies%2Fpizza-hut-irma%2Findex.html).
People are saying it shows a lack of compassion and is inhumane, and I don't see it.
The memo has a few points:
1- our top priority is the safety of employees but we have a job to do.
Much flack has been given about the language "responsibility and commitment to our community," and while it is self important it isn't untrue. People order from local stores. People who don't have power or are displaced are more likely to order food.
It clearly states safety is the most important. Wanting the store to be open as much as is safe isn't cruel or uncaring.
2- The store closes 6-12 hours before a storm
I can see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
3- let me know if you leave town, don't leave more than a day before the storm and if you don't let anyone know is a no call no show
24 hours is a reasonable amount of time. I have evacuated from many hurricanes, it's more than ample time to evacuate.
Requiring you to contact work makes total sense. It's a good idea. I can't see why it is unreasonable to say "lemme know if you are leaving, but if you don't say you are you still gotta work."
4- prep early
Clearly this man is a monster requesting his employees prep and plan.
5- the store is open until it is closed, if you aren't evacuating you still have to work. You can't skip town for more that three days.
Do people just assume because it's a food service job you don't really have to come in? I don't think most people would freak out is their office said "hey you didn't come in Monday and its Thursday, I know there was a hurricane but you have to tell people if you leave and you still have to do your job eventually "
6- share numbers so we can make sure you are safe and the store is still standing
I see no flaw
7- after the storm we are going to open
Once again what is the issue?
Food service is a job, and whether or not you like it during times of weather related emergencies, people order pizza.
I see this memo as a man who first cares that his employees are safe, second wants the store open and lastly wants to be clear that if you don't communicate your intentions he isn't going to try to divine then for you. CMV |
t3_1ko4cb | I can't separate the ideas of Atheism and Nihilism. CMV | I was raised in a moderately religious environment. By that, I mean that we went to church for Christmas, Easter, and every other Sunday and went to the occasional Church function (no more than once a month, if that frequently). My family strongly believes in the separation of church of state and I went to a completely secular public school.
I use the term "atheist" as "a person who does not believe in things that cannot be reliably proven to exist in a scientific environment." I'm not saying that atheism is inherently dissonant with art or emotion, or referring to any given atheist's viewpoint on religion, aside from their personal abstinence. I just want to make it clear what I mean by "atheist" as it is a term that is used in a variety of ways, some of them pejorative.
I cannot accept a worldview wherein intelligent life is the result of a series of unlikely events playing out on a nearly-infinite span of existence until it did finally exist somewhere (I'm referring to the Anthropic Principle frequently cited by Richard Dawkins, if this isn't coming across clearly. Namely, that life developing on its own is inherently unlikely on any given planet, but is very nearly a certainty when we apply the low probability of life developing to the unfathomable scale of the universe at large) and that *also* has any inherent meaning. My problem is that, if there is no creator and no "plan" for existence, existence is inherently meaningless.
Now, the obvious response to Nihilism is that the absence of a default meaning is not the same thing as the absence of *all* meaning. I.e., life has whatever meaning that the living define for it. My issue with this viewpoint is that, when taken on a cosmic scale, life on Earth is a momentary quirk on an utterly insignificant rock. There are all manner of catastrophes with the capability to wipe out intelligent life on Earth, given our relative complexity and fragility. An asteroid impact like what killed the dinosaurs would surely do the trick, and the nuclear war/nuclear winter one-two punch could likely accomplish it, as well. There are also less likely options like a global pandemic.
What I'm getting at is, if life was created by random events, it's certain to be extinguished by them. Given the extreme harshness of outer space and the lack of terrestrial incentive to go there (which, ironically, becomes more attractive only if the planet itself is threatened, as the space programs of the Cold War era can testify). If the planet's ability to support complex life like humanity is as fragile as I've been led to believe, it is merely a question of *when*, not *if* the planet can no longer support humanity (if nothing else, changes in our sun will cease Earth's green stage in the distant future).
If all meaning is created by the living, but the living are doomed to eventually be wiped out, what real meaning can there be?
And that's why I can't comprehend the idea of atheism without Nihilism. CMV | I can't separate the ideas of Atheism and Nihilism. CMV. I was raised in a moderately religious environment. By that, I mean that we went to church for Christmas, Easter, and every other Sunday and went to the occasional Church function (no more than once a month, if that frequently). My family strongly believes in the separation of church of state and I went to a completely secular public school.
I use the term "atheist" as "a person who does not believe in things that cannot be reliably proven to exist in a scientific environment." I'm not saying that atheism is inherently dissonant with art or emotion, or referring to any given atheist's viewpoint on religion, aside from their personal abstinence. I just want to make it clear what I mean by "atheist" as it is a term that is used in a variety of ways, some of them pejorative.
I cannot accept a worldview wherein intelligent life is the result of a series of unlikely events playing out on a nearly-infinite span of existence until it did finally exist somewhere (I'm referring to the Anthropic Principle frequently cited by Richard Dawkins, if this isn't coming across clearly. Namely, that life developing on its own is inherently unlikely on any given planet, but is very nearly a certainty when we apply the low probability of life developing to the unfathomable scale of the universe at large) and that *also* has any inherent meaning. My problem is that, if there is no creator and no "plan" for existence, existence is inherently meaningless.
Now, the obvious response to Nihilism is that the absence of a default meaning is not the same thing as the absence of *all* meaning. I.e., life has whatever meaning that the living define for it. My issue with this viewpoint is that, when taken on a cosmic scale, life on Earth is a momentary quirk on an utterly insignificant rock. There are all manner of catastrophes with the capability to wipe out intelligent life on Earth, given our relative complexity and fragility. An asteroid impact like what killed the dinosaurs would surely do the trick, and the nuclear war/nuclear winter one-two punch could likely accomplish it, as well. There are also less likely options like a global pandemic.
What I'm getting at is, if life was created by random events, it's certain to be extinguished by them. Given the extreme harshness of outer space and the lack of terrestrial incentive to go there (which, ironically, becomes more attractive only if the planet itself is threatened, as the space programs of the Cold War era can testify). If the planet's ability to support complex life like humanity is as fragile as I've been led to believe, it is merely a question of *when*, not *if* the planet can no longer support humanity (if nothing else, changes in our sun will cease Earth's green stage in the distant future).
If all meaning is created by the living, but the living are doomed to eventually be wiped out, what real meaning can there be?
And that's why I can't comprehend the idea of atheism without Nihilism. CMV |
t3_340ibw | CMV: Drivers should be able to issue tickets (sorta) | Let me explain the topic.
Have you ever been in a long car line and that asshole decides to go on the emergency lane and surpass everyone simply because he's self entitled? Yeah that situation.
Sometimes there's a police car that sees them and issues a ticket to them, and oh I love it. But most of the time, nothing happens, and they get away with it.
But wait, things get worse. In some parts of the world (like where I live), being caught by the police for something like this is so rare that it's much more convenient to go on the emergency lane all the time. Also, these people make traffic worse for everyone.
Now I'm not talking about merging from the emergency lane, but what recently happened here is that someone parked right **in front** of the exit gate of a local clinic, and **THE AMBULANCE COULDN'T GET OUT WITHOUT CALLING THE CAR REMOVAL TRUCK.**
Now, I think that if there was a system that let people report other people for this kind of traffic felonies (with proof of course, like pictures), that car would automatically get a ticket if a given number of reports happened at the same time.
If this system was in place, people would KNOW they'd get caught, and they would respect the rules.
**TL;DR:**
People should be able to report someone who's committing a traffic felony, and once enough people have reported it, a ticket should be automatically issued.
Disclaimer:
I'm not a native speaker and some terms might not be correct, so please correct me and I'll edit. | CMV: Drivers should be able to issue tickets (sorta). Let me explain the topic.
Have you ever been in a long car line and that asshole decides to go on the emergency lane and surpass everyone simply because he's self entitled? Yeah that situation.
Sometimes there's a police car that sees them and issues a ticket to them, and oh I love it. But most of the time, nothing happens, and they get away with it.
But wait, things get worse. In some parts of the world (like where I live), being caught by the police for something like this is so rare that it's much more convenient to go on the emergency lane all the time. Also, these people make traffic worse for everyone.
Now I'm not talking about merging from the emergency lane, but what recently happened here is that someone parked right **in front** of the exit gate of a local clinic, and **THE AMBULANCE COULDN'T GET OUT WITHOUT CALLING THE CAR REMOVAL TRUCK.**
Now, I think that if there was a system that let people report other people for this kind of traffic felonies (with proof of course, like pictures), that car would automatically get a ticket if a given number of reports happened at the same time.
If this system was in place, people would KNOW they'd get caught, and they would respect the rules.
**TL;DR:**
People should be able to report someone who's committing a traffic felony, and once enough people have reported it, a ticket should be automatically issued.
Disclaimer:
I'm not a native speaker and some terms might not be correct, so please correct me and I'll edit. |
t3_20dg97 | I believe that income inequality, even excessive income inequality, is ethical. CMV | Edit (to make my point clearer, and i didn't phrase my title correctly): I am interested in hearing why people consider economic and income inequality to be unethical, especially if it is excessive. I am also interested in finding out about what people mean exactly by "unethical," and how excessive income inequality fits that definition. (for example, some people think that something is unethical if it negatively affects society, so if someone felt that, how would they think income inequality hurts society?)
To me, I do not see income inequality as unethical or ethical because it is just a phenomenon that results from the spontaneous order of the market.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why i feel income inequality is divorced from ethics:
Most people I talk to believe that a certain level of economic inequality is justified since inequality is a natural byproduct of the capitalist system. However, they also assert that excessive income inequality or income inequality resulting from privileges (such as resources being denied to certain groups which reduces equality of opportunity) is unethical, and there's a potential role of government to use welfare, progressive taxation, nationalized industries, education, etc to reduce inequality and make society more equal.
I do not believe that society ever gets to a point where inequality is unethical. I do not find the concept of income inequality unethical at all. Outcomes in the market result from the spontaneous order of the market, and as a result, cannot be "ethical" or "unethical." We view things like hurricanes as a tragedy, not a social problem or injustice. Something is only unethical is there's a central power who has control over the allocation of resources and distributes it in an unequal manner.
| I believe that income inequality, even excessive income inequality, is ethical. CMV. Edit (to make my point clearer, and i didn't phrase my title correctly): I am interested in hearing why people consider economic and income inequality to be unethical, especially if it is excessive. I am also interested in finding out about what people mean exactly by "unethical," and how excessive income inequality fits that definition. (for example, some people think that something is unethical if it negatively affects society, so if someone felt that, how would they think income inequality hurts society?)
To me, I do not see income inequality as unethical or ethical because it is just a phenomenon that results from the spontaneous order of the market.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why i feel income inequality is divorced from ethics:
Most people I talk to believe that a certain level of economic inequality is justified since inequality is a natural byproduct of the capitalist system. However, they also assert that excessive income inequality or income inequality resulting from privileges (such as resources being denied to certain groups which reduces equality of opportunity) is unethical, and there's a potential role of government to use welfare, progressive taxation, nationalized industries, education, etc to reduce inequality and make society more equal.
I do not believe that society ever gets to a point where inequality is unethical. I do not find the concept of income inequality unethical at all. Outcomes in the market result from the spontaneous order of the market, and as a result, cannot be "ethical" or "unethical." We view things like hurricanes as a tragedy, not a social problem or injustice. Something is only unethical is there's a central power who has control over the allocation of resources and distributes it in an unequal manner.
|
t3_5muu2m | CMV: The mere use of sexist/racist/homophobic slurs is not inherently offensive. | This was inspired by [this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/5mox2z/oh_hey_there_satan_and_its_variations_have_got_to/dc6esxg?context=4) I had a little while ago. Specifically, I don't believe that the phrase "you shut your whore mouth" is inherently sexist. This also extends to other similar phrases, like the "Dwight you ignorant slut" joke from the office. I explained it in the above thread, but basically, The reason why both jokes are funny is because the slurs are used in a completely inapplicable context. Dwight isn't 'slutty' by the traditional, sexist definition of a slut. In almost every application of the "shut your whore mouth" joke, the original commenter isn't actually 'whorish'. The joke isn't on the traditional target demographic (i.e. 'slutty'/'whorish' women), it's on the ridiculousness of the insult.
The counterargument from the original thread is essentially "it doesn't matter, just because it's a creative application doesn't make it inoffensive, you can't ignore historical context", which I disagree with. It's not that the delivery is creative, it's that the meaning behind the word is completely different. Whore, in that context, no longer means whore, and slut no longer means slut. That's kind of the point of the joke.
Lastly, at what point can you start deeming a word offensive? Imo the intent behind the word determines the offense (if you mean to offend someone and communicate that intended offense, it's offensive), not just the use of a traditionally offensive word.
I'd like to think I'm just not seeing something I should be and people aren't being overly sensitive, so CMV. | CMV: The mere use of sexist/racist/homophobic slurs is not inherently offensive. This was inspired by [this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/5mox2z/oh_hey_there_satan_and_its_variations_have_got_to/dc6esxg?context=4) I had a little while ago. Specifically, I don't believe that the phrase "you shut your whore mouth" is inherently sexist. This also extends to other similar phrases, like the "Dwight you ignorant slut" joke from the office. I explained it in the above thread, but basically, The reason why both jokes are funny is because the slurs are used in a completely inapplicable context. Dwight isn't 'slutty' by the traditional, sexist definition of a slut. In almost every application of the "shut your whore mouth" joke, the original commenter isn't actually 'whorish'. The joke isn't on the traditional target demographic (i.e. 'slutty'/'whorish' women), it's on the ridiculousness of the insult.
The counterargument from the original thread is essentially "it doesn't matter, just because it's a creative application doesn't make it inoffensive, you can't ignore historical context", which I disagree with. It's not that the delivery is creative, it's that the meaning behind the word is completely different. Whore, in that context, no longer means whore, and slut no longer means slut. That's kind of the point of the joke.
Lastly, at what point can you start deeming a word offensive? Imo the intent behind the word determines the offense (if you mean to offend someone and communicate that intended offense, it's offensive), not just the use of a traditionally offensive word.
I'd like to think I'm just not seeing something I should be and people aren't being overly sensitive, so CMV. |
t3_6t8qzf | CMV: Women should be required to sign up for selective service | All men from 18-26 are required to sign up for selective service and, potentially, be drafted, or they must provide a reason for exemption. If they do not, they cannot vote, acquire gov. loans, and may have to pay fines, etc. All for being a male, whereas women do not have to do this. However, women may serve in the military voluntarily, be a firefighter, or a police officer, so, in theory, they should be just as capable as men in combat. Further, if women and men are both able get these jobs, shouldn't they have the same responsibility as men to sign up for selective service? I believe womens' current exemption from selective service is discrimination towards both men AND women. If we are pushing for equal rights (feminism) shouldn't this policy be changed? Also, shouldn't feminists be advocating for this change as fiercely as they do with other inequalities? I do not believe a male should lose civil liberties for failing to sign up for something in which they have zero control over (gender), whereas women never have the fear of being sent to war or losing civil liberties.
Edit: I believe we can't have it one way and not the other. If women can be firefighters, entrusted with lifting grown men out of buildings, then they should also be fit for combat. However, if the gov is insinuating they are not fit for combat, then that is insinuating they are most likely not fit for other high stress, highly physical jobs.
Clarification: I do not seek opposing views for the existence selective service. My title was originally misworded, I meant to ask "CMV: Men and women should be held to the same standard in regards to registering for selective service" | CMV: Women should be required to sign up for selective service. All men from 18-26 are required to sign up for selective service and, potentially, be drafted, or they must provide a reason for exemption. If they do not, they cannot vote, acquire gov. loans, and may have to pay fines, etc. All for being a male, whereas women do not have to do this. However, women may serve in the military voluntarily, be a firefighter, or a police officer, so, in theory, they should be just as capable as men in combat. Further, if women and men are both able get these jobs, shouldn't they have the same responsibility as men to sign up for selective service? I believe womens' current exemption from selective service is discrimination towards both men AND women. If we are pushing for equal rights (feminism) shouldn't this policy be changed? Also, shouldn't feminists be advocating for this change as fiercely as they do with other inequalities? I do not believe a male should lose civil liberties for failing to sign up for something in which they have zero control over (gender), whereas women never have the fear of being sent to war or losing civil liberties.
Edit: I believe we can't have it one way and not the other. If women can be firefighters, entrusted with lifting grown men out of buildings, then they should also be fit for combat. However, if the gov is insinuating they are not fit for combat, then that is insinuating they are most likely not fit for other high stress, highly physical jobs.
Clarification: I do not seek opposing views for the existence selective service. My title was originally misworded, I meant to ask "CMV: Men and women should be held to the same standard in regards to registering for selective service" |
t3_3y9faa | CMV: Torture can be ethical in certain circumstances | Before I get into the meat of the argument, I just would like to clarify that this is meant to be entirely theoretical. Arguments against the efficacy of torture, while perfectly valid in refuting its practical use, do not outlaw it as a moral law in any sense. In other words, assume that we know the person being tortured is guilty, and that there is a reasonable expectation of positive results if torture is employed.
Enough said of that. In short, I currently fail to see why torture should be seen as immoral as a rule. Particularly compelling to me is the "ticking time-bomb scenario". Suppose the police have detained a man they know to have hidden several children in a small gasoline-doused shack somewhere out in the deep wilderness. In twenty minutes, a fire will light in the structure, resulting in a rather unpleasant death for everyone involved. If it was known that torture would likely convince the man of revealing the location of the shack, thus saving the lives of the children. Why should the police abstain from torture in this situation, since it clearly maximizes happiness (or, at least, appears to me to do so)?
Reduced to simplest terms, if torture was employed on a guilty person in order to save the lives of innocents, why would it be unethical to do 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: Torture can be ethical in certain circumstances. Before I get into the meat of the argument, I just would like to clarify that this is meant to be entirely theoretical. Arguments against the efficacy of torture, while perfectly valid in refuting its practical use, do not outlaw it as a moral law in any sense. In other words, assume that we know the person being tortured is guilty, and that there is a reasonable expectation of positive results if torture is employed.
Enough said of that. In short, I currently fail to see why torture should be seen as immoral as a rule. Particularly compelling to me is the "ticking time-bomb scenario". Suppose the police have detained a man they know to have hidden several children in a small gasoline-doused shack somewhere out in the deep wilderness. In twenty minutes, a fire will light in the structure, resulting in a rather unpleasant death for everyone involved. If it was known that torture would likely convince the man of revealing the location of the shack, thus saving the lives of the children. Why should the police abstain from torture in this situation, since it clearly maximizes happiness (or, at least, appears to me to do so)?
Reduced to simplest terms, if torture was employed on a guilty person in order to save the lives of innocents, why would it be unethical to do so?
|
t3_42ta00 | CMV: Most college educated people who are struggling financially would take a senior analyst job at one of the large banks and indirectly promote the system that put them in the dire situation in the first place. | Hello,
&nbsp;
First off I would like to state that my CMV is almost purely anecdotal and I don't expect any empirical evidence/statistics on such an issue. If there is, awesome and I would love to hear it.
&nbsp;
As a recent college grad( graduated about 2 years ago), I've been morbidly fascinated with the scenario the 2008 recession has put us in. What I've noticed is that people of my generation have a heavy disdain towards large corporations- big banks specifically. However, talking to my peers/friends who are college educated what you notice very quickly is while they hate corporate cronyism they are all DESPERATE to get a job at somewhere like Goldman Sachs or Blackstone. People will go through hoops and network as much as possible and literally beg for a job at one of the big firms as an analyst. At least in the UC system, almost everyone is either shooting for a high paying wall street job or they would like to pursue the tech economy in California.
&nbsp;
I guess what I'm saying is, there is still a very HIGHLY competitive culture among the recent college grad generation to make money and get rich. Almost every person I know who graduated with a finance related major(of course there are exceptions) had an end goal to work at one of the large firms. Almost everyone would take that job in a heart beat that pays 100k+.
&nbsp;
This then leads to my point: is this hypocritical?- to simultaneously support Bernie for the breaking up of big banks while still pursuing a job in the same sector? Now, I'm not saying that the analysts doing the ground work on the floor are the only reasoning for the financial collapse and the corruption in the finance sector, that probably stems from the higher ups. However, what you can't deny is that people completely still buy into the Wall Street ultra highly competitive culture (80 hr weeks are the norm) and they understand that you have to work your way up. I believe supporting this culture absolutely influences the corruption that the banks pull off. I also believe that most of my college peers absolutely would like to move up us much as possible at these big banks, most people have there goal as being in upper management and calling the shots.
&nbsp;
As I said before, this is all anecdotal. I don't have any official statistics but it's a definite trend that I notice. Do you guys see the same culture among your peers? I'm not exactly sure how Midwestern/East schools operate, but this is definitely the culture at the UC system in California. The best and brightest always go to the large banks or tech companies and your self worth to an extent is measured by this(whether moral or not). The next question- is it hypocritical to HATE the big banks and support there breakup/regulation while still being HEAVILY motivated to get a job there?
_____
> *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 college educated people who are struggling financially would take a senior analyst job at one of the large banks and indirectly promote the system that put them in the dire situation in the first place. Hello,
&nbsp;
First off I would like to state that my CMV is almost purely anecdotal and I don't expect any empirical evidence/statistics on such an issue. If there is, awesome and I would love to hear it.
&nbsp;
As a recent college grad( graduated about 2 years ago), I've been morbidly fascinated with the scenario the 2008 recession has put us in. What I've noticed is that people of my generation have a heavy disdain towards large corporations- big banks specifically. However, talking to my peers/friends who are college educated what you notice very quickly is while they hate corporate cronyism they are all DESPERATE to get a job at somewhere like Goldman Sachs or Blackstone. People will go through hoops and network as much as possible and literally beg for a job at one of the big firms as an analyst. At least in the UC system, almost everyone is either shooting for a high paying wall street job or they would like to pursue the tech economy in California.
&nbsp;
I guess what I'm saying is, there is still a very HIGHLY competitive culture among the recent college grad generation to make money and get rich. Almost every person I know who graduated with a finance related major(of course there are exceptions) had an end goal to work at one of the large firms. Almost everyone would take that job in a heart beat that pays 100k+.
&nbsp;
This then leads to my point: is this hypocritical?- to simultaneously support Bernie for the breaking up of big banks while still pursuing a job in the same sector? Now, I'm not saying that the analysts doing the ground work on the floor are the only reasoning for the financial collapse and the corruption in the finance sector, that probably stems from the higher ups. However, what you can't deny is that people completely still buy into the Wall Street ultra highly competitive culture (80 hr weeks are the norm) and they understand that you have to work your way up. I believe supporting this culture absolutely influences the corruption that the banks pull off. I also believe that most of my college peers absolutely would like to move up us much as possible at these big banks, most people have there goal as being in upper management and calling the shots.
&nbsp;
As I said before, this is all anecdotal. I don't have any official statistics but it's a definite trend that I notice. Do you guys see the same culture among your peers? I'm not exactly sure how Midwestern/East schools operate, but this is definitely the culture at the UC system in California. The best and brightest always go to the large banks or tech companies and your self worth to an extent is measured by this(whether moral or not). The next question- is it hypocritical to HATE the big banks and support there breakup/regulation while still being HEAVILY motivated to get a job there? |
t3_1gr4pq | I think eating meat (carcasses, dead bodies) is disgusting- CMV | I stopped eating meat when I was 9 years old, and I am now 19. In 10 years I haven't had so much as a chicken nugget. Before I was 9, I pretty much only ate chicken-- I have been disgusted by the thought of eating something with blood and organs for as long as I can remember, and when I was 9 it just clicked that chicken nuggets, while tasty, were made from real live chickens and therefore just as "gross" as the other types of meat that I wouldn't eat, so I gave them up too.
I don't really have a position on the morality of eating meat-- in fact, I think people are SUPPOSED to eat meat, humans are omnivorous, and I'M the "weird one" for not being able to eat it. I have a very strong visceral reaction to the sight, smell, and thought of eating something that has died. Bloody steak makes me want to throw up. People have tried explaining that vegetables were also once living, but I don't think that "living and now dead" is the part that disgusts me; it's the idea that meat was a breathing, thinking, feeling animal made up of bones and organs and blood and to put that in my body seems revolting.
The problem is, I know I'm missing out on a lot of tasty foods for having this view. There are many restaurants I can't go to, cuisines I cannot even try, because I refuse to eat meat. Socially, it has been a problem when I'm the one who can't find anything to eat somewhere. I would like to reincorporate meat into my diet (and not just chicken), but I have not been able to get past this idea that consuming dead bodies is sickening. Please CMV!
| I think eating meat (carcasses, dead bodies) is disgusting- CMV. I stopped eating meat when I was 9 years old, and I am now 19. In 10 years I haven't had so much as a chicken nugget. Before I was 9, I pretty much only ate chicken-- I have been disgusted by the thought of eating something with blood and organs for as long as I can remember, and when I was 9 it just clicked that chicken nuggets, while tasty, were made from real live chickens and therefore just as "gross" as the other types of meat that I wouldn't eat, so I gave them up too.
I don't really have a position on the morality of eating meat-- in fact, I think people are SUPPOSED to eat meat, humans are omnivorous, and I'M the "weird one" for not being able to eat it. I have a very strong visceral reaction to the sight, smell, and thought of eating something that has died. Bloody steak makes me want to throw up. People have tried explaining that vegetables were also once living, but I don't think that "living and now dead" is the part that disgusts me; it's the idea that meat was a breathing, thinking, feeling animal made up of bones and organs and blood and to put that in my body seems revolting.
The problem is, I know I'm missing out on a lot of tasty foods for having this view. There are many restaurants I can't go to, cuisines I cannot even try, because I refuse to eat meat. Socially, it has been a problem when I'm the one who can't find anything to eat somewhere. I would like to reincorporate meat into my diet (and not just chicken), but I have not been able to get past this idea that consuming dead bodies is sickening. Please CMV!
|
t3_32br6b | CMV: When debating drug prohibition laws, I don't think harm reduction should be valued higher than personal freedom | Most of you are probably familiar with the debate on whether drugs should be legal or not, and have some opinion on it. I think they should, as is probably obvious from the rest of this post, but that's not the point of this submission.
I think there's a big problem with how the legalization is debated and how the pros and cons are weighed. I think that harm reduction is not very important, at least if it conflicts with personal freedom, as it does in this case. Something being illegal just because it may cause the perpetrators harm, is to me absolutely outrageous. It just seems so obvious to me that if people wish to do something, for whatever reason, that does not hurt anyone else but may hurt themselves, they should be allowed to, because it's of their own choice.
And yet most people disagree with this. My opinion above seems to be almost taboo, not just on the prohibition side but also the legalization side. Or at least that is how thing seem based on the arguments used in the debate. I have been called extremist, unreasonable and unserious for voicing my opinion, and asked not to by people on the same side because they say it will likely hurt the cause rather than support it.
More acceptable arguments seem to be "Drugs should be legalized because if they are regulated by the government they will be safer to use and we will see less harm to users and the society, just look at Portugal or whatever", or "Drugs aren't even that dangerous to begin with, alcohol is worse in most aspects". I agree with this, but it just seems so insignificant next to the basic human right of freedom. Even if legalizing drugs did not cause a reduction of harm, in fact even if it meant a tenfold *increase* in harm, I'd still be overwhelmingly in favor.
This applies not just to drugs, either. For example, I do paragliding as a hobby. It's not the safest of sports, people die. But yet there is hardly anyone who wants to ban paragliding and other extreme sports. Why not? It's the exact same issue as drugs, people do it because they like it, even if it can be dangerous. Another example that I have personal experience with, is lasers. I am a laser "enthusiast", I have collected and built various lasers for years. And now most countries are starting to ban the ownership of laser pointers, because they can blind people. Using lasers to blind other people have been illegal from the get-go, so what's the point of banning them altogether? If I am aware of the risks, probably more so than some government lawmakers, most of whom have never used a laser pointer in their life, should I not be allowed to own them and use them in the privacy of my own home?
All this despite most people from developed countries viewing freedom as something super important and something to be proud of having. I don't think any country in the world is truly free, since laws like this exist everywhere.
Please explain this to me, and change my view if it should be changed.
**EDIT**: I have been reading all the responses, sorry if I don't respond to all, this blew up a little bit
_____
> *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: When debating drug prohibition laws, I don't think harm reduction should be valued higher than personal freedom. Most of you are probably familiar with the debate on whether drugs should be legal or not, and have some opinion on it. I think they should, as is probably obvious from the rest of this post, but that's not the point of this submission.
I think there's a big problem with how the legalization is debated and how the pros and cons are weighed. I think that harm reduction is not very important, at least if it conflicts with personal freedom, as it does in this case. Something being illegal just because it may cause the perpetrators harm, is to me absolutely outrageous. It just seems so obvious to me that if people wish to do something, for whatever reason, that does not hurt anyone else but may hurt themselves, they should be allowed to, because it's of their own choice.
And yet most people disagree with this. My opinion above seems to be almost taboo, not just on the prohibition side but also the legalization side. Or at least that is how thing seem based on the arguments used in the debate. I have been called extremist, unreasonable and unserious for voicing my opinion, and asked not to by people on the same side because they say it will likely hurt the cause rather than support it.
More acceptable arguments seem to be "Drugs should be legalized because if they are regulated by the government they will be safer to use and we will see less harm to users and the society, just look at Portugal or whatever", or "Drugs aren't even that dangerous to begin with, alcohol is worse in most aspects". I agree with this, but it just seems so insignificant next to the basic human right of freedom. Even if legalizing drugs did not cause a reduction of harm, in fact even if it meant a tenfold *increase* in harm, I'd still be overwhelmingly in favor.
This applies not just to drugs, either. For example, I do paragliding as a hobby. It's not the safest of sports, people die. But yet there is hardly anyone who wants to ban paragliding and other extreme sports. Why not? It's the exact same issue as drugs, people do it because they like it, even if it can be dangerous. Another example that I have personal experience with, is lasers. I am a laser "enthusiast", I have collected and built various lasers for years. And now most countries are starting to ban the ownership of laser pointers, because they can blind people. Using lasers to blind other people have been illegal from the get-go, so what's the point of banning them altogether? If I am aware of the risks, probably more so than some government lawmakers, most of whom have never used a laser pointer in their life, should I not be allowed to own them and use them in the privacy of my own home?
All this despite most people from developed countries viewing freedom as something super important and something to be proud of having. I don't think any country in the world is truly free, since laws like this exist everywhere.
Please explain this to me, and change my view if it should be changed.
**EDIT**: I have been reading all the responses, sorry if I don't respond to all, this blew up a little bit |
t3_1da4k1 | I believe military and/or emergency services experience should be a requirement for office. CMV | Especially in today's age, I believe the vast, vast majority of people walking around, especially those under 30, have absolutely NO concept of what reality actually is like. Everything is artificial, their values are socially constructed and generally used only as a narcissistic system of self-reward. People are highly incompetent, have experienced very little actual stress, and are so protected by a blanket of socially constructed political correctness that they're shielded from actual honesty or reality.
Except, I find, in the military combat roles, EMS, Police, and Fire/Rescue. These folks tend to have a more clear understanding of what is actually important, and how to get things done without the bullshit. | I believe military and/or emergency services experience should be a requirement for office. CMV. Especially in today's age, I believe the vast, vast majority of people walking around, especially those under 30, have absolutely NO concept of what reality actually is like. Everything is artificial, their values are socially constructed and generally used only as a narcissistic system of self-reward. People are highly incompetent, have experienced very little actual stress, and are so protected by a blanket of socially constructed political correctness that they're shielded from actual honesty or reality.
Except, I find, in the military combat roles, EMS, Police, and Fire/Rescue. These folks tend to have a more clear understanding of what is actually important, and how to get things done without the bullshit. |