Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1jwv9i

I do not think the U.S. needs to have Daylight Savings Time. CMV

I do not believe that the U.S. needs the Daylight Savings Time change any longer. We do not have to worry about saving our candle wax or making sure we are tilling soil during day light - we have artificial light that can be used for these. I do not see the benefit of changing our internal clocks to justify the time change. How is it, in the U.S., that in Arizona & Hawaii, they do not change their times - and it doesn't seem like they are loosing out on anything either. How is it that under George W. Bush, the Daylight Savings Time was extended? I'm sure I have thought of other reasons why we do not need it, but of course, once I started this - I forgot them!

I do not think the U.S. needs to have Daylight Savings Time. CMV. I do not believe that the U.S. needs the Daylight Savings Time change any longer. We do not have to worry about saving our candle wax or making sure we are tilling soil during day light - we have artificial light that can be used for these. I do not see the benefit of changing our internal clocks to justify the time change. How is it, in the U.S., that in Arizona & Hawaii, they do not change their times - and it doesn't seem like they are loosing out on anything either. How is it that under George W. Bush, the Daylight Savings Time was extended? I'm sure I have thought of other reasons why we do not need it, but of course, once I started this - I forgot them!

t3_1ts9zl

I believe humans have no obligation to save endangered animals. CMV

Not to say that I support poaching/torturing animals. All I mean is that in the present day, humans have become such a presence on this earth that it seems next to impossible to not destroy the natural habitats of other animals. Why should we sapient beings feel such a moral obligation to protect animals who are going extinct? Are we not just competing for the available resources this planet has to offer? What about the circle of life, survival of the fittest, et cetera? Throughout time, animals have been going extinct. This is how nature works. The dodos. The dinos. The mammoths. They were unable to adapt to conditions or were simply exterminated. Hell, there have been times when nearly all the life on the planet was wiped out. I know animals are good for ecosystems, but technology is rapidly advancing. One day we could have artificial ecosystems. One counterargument I have heard is that we should keep these animals around for future generations, but I mean I never got to see an ivory billed woodpecker, or a saber toothed tiger. Rather than waste valuable resources protecting these animals, we could spend money helping ourselves. It sounds selfish, but should we not think of ourselves before other animals? I don't know. As I'm typing this I recognize that I sound like an asshole, but sometimes you have to be an asshole to survive. A lion has no problem mauling little babies for food. Why should we feel bad being at the top of the food chain? Edit: cred to /u/swampofsadness for Changing My View.

I believe humans have no obligation to save endangered animals. CMV. Not to say that I support poaching/torturing animals. All I mean is that in the present day, humans have become such a presence on this earth that it seems next to impossible to not destroy the natural habitats of other animals. Why should we sapient beings feel such a moral obligation to protect animals who are going extinct? Are we not just competing for the available resources this planet has to offer? What about the circle of life, survival of the fittest, et cetera? Throughout time, animals have been going extinct. This is how nature works. The dodos. The dinos. The mammoths. They were unable to adapt to conditions or were simply exterminated. Hell, there have been times when nearly all the life on the planet was wiped out. I know animals are good for ecosystems, but technology is rapidly advancing. One day we could have artificial ecosystems. One counterargument I have heard is that we should keep these animals around for future generations, but I mean I never got to see an ivory billed woodpecker, or a saber toothed tiger. Rather than waste valuable resources protecting these animals, we could spend money helping ourselves. It sounds selfish, but should we not think of ourselves before other animals? I don't know. As I'm typing this I recognize that I sound like an asshole, but sometimes you have to be an asshole to survive. A lion has no problem mauling little babies for food. Why should we feel bad being at the top of the food chain? Edit: cred to /u/swampofsadness for Changing My View.

t3_6leqkk

CMV: The inclined usage of highly toxic batteries in electric cars will not cause more enviromental harm than conventional cars.

I had a recent discussion with a friend about the topic of electric cars. The argument was about the enviromental impact of conventional cars lifetime (production to recycle) vs electric cars lifetime and amount of batteries used until recycle. I can just imagine that batteries are required to be manufactured under strict rules and harvesting the resources is less impactful than oil rigs and fracking etc. The electric car might still require materials made from oil. Are there alternatives to oil-based components? Edit: The view i want to change is my stance on the future of electric cars. That they are more enviromentally friendly in the short AND in the long run. That we can have modern car's without needing to use fossile fuel or oil.

CMV: The inclined usage of highly toxic batteries in electric cars will not cause more enviromental harm than conventional cars. I had a recent discussion with a friend about the topic of electric cars. The argument was about the enviromental impact of conventional cars lifetime (production to recycle) vs electric cars lifetime and amount of batteries used until recycle. I can just imagine that batteries are required to be manufactured under strict rules and harvesting the resources is less impactful than oil rigs and fracking etc. The electric car might still require materials made from oil. Are there alternatives to oil-based components? Edit: The view i want to change is my stance on the future of electric cars. That they are more enviromentally friendly in the short AND in the long run. That we can have modern car's without needing to use fossile fuel or oil.

t3_6q0gw0

CMV: Vaccines should be mandatory for everyone who can take them

I know this has been posted before, but the posts have been archived, and I didn't find anything that would change my view, mostly because the nature of the responses is usually in the lines of "but no-one should be allowed to say what you do or don't do to your body", and while that is a valid concern in the context of drugs and such, it doesn't apply when referring to actions that you take upon your body that will have an effect on others. For instance, "no-one should be allowed to say what you can or can't put inside your body" isn't a reasonable argument for drinking and driving, or performing surgery under the influence of drugs. In the end, these are the facts: when you don't take your vaccines, you don't just open yourself up to the possibility of contracting the disease, you're also putting people who can't take the vaccine at risk. Again, it's like the drink and drive scenario: you're allowed to take a risk by yourself, but not when you're also putting other people at risk. As for vaccinating your children, well, if you were to not feed them based on your belief that food is the creation of big companies, or that the government is using it for population control, it doesn't matter what your belief is. And it's even worse because of the problem above: it's not only putting your child at risk (which you already shouldn't have the right to do), it's also putting other kids at risk, for instance the ones that are too young to get vaccinated. One final argument that has been made against it is the idea that you can't punish people for not taking their antibiotics correctly, for instance, even if they, too, are putting people at risk. But the thing is: just because you can't make sure that a driver has slept in the last 24 hours you don't lift the ban on drunk drivers. Checking vaccines is easily doable, while checking that people are correctly treating their diseases isn't that straight forward. Well, 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: Vaccines should be mandatory for everyone who can take them. I know this has been posted before, but the posts have been archived, and I didn't find anything that would change my view, mostly because the nature of the responses is usually in the lines of "but no-one should be allowed to say what you do or don't do to your body", and while that is a valid concern in the context of drugs and such, it doesn't apply when referring to actions that you take upon your body that will have an effect on others. For instance, "no-one should be allowed to say what you can or can't put inside your body" isn't a reasonable argument for drinking and driving, or performing surgery under the influence of drugs. In the end, these are the facts: when you don't take your vaccines, you don't just open yourself up to the possibility of contracting the disease, you're also putting people who can't take the vaccine at risk. Again, it's like the drink and drive scenario: you're allowed to take a risk by yourself, but not when you're also putting other people at risk. As for vaccinating your children, well, if you were to not feed them based on your belief that food is the creation of big companies, or that the government is using it for population control, it doesn't matter what your belief is. And it's even worse because of the problem above: it's not only putting your child at risk (which you already shouldn't have the right to do), it's also putting other kids at risk, for instance the ones that are too young to get vaccinated. One final argument that has been made against it is the idea that you can't punish people for not taking their antibiotics correctly, for instance, even if they, too, are putting people at risk. But the thing is: just because you can't make sure that a driver has slept in the last 24 hours you don't lift the ban on drunk drivers. Checking vaccines is easily doable, while checking that people are correctly treating their diseases isn't that straight forward. Well, change my view.

t3_1kxtw4

I think it's inappropriate to breastfeed in public when the breast/nipple are fully exposed. CMV

I have no issues with breastfeeding in public when those covers are used, or some effort is made to cover up. Its the women who whip out their breast, nipple and all, that I think is not appropriate. To those who say "well, its natural", well sex is natural, so is urinating, but society has certain rules about what "natural" things are to be done in private. To those who say "the breasts evolved for breastfeeding, not to be sexual organs", while that may be true, we are at a point in society where breasts are in fact sexual, whether you like it or not. Most cities have laws about women walking around topless. If you don't agree with that, change the law, I have no problem with that, but as it stands right now, breasts are sexual organs, and even though the act of breast feeding is not sexual, it still exposes the breast. The penis is a sexual organ, but we still frown upon people urinating in public, even if they did it in a clean, hygenic manner. CMV

I think it's inappropriate to breastfeed in public when the breast/nipple are fully exposed. CMV. I have no issues with breastfeeding in public when those covers are used, or some effort is made to cover up. Its the women who whip out their breast, nipple and all, that I think is not appropriate. To those who say "well, its natural", well sex is natural, so is urinating, but society has certain rules about what "natural" things are to be done in private. To those who say "the breasts evolved for breastfeeding, not to be sexual organs", while that may be true, we are at a point in society where breasts are in fact sexual, whether you like it or not. Most cities have laws about women walking around topless. If you don't agree with that, change the law, I have no problem with that, but as it stands right now, breasts are sexual organs, and even though the act of breast feeding is not sexual, it still exposes the breast. The penis is a sexual organ, but we still frown upon people urinating in public, even if they did it in a clean, hygenic manner. CMV

t3_1sqif6

I believe that Free Will is an entirely incoherent concept. CMV.

If we center our discussion of free will around a definition that depends on the primacy of agency, free will makes no sense. In a naturalistic world (which is what I believe in, based on all empirical evidence and general reasoning), all actions have a sufficient physical cause. This means that the action of picking up my phone was generated NOT by a "magical, non-physical mental desire/thought" but rather by my neurological make-up. In a completely physically causal world, not only is the idea of a "mental agent" (one who is the conscious author of one's own thoughts and actions) superfluous, it is impossible - how can non-physical things interact with physical things. It is my firm belief that this all engulfing web of causality swallows any concept of agency and thus renders any belief in free will false, and unintelligible. In other words, people who espouse a belief in free will are not even talking about a coherent concept - what do they mean by it? Consequences of this view ultimately lead to a profound commandment of compassion - if there is no free will, then in a certain "technical" sense, we ought to feel compassion for the actions of others; they are entirely out of their control in an important way.

I believe that Free Will is an entirely incoherent concept. CMV. If we center our discussion of free will around a definition that depends on the primacy of agency, free will makes no sense. In a naturalistic world (which is what I believe in, based on all empirical evidence and general reasoning), all actions have a sufficient physical cause. This means that the action of picking up my phone was generated NOT by a "magical, non-physical mental desire/thought" but rather by my neurological make-up. In a completely physically causal world, not only is the idea of a "mental agent" (one who is the conscious author of one's own thoughts and actions) superfluous, it is impossible - how can non-physical things interact with physical things. It is my firm belief that this all engulfing web of causality swallows any concept of agency and thus renders any belief in free will false, and unintelligible. In other words, people who espouse a belief in free will are not even talking about a coherent concept - what do they mean by it? Consequences of this view ultimately lead to a profound commandment of compassion - if there is no free will, then in a certain "technical" sense, we ought to feel compassion for the actions of others; they are entirely out of their control in an important way.

t3_1tqeuz

I believe that if murder were to become legal, that the murder rate would not significantly increased. CMV!

To clarify, this is a hypothetical situation, and by no stretch of the imagination do I believe that murder *should* be legal. Also in this situation this would be the only law to change, any other acts (i.e. torture) would still remain illegal. First and foremost, murder is usually a crime of passion, it happens in a moment when someone loses control. I don't believe the law generally prevents this, it only serves to punish those who do it (rightfully so). Secondly, I believe that our morals come from within and not from the law, we determine (generally) that murder is wrong and that we should not do it. Having a law to prevent it only minorly limits the number of cases. You can look at countries with sky-high murder rates, such as Honduras, where murder is still illegal but is rampant. This is a result of social issues, as it would be anywhere else. On that topic I must admit that gang violence would probably increase, but again that is a result of social issues. This is mainly why I use the word *significantly* in my original point, because it would increase in these such areas but that would not be a huge amount in the total population. Aside from situations such as gang violence there would only be a minor increase. Edit: It has been brought to my attention that I should have used another term, such as manslaughter, instead of murder. My bad!

I believe that if murder were to become legal, that the murder rate would not significantly increased. CMV!. To clarify, this is a hypothetical situation, and by no stretch of the imagination do I believe that murder *should* be legal. Also in this situation this would be the only law to change, any other acts (i.e. torture) would still remain illegal. First and foremost, murder is usually a crime of passion, it happens in a moment when someone loses control. I don't believe the law generally prevents this, it only serves to punish those who do it (rightfully so). Secondly, I believe that our morals come from within and not from the law, we determine (generally) that murder is wrong and that we should not do it. Having a law to prevent it only minorly limits the number of cases. You can look at countries with sky-high murder rates, such as Honduras, where murder is still illegal but is rampant. This is a result of social issues, as it would be anywhere else. On that topic I must admit that gang violence would probably increase, but again that is a result of social issues. This is mainly why I use the word *significantly* in my original point, because it would increase in these such areas but that would not be a huge amount in the total population. Aside from situations such as gang violence there would only be a minor increase. Edit: It has been brought to my attention that I should have used another term, such as manslaughter, instead of murder. My bad!

t3_4s7hfl

CMV: "All Lives Matter" is not racist, in fact, it fights an evil much larger than the issue of "black lives"

Okay, so there is so much drama I am seeing on facebook and reddit about how it is racist to say "All lives matter". "All lives matter" is certainly racist when it is your response to "Black lives matter". In and of itself, however, "All lives matter" takes a greater stand against injustice than "Black lives matter" does. "All lives matter" is bigger than just discrimination against a race, it addresses the issue of oppression all citizens face. All people in America, and many other developed nations are enslaved to capitalist economies. Using America as our prime example, every facet of their society is about maximizing profits (even at the expense of their citizens well-being). Their education, healthcare, and so on is about making money. Their elections are rigged by corporate lobbying, and their population is subjected to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. If everyone in America ("All lives matter") was not treated like a slave population, where their sole purpose is to work 9-5 to make just enough money to scrape by every month for survival, perhaps there would not be so much violence amongst citizens. Solving the oppression issue in America would solve discriminatory issues that Black Lives face. In america, we are all slaves, some people (white people) just hold higher status. But do not be fooled, white or black, rich or poor, we all run on treadmills generating money for corporations. Very few people exist outside the capitalist system. IMO: All lives matter more than just black lives (or women lives, or LGBQT lives), because even once black people are "equals", we will all still face this more oppressive evil. IF WE SOLVE THE ISSUES (like CAPITALISM) THAT AFFECT ALL PEOPLE, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE FEW WOULD FADE AWAY. When people are happy, and they feel like their lives have meaning beyond working 9-5 to survive, people will not treat others the same as they do now. We are the slaves of the 21st century. Slavery can exist in more forms than the slavery Black people faced. Today, slavery does not shackle the body, it shackles the mind. And by being a working/consuming citizen, by accepting what the media tells us blindly, we are adhering to our masters.

CMV: "All Lives Matter" is not racist, in fact, it fights an evil much larger than the issue of "black lives". Okay, so there is so much drama I am seeing on facebook and reddit about how it is racist to say "All lives matter". "All lives matter" is certainly racist when it is your response to "Black lives matter". In and of itself, however, "All lives matter" takes a greater stand against injustice than "Black lives matter" does. "All lives matter" is bigger than just discrimination against a race, it addresses the issue of oppression all citizens face. All people in America, and many other developed nations are enslaved to capitalist economies. Using America as our prime example, every facet of their society is about maximizing profits (even at the expense of their citizens well-being). Their education, healthcare, and so on is about making money. Their elections are rigged by corporate lobbying, and their population is subjected to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. If everyone in America ("All lives matter") was not treated like a slave population, where their sole purpose is to work 9-5 to make just enough money to scrape by every month for survival, perhaps there would not be so much violence amongst citizens. Solving the oppression issue in America would solve discriminatory issues that Black Lives face. In america, we are all slaves, some people (white people) just hold higher status. But do not be fooled, white or black, rich or poor, we all run on treadmills generating money for corporations. Very few people exist outside the capitalist system. IMO: All lives matter more than just black lives (or women lives, or LGBQT lives), because even once black people are "equals", we will all still face this more oppressive evil. IF WE SOLVE THE ISSUES (like CAPITALISM) THAT AFFECT ALL PEOPLE, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE FEW WOULD FADE AWAY. When people are happy, and they feel like their lives have meaning beyond working 9-5 to survive, people will not treat others the same as they do now. We are the slaves of the 21st century. Slavery can exist in more forms than the slavery Black people faced. Today, slavery does not shackle the body, it shackles the mind. And by being a working/consuming citizen, by accepting what the media tells us blindly, we are adhering to our masters.

t3_4lucb7

CMV: The US minimum wage should not be raised to $15/hour.

So maybe an economists or someone can help me see the logic behind $15 minimum wage. I understand that the current min. wage is not enough to live on. I get that, but if you raise the min. wage then you greatly increase inflation and in a few years we'll be paying $8 for a gallon of milk etc. Most of the time min. wage is for unskilled labor that by definition almost anyone can do. I am not hating against the min. wage workers, but McDonald's could replace cashier jobs with machines if wages became that much. I know we have a low min. wage, but at least we don't pay 22% sales tax (like Italy). They pay over $6 a gallon for gas there as well. Someone please help me understand this argument in a way that takes massive inflation into account. Thank you!

CMV: The US minimum wage should not be raised to $15/hour. So maybe an economists or someone can help me see the logic behind $15 minimum wage. I understand that the current min. wage is not enough to live on. I get that, but if you raise the min. wage then you greatly increase inflation and in a few years we'll be paying $8 for a gallon of milk etc. Most of the time min. wage is for unskilled labor that by definition almost anyone can do. I am not hating against the min. wage workers, but McDonald's could replace cashier jobs with machines if wages became that much. I know we have a low min. wage, but at least we don't pay 22% sales tax (like Italy). They pay over $6 a gallon for gas there as well. Someone please help me understand this argument in a way that takes massive inflation into account. Thank you!

t3_52mvby

CMV: "Common sense" gun control terminology is meaningless and not in fact common sense.

Gun Control is a relatively hot button issue for many voters. In fact, it even splits up a relatively liberal Democrat party on this specific issue. "Common Sense" gun laws refer to universal background checks, a federal gun registry, an "assault weapons" ban, and other proposed gun legislation that is deemed to be "common sense." I believe that anyone who says the words "I want to pass common sense gun control" uses that term because they think anyone that disagrees with their version of common sense is stupid. There is no such thing as common sense when it comes to guns as your views are entirely subjective. So, whether you're a gun enthusiast circle-jerking with your buddies about the new AR-15 or the anti-gun activist who can't tell the difference between a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon, the term common sense is completely different. I will award a delta if you can convince me of any of these things 1) Calling them "common sense" gun laws does not demonize anyone who disagrees as not having any common sense. 2) There are laws that, when practiced and not just floated around, are common sense. 3) "Common sense" gun laws are beneficial to the US and are therefore sensible. _____ > *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: "Common sense" gun control terminology is meaningless and not in fact common sense. Gun Control is a relatively hot button issue for many voters. In fact, it even splits up a relatively liberal Democrat party on this specific issue. "Common Sense" gun laws refer to universal background checks, a federal gun registry, an "assault weapons" ban, and other proposed gun legislation that is deemed to be "common sense." I believe that anyone who says the words "I want to pass common sense gun control" uses that term because they think anyone that disagrees with their version of common sense is stupid. There is no such thing as common sense when it comes to guns as your views are entirely subjective. So, whether you're a gun enthusiast circle-jerking with your buddies about the new AR-15 or the anti-gun activist who can't tell the difference between a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon, the term common sense is completely different. I will award a delta if you can convince me of any of these things 1) Calling them "common sense" gun laws does not demonize anyone who disagrees as not having any common sense. 2) There are laws that, when practiced and not just floated around, are common sense. 3) "Common sense" gun laws are beneficial to the US and are therefore sensible.

t3_2e9itd

CMV: If you are non-native...write it down, its mandatory.

If you are non-native English speaker whose mother-tongue is not English on first or even second language, or started learning English older than 12 years old or something, which makes your English always has possibility of flaw in some way or other from grammar to vocab to spelling, write it down, its mandatory. If you are non-native English who is living in country where English is far from public language, and your lifestyle is not in anyway related to that of English, and you speak English in real life more than once or twice a month, write it down, its mandatory. The reason for first one is that grammatical error can cause misleading sentence, misunderstanding of contextual meaning and it distorts the healthy discussion into nest of grammar nazi kinda species. One sentence of "Im not a native, sorry" can mitigate the whole misunderstanding coming from your wording error and prevent people to quote your wording to support his strawman argument. The reason for second one is that perfect English language and conversation should packs with understanding of English culture and English people's thought. Every word has its own nuances that rooted in English culture and native people from China or Arab may not fully & correctly understand some of it, thus misinterpretation can occur. One sentence "Im from China" can this prevent misconception for the sake of healthy conversation. Now you know when I said *its mandatory* I've exaggerated what I'm saying. The whole context of this idea is that non-native English speaker who admit flaw in their English capability should in some way clarify that point to prevent misunderstanding. Yes I'm from Asia, I'm not native at all. CMV **EDIT**; After re-reading my whole passage I find a good example of mistakenly written English is already there...on second paragraph I wrote **public language** which was literal translation of a word from my language equivalent to **common language**. This is why, what title said, its important. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If you are non-native...write it down, its mandatory. If you are non-native English speaker whose mother-tongue is not English on first or even second language, or started learning English older than 12 years old or something, which makes your English always has possibility of flaw in some way or other from grammar to vocab to spelling, write it down, its mandatory. If you are non-native English who is living in country where English is far from public language, and your lifestyle is not in anyway related to that of English, and you speak English in real life more than once or twice a month, write it down, its mandatory. The reason for first one is that grammatical error can cause misleading sentence, misunderstanding of contextual meaning and it distorts the healthy discussion into nest of grammar nazi kinda species. One sentence of "Im not a native, sorry" can mitigate the whole misunderstanding coming from your wording error and prevent people to quote your wording to support his strawman argument. The reason for second one is that perfect English language and conversation should packs with understanding of English culture and English people's thought. Every word has its own nuances that rooted in English culture and native people from China or Arab may not fully & correctly understand some of it, thus misinterpretation can occur. One sentence "Im from China" can this prevent misconception for the sake of healthy conversation. Now you know when I said *its mandatory* I've exaggerated what I'm saying. The whole context of this idea is that non-native English speaker who admit flaw in their English capability should in some way clarify that point to prevent misunderstanding. Yes I'm from Asia, I'm not native at all. CMV **EDIT**; After re-reading my whole passage I find a good example of mistakenly written English is already there...on second paragraph I wrote **public language** which was literal translation of a word from my language equivalent to **common language**. This is why, what title said, its important.

t3_4qo89c

CMV: Reddit's administration has all rights to censor discussion at any given point.

I've been ~~mildly annoyed~~ incredibly frustrated by people pissing and moaning about Reddit (the admins/adminstration) censoring discussion. There's a few reasons why, but I'll try and keep it simple: 1. To begin, the adminstration is *the* top of the hierarchy. It's kind of like the Supreme Court, in that any decision made by them is final, and that is a good thing. While they may make poor choices from time to time (like the Victoria fiasco last year), they are generally good at keeping Reddit a fine place. 2. This mainly applies to particular subs that ~~worship~~ support an orange tuff of hair. Anyways, the fact that they're complaining about 'censorship' is pretty ridiculous, given that their place of discourse is based on what the admins are running. Having a subreddit really isn't a right, but more of a privilege. All subreddits must follow the ground rules that the administration has put in place, and if the subreddit breaks those rules, then administration is justified in stopping or terminating it. Hell, adminstration could remove a post on a whim if they don't like it. Call it bias or whatever you want, but it's your decision to base your discussion on Reddit. Mad or angry? Then go somewhere else to talk, like ~~4chan~~ or Voat. ---- Anyways, I apologize for my opinion turning into a rant at the end. It's just that I've seen this sort of shit happen on a lot of other forums, and it's frustrating. However, I'm of the belief that it's not all sunshine and rainbows in this. So, 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: Reddit's administration has all rights to censor discussion at any given point. I've been ~~mildly annoyed~~ incredibly frustrated by people pissing and moaning about Reddit (the admins/adminstration) censoring discussion. There's a few reasons why, but I'll try and keep it simple: 1. To begin, the adminstration is *the* top of the hierarchy. It's kind of like the Supreme Court, in that any decision made by them is final, and that is a good thing. While they may make poor choices from time to time (like the Victoria fiasco last year), they are generally good at keeping Reddit a fine place. 2. This mainly applies to particular subs that ~~worship~~ support an orange tuff of hair. Anyways, the fact that they're complaining about 'censorship' is pretty ridiculous, given that their place of discourse is based on what the admins are running. Having a subreddit really isn't a right, but more of a privilege. All subreddits must follow the ground rules that the administration has put in place, and if the subreddit breaks those rules, then administration is justified in stopping or terminating it. Hell, adminstration could remove a post on a whim if they don't like it. Call it bias or whatever you want, but it's your decision to base your discussion on Reddit. Mad or angry? Then go somewhere else to talk, like ~~4chan~~ or Voat. ---- Anyways, I apologize for my opinion turning into a rant at the end. It's just that I've seen this sort of shit happen on a lot of other forums, and it's frustrating. However, I'm of the belief that it's not all sunshine and rainbows in this. So, CMV.

t3_20e17z

I believe that sociopaths should be considered a baseline for the human condition, not an outlier. CMV.

I was thinking about people's happiness after being subjected to a "so-and-so's life isn't even that bad, they should stop complaining" speech from a friend, and I decided that it really has to do more with mental state than a person's actual situation. A very happy or positive person can remain cheery in hellish situation while a depressed individual might cry in heaven. And after thinking a bit longer I came to this conclusion: I think of the lack of emotions, total sociopathy or psychopathy, is the perfect middle between the manic emotions and depressive emotions, such as joy or loneliness respectfully, thus making them emotional medians, not outliers. Going back to my though process above, only these medians would be able to have an unbiased observation of a situation, not effected positively or negatively. They are a perfect zero on the emotional scale, not venturing downward into the negative numbers representing depressive emotions, or upward into the positive numbers representing manic emotions. And this is how it should be measured, not as values for a person's level of sociopathy but instead values of emotional drive or capacity, where sociopaths are a perfectly acceptably zero.

I believe that sociopaths should be considered a baseline for the human condition, not an outlier. CMV. I was thinking about people's happiness after being subjected to a "so-and-so's life isn't even that bad, they should stop complaining" speech from a friend, and I decided that it really has to do more with mental state than a person's actual situation. A very happy or positive person can remain cheery in hellish situation while a depressed individual might cry in heaven. And after thinking a bit longer I came to this conclusion: I think of the lack of emotions, total sociopathy or psychopathy, is the perfect middle between the manic emotions and depressive emotions, such as joy or loneliness respectfully, thus making them emotional medians, not outliers. Going back to my though process above, only these medians would be able to have an unbiased observation of a situation, not effected positively or negatively. They are a perfect zero on the emotional scale, not venturing downward into the negative numbers representing depressive emotions, or upward into the positive numbers representing manic emotions. And this is how it should be measured, not as values for a person's level of sociopathy but instead values of emotional drive or capacity, where sociopaths are a perfectly acceptably zero.

t3_1slt8c

I believe that homework doesn't help students learn or understand a subject. CMV.

I've never seen someone benefit from homework. While I'll admit, the homework and grading system schools have implemented is pretty well thought out, homework has absolutely no value other than a grade. Most people argue, saying that homework gives a student opportunity to practice what they've learned. However, what I've noticed is that more students come back to school with blank papers and lots of questions; students seem to lose the knowledge they learned they day before, and can't implement it when actually attempting homework. I've seen many students stressed to the point of tears because of homework they can't understand. Not to mention, if kids take 6-8 classes, that's 6-8 classes they are getting homework in, and 6-8 homework assignments they have to complete in one night. High school students also come back to school with half done papers because teachers decide to assign massive outlines or big packets to do in a matter of couple nights. I am not saying that it's OK for students to give up on homework because they don't care, but homework sometimes burns out kids. Massive assignments sometimes take a whole night to finish alone, and no student wants to spend a whole night doing nothing but homework. The average student isn't going to have that kind of work ethic; maybe a few kids will be able to stick it out, but most will eventually abandon it. How is a student supposed to learn from an assignment when they can't even get through it all? The most apparent point is that even after students complete their homework, most don't learn from what they've done. You can give a class of 30 students homework assignments for a week, but most of the knowledge comes from a teacher actually giving a lecture, or a student studying on their own time. Students only do homework because they need the grade to move on in their life, they aren't learning anything from it. Many teachers hope that making their students write a word ten times each will help them to memorize it, but students will glaze over what they're writing, and finish the assignment without knowing a thing. TL;DR: I believe homework doesn't help students because 1) Some students don't understand the subject enough to even complete the homework 2) Some students don't complete homework because teachers assign lengthy assignments in a short amount of time 3) Even after spending a whole night on homework, some students still just don't gather anything from doing it, and just complete it for a grade Homework isn't really good for anything except giving students grades to be judged on. It doesn't benefit anyone in the end, and leaves students with less time for any other important factors in their lives. Homework is basically sheets of paper designed to keep students busy after school. **CMV**

I believe that homework doesn't help students learn or understand a subject. CMV. I've never seen someone benefit from homework. While I'll admit, the homework and grading system schools have implemented is pretty well thought out, homework has absolutely no value other than a grade. Most people argue, saying that homework gives a student opportunity to practice what they've learned. However, what I've noticed is that more students come back to school with blank papers and lots of questions; students seem to lose the knowledge they learned they day before, and can't implement it when actually attempting homework. I've seen many students stressed to the point of tears because of homework they can't understand. Not to mention, if kids take 6-8 classes, that's 6-8 classes they are getting homework in, and 6-8 homework assignments they have to complete in one night. High school students also come back to school with half done papers because teachers decide to assign massive outlines or big packets to do in a matter of couple nights. I am not saying that it's OK for students to give up on homework because they don't care, but homework sometimes burns out kids. Massive assignments sometimes take a whole night to finish alone, and no student wants to spend a whole night doing nothing but homework. The average student isn't going to have that kind of work ethic; maybe a few kids will be able to stick it out, but most will eventually abandon it. How is a student supposed to learn from an assignment when they can't even get through it all? The most apparent point is that even after students complete their homework, most don't learn from what they've done. You can give a class of 30 students homework assignments for a week, but most of the knowledge comes from a teacher actually giving a lecture, or a student studying on their own time. Students only do homework because they need the grade to move on in their life, they aren't learning anything from it. Many teachers hope that making their students write a word ten times each will help them to memorize it, but students will glaze over what they're writing, and finish the assignment without knowing a thing. TL;DR: I believe homework doesn't help students because 1) Some students don't understand the subject enough to even complete the homework 2) Some students don't complete homework because teachers assign lengthy assignments in a short amount of time 3) Even after spending a whole night on homework, some students still just don't gather anything from doing it, and just complete it for a grade Homework isn't really good for anything except giving students grades to be judged on. It doesn't benefit anyone in the end, and leaves students with less time for any other important factors in their lives. Homework is basically sheets of paper designed to keep students busy after school. **CMV**

t3_2mmfrd

CMV: I should have gone to Space Camp when I was a kid.

Back in the late 90s and early 2000s I always wanted to go to Space Camp (the official NASA one in Mobile, Alabama). I used to see commercials for it on TV and they made it look like the coolest, most fun thing ever. However, my parents would always tell me that I couldn't go whenever I asked them about it. I don't exactly know their reasoning for it (they used to tell me that I could go if I got good grades and then tell me that they never said so) but in any case, I feel like should have gotten to go. Basically there's only one way to change my view. Convince me that Space Camp wasn't all it's cracked up to be. (I'm thinking it might be significantly lamer now than it was back then due to budget cuts, but I want you to convince me that it sucked back then) Arguments about my parents' wishes aren't going to convince me by the way. _____ > *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 should have gone to Space Camp when I was a kid. Back in the late 90s and early 2000s I always wanted to go to Space Camp (the official NASA one in Mobile, Alabama). I used to see commercials for it on TV and they made it look like the coolest, most fun thing ever. However, my parents would always tell me that I couldn't go whenever I asked them about it. I don't exactly know their reasoning for it (they used to tell me that I could go if I got good grades and then tell me that they never said so) but in any case, I feel like should have gotten to go. Basically there's only one way to change my view. Convince me that Space Camp wasn't all it's cracked up to be. (I'm thinking it might be significantly lamer now than it was back then due to budget cuts, but I want you to convince me that it sucked back then) Arguments about my parents' wishes aren't going to convince me by the way.

t3_5vdvg3

CMV: I would never date someone who smokes

My girlfriend and I have been arguing about this for some days. I maintain I'd never be with someone who smokes, not just because of the smell but also because I find it stupid. It's an addiction after all, and I would never spend my life with someone who is addicted. On the other hand, she says that you don't choose who you fall in love with, and considers that I would actually stay with the person if they start smoking while being with me. I think smoking is a deal-breaker for me, and being with someone who does something I really can't stand would not be possible. Is there any argument that can change my view, given my girlfriend's doesn't? Thank you.   EDIT. Forgot to mention I'm talking about someone who smokes DAILY.

CMV: I would never date someone who smokes. My girlfriend and I have been arguing about this for some days. I maintain I'd never be with someone who smokes, not just because of the smell but also because I find it stupid. It's an addiction after all, and I would never spend my life with someone who is addicted. On the other hand, she says that you don't choose who you fall in love with, and considers that I would actually stay with the person if they start smoking while being with me. I think smoking is a deal-breaker for me, and being with someone who does something I really can't stand would not be possible. Is there any argument that can change my view, given my girlfriend's doesn't? Thank you.   EDIT. Forgot to mention I'm talking about someone who smokes DAILY.

t3_282j9v

CMV: If a corporation causes a natural disaster that it is unable to repair, it should shut down

When a corporation causes a natural disaster, like TEPCO in [Fukushima](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster), or BP in the [Mexican Gulf](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill), it should be given a chance to reverse the damage. If it can't satisfactorily reverse a disaster it caused, it should be shut down. I think this would be a good idea because it puts "evolutionary pressure" on corporations. It would be an incentive for corporations to survive by being competent, rather than being the most cost-efficient. Going into the future you wouldn't have to worry as much about negligence with truly powerful but dangerous technologies because these corporations will have "evolved" to be very conscious of risks. CMV?

CMV: If a corporation causes a natural disaster that it is unable to repair, it should shut down. When a corporation causes a natural disaster, like TEPCO in [Fukushima](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster), or BP in the [Mexican Gulf](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill), it should be given a chance to reverse the damage. If it can't satisfactorily reverse a disaster it caused, it should be shut down. I think this would be a good idea because it puts "evolutionary pressure" on corporations. It would be an incentive for corporations to survive by being competent, rather than being the most cost-efficient. Going into the future you wouldn't have to worry as much about negligence with truly powerful but dangerous technologies because these corporations will have "evolved" to be very conscious of risks. CMV?

t3_28mdum

CMV: Christianity is the superior Abrahamic religion.

I believe that Christianity is better than Judaism and Islam. It seems that the themes and tenets of Christianity are far superior. Christianity is simply an improvement to Judaism, which focuses on the arbitrary rules of an overtly vengeful and hateful God, as outlined in Leviticus. Though I understand the Old Testament is part of Christianity, in the New Testament, Jesus dismisses the often ridiculous, hateful, and discriminatory rules of the OT. For example when a Pharisee asks Jesus if they should stone an adulterer (as Deuteronomy would demand), he says, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Jesus replaces these archaic rules with the idea that love, forgiveness, leading a good life, etc are what is important. He says this throughout many parables, for example "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you." Furthermore, Islam does not seem to contain these positive tenets, but instead promotes discrimination, sexism, and violence. While Christianity would tell you that you should love everyone and treat them well, e.g. in regards to serving god and going to heaven, Jesus says thanks the righteous for "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me," Judaism would tell you to stone sinners, and Islam to kill infidels. It seems that positive themes attributed to Islam and Judaism are entirely contrived and do not have basis in scripture, or have only a few isolated passages that support them. I know I unfairly picked examples to support my belief, but please change my view! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Christianity is the superior Abrahamic religion. I believe that Christianity is better than Judaism and Islam. It seems that the themes and tenets of Christianity are far superior. Christianity is simply an improvement to Judaism, which focuses on the arbitrary rules of an overtly vengeful and hateful God, as outlined in Leviticus. Though I understand the Old Testament is part of Christianity, in the New Testament, Jesus dismisses the often ridiculous, hateful, and discriminatory rules of the OT. For example when a Pharisee asks Jesus if they should stone an adulterer (as Deuteronomy would demand), he says, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Jesus replaces these archaic rules with the idea that love, forgiveness, leading a good life, etc are what is important. He says this throughout many parables, for example "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you." Furthermore, Islam does not seem to contain these positive tenets, but instead promotes discrimination, sexism, and violence. While Christianity would tell you that you should love everyone and treat them well, e.g. in regards to serving god and going to heaven, Jesus says thanks the righteous for "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me," Judaism would tell you to stone sinners, and Islam to kill infidels. It seems that positive themes attributed to Islam and Judaism are entirely contrived and do not have basis in scripture, or have only a few isolated passages that support them. I know I unfairly picked examples to support my belief, but please change my view! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1wmkxm

I Edit And "Fix" 90 Percent of My College Child's Written Assignments. She Has A Great GPA. I Don't Feel Guilty. CMV

So I am not sure exactly how we got here. I am smart, incredibly smart, and I always have been. What with the law of averages and all, the kids all turned out only 'well above average". Top 10 percent of course, on all IQ tests. Except the difference between top 10 percent, and what I score at, is a huge and gaping chasm. So with the help of tutors, and with a diagnosed "learning disability" that cost me $3,000. to, umm well, "diagnose", my kid managed to rock the SAT. Which promptly got her into an extremely competitive and high standards college. Even better, they gave her a full ride. No loans or debt, as long as she keeps her GPA above the line. Saving me about $50,000. net per year. As long as she keeps her grades up. Which is where the rubber hits the road. My kid could easily be an average student at her university. Average is not really part of our vocabulary. So she diligently does all her written assignments, and then sends them to me. I edit and improve them. It only takes me 30 minutes at most. Then I attach the corrected copy to email and send it back to her. I was kind of irritated this year, when I had to start editing and fixing group assignments. I would call my child up and say something like, "WTH!!! Doesn't student X know how to use spell check? Where did he get those stupid cites from?" She was stuck in a group assignment and a group grade. So was I. There is a 19 year old college freshman I would like to slap some sense into. It's not even my child. He got a fucking A in that class. I hope he appreciates our efforts. So the upshot is my kid has an incredible GPA, in an extremely competitive school, and her professors just adore her. Her most recent essay was singled out by the professor, and he read it to four different classes as an example of extremely good performance on that assignment. Glad he enjoys my writing. Too bad I have never met him and never will. Really pissed that next semester I have to read Moby Dick again. Hated it the first time. So I am pretty sure there is something wrong about this. Except there are so many things right. My kid keeps her scholarship, and walks out of college, and possibly later graduate school, debt free. Easiest money I have ever earned. She really is a smart and hard working student. She will go far. She just can't hit summa or magna cum laud in this college. Not without mom. So is it such a bad thing to bump her up the 10 or so points on every written assignment to get there? When it is so easy for me? In the real world of work, none of this really matters. My child actually does her assignments and is learning. Nope, aside from the aggravation factor for me, I'm not seeing a real problem here. CMV.

I Edit And "Fix" 90 Percent of My College Child's Written Assignments. She Has A Great GPA. I Don't Feel Guilty. CMV. So I am not sure exactly how we got here. I am smart, incredibly smart, and I always have been. What with the law of averages and all, the kids all turned out only 'well above average". Top 10 percent of course, on all IQ tests. Except the difference between top 10 percent, and what I score at, is a huge and gaping chasm. So with the help of tutors, and with a diagnosed "learning disability" that cost me $3,000. to, umm well, "diagnose", my kid managed to rock the SAT. Which promptly got her into an extremely competitive and high standards college. Even better, they gave her a full ride. No loans or debt, as long as she keeps her GPA above the line. Saving me about $50,000. net per year. As long as she keeps her grades up. Which is where the rubber hits the road. My kid could easily be an average student at her university. Average is not really part of our vocabulary. So she diligently does all her written assignments, and then sends them to me. I edit and improve them. It only takes me 30 minutes at most. Then I attach the corrected copy to email and send it back to her. I was kind of irritated this year, when I had to start editing and fixing group assignments. I would call my child up and say something like, "WTH!!! Doesn't student X know how to use spell check? Where did he get those stupid cites from?" She was stuck in a group assignment and a group grade. So was I. There is a 19 year old college freshman I would like to slap some sense into. It's not even my child. He got a fucking A in that class. I hope he appreciates our efforts. So the upshot is my kid has an incredible GPA, in an extremely competitive school, and her professors just adore her. Her most recent essay was singled out by the professor, and he read it to four different classes as an example of extremely good performance on that assignment. Glad he enjoys my writing. Too bad I have never met him and never will. Really pissed that next semester I have to read Moby Dick again. Hated it the first time. So I am pretty sure there is something wrong about this. Except there are so many things right. My kid keeps her scholarship, and walks out of college, and possibly later graduate school, debt free. Easiest money I have ever earned. She really is a smart and hard working student. She will go far. She just can't hit summa or magna cum laud in this college. Not without mom. So is it such a bad thing to bump her up the 10 or so points on every written assignment to get there? When it is so easy for me? In the real world of work, none of this really matters. My child actually does her assignments and is learning. Nope, aside from the aggravation factor for me, I'm not seeing a real problem here. CMV.

t3_6vc20r

CMV: Reputable sources should be fined for clickbait.

Let's face it, clickbait titles are ruining online journalism, often with the titles being exaggerated to the point of being misleading. I know this is a problem everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent but in Portugal at least it has reached absurdity, which very reputable newspaper deliberately misguiding readers with over-the-top titles, or other forms of clickbait (i.e. a quote saying "the government should fall" with the picture of the president, making it seem like it was his quote when it was not, or a title about a terrorist attack with a picture of the capital, when the attack was not even on the country). I understand that clickbait gives revenue and if a news site does not do so, it will lose it's viewers to the competition and possibly even shut down, which is exactly why a clickbait law is needed. How do we stop this? A fine is the obvious choice, although it does come with some minor problems. It is unreasonable to give clickbait fines to every website. A simple solution would be to focus on the "reputable newspapers" but how do you define which newspapers are reputable and which are not? My idea is that every news site will have the possibility of being deemed "reputable" by making a small payment (to filter out smaller websites with less capital). Those who do not take the time to do so, will have a small "ad bar" or warning sign saying "please keep in mind this website is not under the clickbait law (actual message can vary of course)". The website who have this ad bar will not be under the clickbait law, but most serious news pages will not be ok with having such a banner, so they will pay to remove it, making them subject to the clickbait law. (Some of the details are not quite there, but I hope the point gets across). This is the method I thought of, but I am not defending this method in particular, only that clickbait should have some repercussions in general. Also, feel free to give my method constructive criticism, but the delta only goes to the people who convince me clickbait is "acceptable". Edit: Examples of clickbait 1 - https://www.dinheirovivo.pt/buzz/vulcao-dos-capelinhos-pode-alimentar-carros-eletricos/ Title: Capelinhos volcano can power electric cars. (21-8-2017) The article talks about a study (not cited) which was conducted in High Rock, Yellowstone and la Primavera, and only mentions volcanos of a VEI (volcanic explosive index) of 7 and 8, which only includes a select few volcanos in the world, and does not include Calelinhos. The title in this article is a blatant LIE and nothing in the article supports the title. The title only exists to attract views (aka clickbait). 2- https://www.abola.pt/Nnh/Noticias/Ver/687631 Title: Football clubs want to end the "video-referee". The article was published in a portuguese newspaper, featuring portuguese teams on the thumbnail. Only when you click on the article do you realise the news is from Belgium. The image was chosen clearly to misinform and the title could have easily mentioned Belgium, but it did not. This is a more mild case of clickbait, and nowhere as serious as in the first example. 16-08-2017

CMV: Reputable sources should be fined for clickbait. Let's face it, clickbait titles are ruining online journalism, often with the titles being exaggerated to the point of being misleading. I know this is a problem everywhere, to a greater or lesser extent but in Portugal at least it has reached absurdity, which very reputable newspaper deliberately misguiding readers with over-the-top titles, or other forms of clickbait (i.e. a quote saying "the government should fall" with the picture of the president, making it seem like it was his quote when it was not, or a title about a terrorist attack with a picture of the capital, when the attack was not even on the country). I understand that clickbait gives revenue and if a news site does not do so, it will lose it's viewers to the competition and possibly even shut down, which is exactly why a clickbait law is needed. How do we stop this? A fine is the obvious choice, although it does come with some minor problems. It is unreasonable to give clickbait fines to every website. A simple solution would be to focus on the "reputable newspapers" but how do you define which newspapers are reputable and which are not? My idea is that every news site will have the possibility of being deemed "reputable" by making a small payment (to filter out smaller websites with less capital). Those who do not take the time to do so, will have a small "ad bar" or warning sign saying "please keep in mind this website is not under the clickbait law (actual message can vary of course)". The website who have this ad bar will not be under the clickbait law, but most serious news pages will not be ok with having such a banner, so they will pay to remove it, making them subject to the clickbait law. (Some of the details are not quite there, but I hope the point gets across). This is the method I thought of, but I am not defending this method in particular, only that clickbait should have some repercussions in general. Also, feel free to give my method constructive criticism, but the delta only goes to the people who convince me clickbait is "acceptable". Edit: Examples of clickbait 1 - https://www.dinheirovivo.pt/buzz/vulcao-dos-capelinhos-pode-alimentar-carros-eletricos/ Title: Capelinhos volcano can power electric cars. (21-8-2017) The article talks about a study (not cited) which was conducted in High Rock, Yellowstone and la Primavera, and only mentions volcanos of a VEI (volcanic explosive index) of 7 and 8, which only includes a select few volcanos in the world, and does not include Calelinhos. The title in this article is a blatant LIE and nothing in the article supports the title. The title only exists to attract views (aka clickbait). 2- https://www.abola.pt/Nnh/Noticias/Ver/687631 Title: Football clubs want to end the "video-referee". The article was published in a portuguese newspaper, featuring portuguese teams on the thumbnail. Only when you click on the article do you realise the news is from Belgium. The image was chosen clearly to misinform and the title could have easily mentioned Belgium, but it did not. This is a more mild case of clickbait, and nowhere as serious as in the first example. 16-08-2017

t3_5cvsed

CMV: Samuel L. Jackson's character in Kingsman: The Secret Service is actually the "good guy".

So I watch Kingsman quite a while ago and remember thinking afterwards how its was funny that by saving the world Eggsy and Co. may have actually doomed the world. With Valentines plan foiled, global warming would in how many number of years destroy the Earth and human life along with it. Eggsy is not only responsible for the billions of death that will result from global warming but also the billions of lives not not given the chance to live because the human race has become extinct. Therefore Valentine seems to me as the "good guy" as he is going to save the human race and prevent death of billions of people in future generations. I mean lets say that Valentine killed 7 billion or so people today and in doing so extended the life of this planet and human by say 10,000 years meaning the lot of people, maybe say 100 billion people, got to live and experience their lives. However when Eggsy saves the day, whilst 7 billion people may be spared, the human race may end 10,000 years early thus losing out on 100 billion people. Thats a net loss of 93 billion people, not mention those who die once the Earth is no longer habitable. I understand the way he went about it wasn't great and the people he chose for his "ark" maybe weren't the best choices but when its ether that or the end of the human race how can he be the bad guy? Anyway try and change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Samuel L. Jackson's character in Kingsman: The Secret Service is actually the "good guy". So I watch Kingsman quite a while ago and remember thinking afterwards how its was funny that by saving the world Eggsy and Co. may have actually doomed the world. With Valentines plan foiled, global warming would in how many number of years destroy the Earth and human life along with it. Eggsy is not only responsible for the billions of death that will result from global warming but also the billions of lives not not given the chance to live because the human race has become extinct. Therefore Valentine seems to me as the "good guy" as he is going to save the human race and prevent death of billions of people in future generations. I mean lets say that Valentine killed 7 billion or so people today and in doing so extended the life of this planet and human by say 10,000 years meaning the lot of people, maybe say 100 billion people, got to live and experience their lives. However when Eggsy saves the day, whilst 7 billion people may be spared, the human race may end 10,000 years early thus losing out on 100 billion people. Thats a net loss of 93 billion people, not mention those who die once the Earth is no longer habitable. I understand the way he went about it wasn't great and the people he chose for his "ark" maybe weren't the best choices but when its ether that or the end of the human race how can he be the bad guy? Anyway try and change my view.

t3_4a490b

CMV: people or organizations don't deserve my respect until it is earned

From the universal rules of this website to the golden rule, you're supposed to respect others. There are people and organizations that feel entitled to my respect. LGTB for example. I'm not opposed to homosexuality but I certainly have no obligation to endorse it or respect it. A motorcycle club is another orgabization that has people in it that feel they are entitled to respect. The rappers also to the point they are egomaniacs. They are a non-thought for me most of the time. I value my respect. I don't believe it should just be given to everybody like we are socially expected to do. I don't believe military and LEO should have blanket respect just because we're supposed to. If an individual makes an effort to earn my respect, I reciprocate until we have a mutual respect. There are a lot of people out there who demand our attention and respect like BLM or Street gangs. I simply don't think they're worth the time of day let alone something I value such as respect. **edit** This is some of the most engaging, civil and thought provoking conversation I've ever had. My view isn't changed but I have a lot to chew on. Keep feeding it. Edit: My view hasn't changed but here is what I've taken away from this; People deserve inherent common decency. If you consider that respect, we disagree on the weight of the word. Short of common decency, nothing is owed to a group or individual... Especially something as valuable to me as respect. I still don't believe that being a disengaged apathetic non-party to a social issue is the same thing as being detrimental to the issue thus disrespecting it. I find that to be some incredible mental gymnastics. I think a non-thought is exactly how it reads. It's been great civil discussion with only 1 ad hominem cleverly disguised as an argument. Thanks guys... I respect those of you who have helped me grow a little ;) One of the most thought provoking and engaging comments was from /u/treypyro. > You're right, expecting everyone to actively support you is shitty behavior from the LGBT, BLM, NRA, religious groups, and lots of other groups and individuals. >On the other side of that coin is the dangers of apathy. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."-Edmund Burke. People in the LGBT community have been treated as sub-human for a very long time, they just want to have the same rights as everyone else. BLM wants the police to stop killing black people like it's going out of style. The NRA knows that our right to bear arms is extremely important in our country for a bunch of different reasons. All very noble causes. Being apathetic to those causes is letting it continue. It's not as simple as not picking a side and staying out if it. If a large group of people are standing around and 5 people start beating the shit out of one person and the rest of the group doesn't stop it. The 5 are definitely the most guilty. But the rest of the group just letting it happen, when they had the ability to stop it, is partially to blame. Apathy isn't harmless.

CMV: people or organizations don't deserve my respect until it is earned. From the universal rules of this website to the golden rule, you're supposed to respect others. There are people and organizations that feel entitled to my respect. LGTB for example. I'm not opposed to homosexuality but I certainly have no obligation to endorse it or respect it. A motorcycle club is another orgabization that has people in it that feel they are entitled to respect. The rappers also to the point they are egomaniacs. They are a non-thought for me most of the time. I value my respect. I don't believe it should just be given to everybody like we are socially expected to do. I don't believe military and LEO should have blanket respect just because we're supposed to. If an individual makes an effort to earn my respect, I reciprocate until we have a mutual respect. There are a lot of people out there who demand our attention and respect like BLM or Street gangs. I simply don't think they're worth the time of day let alone something I value such as respect. **edit** This is some of the most engaging, civil and thought provoking conversation I've ever had. My view isn't changed but I have a lot to chew on. Keep feeding it. Edit: My view hasn't changed but here is what I've taken away from this; People deserve inherent common decency. If you consider that respect, we disagree on the weight of the word. Short of common decency, nothing is owed to a group or individual... Especially something as valuable to me as respect. I still don't believe that being a disengaged apathetic non-party to a social issue is the same thing as being detrimental to the issue thus disrespecting it. I find that to be some incredible mental gymnastics. I think a non-thought is exactly how it reads. It's been great civil discussion with only 1 ad hominem cleverly disguised as an argument. Thanks guys... I respect those of you who have helped me grow a little ;) One of the most thought provoking and engaging comments was from /u/treypyro. > You're right, expecting everyone to actively support you is shitty behavior from the LGBT, BLM, NRA, religious groups, and lots of other groups and individuals. >On the other side of that coin is the dangers of apathy. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."-Edmund Burke. People in the LGBT community have been treated as sub-human for a very long time, they just want to have the same rights as everyone else. BLM wants the police to stop killing black people like it's going out of style. The NRA knows that our right to bear arms is extremely important in our country for a bunch of different reasons. All very noble causes. Being apathetic to those causes is letting it continue. It's not as simple as not picking a side and staying out if it. If a large group of people are standing around and 5 people start beating the shit out of one person and the rest of the group doesn't stop it. The 5 are definitely the most guilty. But the rest of the group just letting it happen, when they had the ability to stop it, is partially to blame. Apathy isn't harmless.

t3_1j0r1x

I believe suicides affects a lot more people that just the victim and therefore should be publicly stigmatized, CMV

I'm rather unhappy with the way society deals with suicide nowadays. If somebody kills themselves the typical media response is to express condolences for the victim, describe how terribly they suffered, lay blame on the victim's detractors and generally paint them as a hero. I disagree with this stance, I view suicide in cases outside of terminal illness to be an incredibly selfish act, since you're opting to end your own suffering at the expense of bringing suffering onto the lives if your friends and family, the people closest to you. This applies twofold if you're a parent or otherwise have dependents who rely on you. Furthermore, I believe this outright dangerous, as it implicitly suggests that suicide is a valid way of solving whatever issue you're having. If you're being bullied it's the ultimate revenge move, since your bullies are assured to have their lives ruined and possibly get into legal trouble. If you're in debt it's a fantastic way to get the public on your side and have your debts forgiven. This is a terrible message to send out, but unfortunately any sort of positive public response to someone's suicide is bound to send this message to those considering suicide themselves. The only solutions are to either sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't happen (which I think we can agree is bad since it won't make the issue go away) or to come out and collectively decry the deceased for being a selfish asshole who made their family suffer in such a way. I understand that those who kill themselves are unlikely to be making a fully rational decision, but I also know that nowadays plenty of resources are available for those suffering from depression or similar issues. Yes, I realize that collectively attacking a teenager who took their life is a dick move, but you can't hurt or help them either way, whereas you can definitely deter future victims by showing them that their cry for attention will not be met with universal posthumous praise.

I believe suicides affects a lot more people that just the victim and therefore should be publicly stigmatized, CMV. I'm rather unhappy with the way society deals with suicide nowadays. If somebody kills themselves the typical media response is to express condolences for the victim, describe how terribly they suffered, lay blame on the victim's detractors and generally paint them as a hero. I disagree with this stance, I view suicide in cases outside of terminal illness to be an incredibly selfish act, since you're opting to end your own suffering at the expense of bringing suffering onto the lives if your friends and family, the people closest to you. This applies twofold if you're a parent or otherwise have dependents who rely on you. Furthermore, I believe this outright dangerous, as it implicitly suggests that suicide is a valid way of solving whatever issue you're having. If you're being bullied it's the ultimate revenge move, since your bullies are assured to have their lives ruined and possibly get into legal trouble. If you're in debt it's a fantastic way to get the public on your side and have your debts forgiven. This is a terrible message to send out, but unfortunately any sort of positive public response to someone's suicide is bound to send this message to those considering suicide themselves. The only solutions are to either sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't happen (which I think we can agree is bad since it won't make the issue go away) or to come out and collectively decry the deceased for being a selfish asshole who made their family suffer in such a way. I understand that those who kill themselves are unlikely to be making a fully rational decision, but I also know that nowadays plenty of resources are available for those suffering from depression or similar issues. Yes, I realize that collectively attacking a teenager who took their life is a dick move, but you can't hurt or help them either way, whereas you can definitely deter future victims by showing them that their cry for attention will not be met with universal posthumous praise.

t3_22mh9x

CMV:I believe that being too sensitive when faced with questions has caused transsexuals to be considered outcasts.

____ I feel that because transsexuals are a fairly new community that has recently reached the mainstream consciousness (in the US), the rest of the country has a lot of questions. I often see interviews with transgendered people turning into the person being offended by the wrong usage of pronouns or questions about transgendered life (bathroom visits, partners responses to the transition, etc.). These are questions that straight people who have never met a transgendered person would have. In order to understand the culture these questions will come up, its not to berate or belittle the person. The more we understand the culture the easier it will be to integrate it. http://americablog.com/2014/02/cnns-piers-morgan-villified-amazingly-pro-transgender-interview.html Interactions like the link above show my point in how a simple dialog cannot be had, and the community instead attacks anyone who missteps boundaries that they didn't know existed. This tends to make the trans community alienate itself from the rest of the country and make them seem worse then I am sure they are. I was wondering if there is another side to this? Maybe someone from the trans community can help me out here. To clarify I am not anti-transsexual I just think the way they handle press is doing more harm then good. Update 4/10: Some of the statements in the comments made me rethink my stance on questions regarding GRS, genitalia and other obviously invasive questions targeting Transgendered people, I now know that those are wrong to ask in most situations unless you are very close personally to the individual you are asking. I still believe that something has to be done within the Trans community about their response to people who misuse pronouns on accident, or in other ways overstep boundaries that are not obviously apparent to the uninformed.

CMV:I believe that being too sensitive when faced with questions has caused transsexuals to be considered outcasts. ____ I feel that because transsexuals are a fairly new community that has recently reached the mainstream consciousness (in the US), the rest of the country has a lot of questions. I often see interviews with transgendered people turning into the person being offended by the wrong usage of pronouns or questions about transgendered life (bathroom visits, partners responses to the transition, etc.). These are questions that straight people who have never met a transgendered person would have. In order to understand the culture these questions will come up, its not to berate or belittle the person. The more we understand the culture the easier it will be to integrate it. http://americablog.com/2014/02/cnns-piers-morgan-villified-amazingly-pro-transgender-interview.html Interactions like the link above show my point in how a simple dialog cannot be had, and the community instead attacks anyone who missteps boundaries that they didn't know existed. This tends to make the trans community alienate itself from the rest of the country and make them seem worse then I am sure they are. I was wondering if there is another side to this? Maybe someone from the trans community can help me out here. To clarify I am not anti-transsexual I just think the way they handle press is doing more harm then good. Update 4/10: Some of the statements in the comments made me rethink my stance on questions regarding GRS, genitalia and other obviously invasive questions targeting Transgendered people, I now know that those are wrong to ask in most situations unless you are very close personally to the individual you are asking. I still believe that something has to be done within the Trans community about their response to people who misuse pronouns on accident, or in other ways overstep boundaries that are not obviously apparent to the uninformed.

t3_4gq1j4

CMV: We should disallow children from inheriting wealth from their parents, for it destroys meritocracy.

I have been thinking quite a bit about how broken meritocracy really is in today's society. In my view, the underpinning of any well functioning society is that it should nurture true meritocracy. All citizens, regardless of race, gender, or any other parameter, should have a level playing field in society. We acknowledge this in the work place and in daily life, which is why we have laws against racism, laws against discrimination, etc. However, we ignore one of the most important factors that give many people a "free ride". Inherited wealth. We are now in an era where the wealthy are rapidly becoming much more wealthier. I do not have an issue with wealth in itself, or even the fact that it is much easier for a wealthy person to become wealthier than for a poor person to become wealthy. However, I do have a big issue when an entire sub-section of children, the "trust fund kiddies" for example, do not have to compete with all the other kids to succeed in life and in society. Their trust funds and inherited wealth allows them to live a life and enjoy the benefits of wealth that they haven't earned and do not deserve. Being born to the right parents should not have anything to do with this. I feel that if we disallow children from inheriting wealth from their parents, it will make society more fair, most just, more of a level playing field for all. I even think all children should attend the same public schools and colleges which should be affordable to all, but that is a different point. Note, I am *not* holding a socialistic point of view here. In fact, I feel that true meritocracy is as important for a small government free market as much as it is for libertarians who believe that everyone should stand on their own feet and should carve out their own lives, as much as it applies to big government liberals or socialists who think that healthcare, food, education, basic needs etc. should be provided for free by the government. If anything, generational wealth is destroying the basic mechanism of a just and fair society.

CMV: We should disallow children from inheriting wealth from their parents, for it destroys meritocracy. I have been thinking quite a bit about how broken meritocracy really is in today's society. In my view, the underpinning of any well functioning society is that it should nurture true meritocracy. All citizens, regardless of race, gender, or any other parameter, should have a level playing field in society. We acknowledge this in the work place and in daily life, which is why we have laws against racism, laws against discrimination, etc. However, we ignore one of the most important factors that give many people a "free ride". Inherited wealth. We are now in an era where the wealthy are rapidly becoming much more wealthier. I do not have an issue with wealth in itself, or even the fact that it is much easier for a wealthy person to become wealthier than for a poor person to become wealthy. However, I do have a big issue when an entire sub-section of children, the "trust fund kiddies" for example, do not have to compete with all the other kids to succeed in life and in society. Their trust funds and inherited wealth allows them to live a life and enjoy the benefits of wealth that they haven't earned and do not deserve. Being born to the right parents should not have anything to do with this. I feel that if we disallow children from inheriting wealth from their parents, it will make society more fair, most just, more of a level playing field for all. I even think all children should attend the same public schools and colleges which should be affordable to all, but that is a different point. Note, I am *not* holding a socialistic point of view here. In fact, I feel that true meritocracy is as important for a small government free market as much as it is for libertarians who believe that everyone should stand on their own feet and should carve out their own lives, as much as it applies to big government liberals or socialists who think that healthcare, food, education, basic needs etc. should be provided for free by the government. If anything, generational wealth is destroying the basic mechanism of a just and fair society.

t3_24zm3k

CMV: Why crude humor is appropriate for people in their twenties to share on facebook, to have as a voicemail.

Hey! So here is the deal. I don't find crude humor funny at all. My ex-SO actually dumped be because I can't find crude humor appropriate for people our ages. I understand liking it in private but I can't see having voicemails that say "Fuck you my nigga" especially for a white guy. Same with crude humor I can understand liking shows like Family Guy or South Park but I can't understand sharing those with people online. To me it seems inappropriate. I blush at the idea of an employer seeing it. I know for a fact that my ex-SO would loose his job for some of the things he shares due to the character clause in his contract. I don't understand it. I get that it can be funny for people and I'm willing to sit through it for people who enjoy it but I don't understand publicly displaying it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Why crude humor is appropriate for people in their twenties to share on facebook, to have as a voicemail. Hey! So here is the deal. I don't find crude humor funny at all. My ex-SO actually dumped be because I can't find crude humor appropriate for people our ages. I understand liking it in private but I can't see having voicemails that say "Fuck you my nigga" especially for a white guy. Same with crude humor I can understand liking shows like Family Guy or South Park but I can't understand sharing those with people online. To me it seems inappropriate. I blush at the idea of an employer seeing it. I know for a fact that my ex-SO would loose his job for some of the things he shares due to the character clause in his contract. I don't understand it. I get that it can be funny for people and I'm willing to sit through it for people who enjoy it but I don't understand publicly displaying it.

t3_290h2c

CMV: In the absence of evidence, not only is it ok to choose whatever version of reality you want, but it's a sign of a healthy mind to choose the version that makes you happiest.

At the end of "The Life of Pi" the author provides you with an alternative, more realistic version of events. As apposed to the fantastical story involving being stranded at sea with a tiger, bumping into another stranded blind man in the middle of the ocean, and finding a moving carnivorous island populated with prairy dogs, the author paints a more sober and tragic picture of cruelty and loss. He then asks you to choose which one of those versions to accept as truth. Both versions lead to the same result with Pi in the same place. Neither version has any physical evidence to support it. (Note: in the movie, the actor playing Pi's delivery of the second version seems to be given with the interpretation that the second version is true. In the book it is much more ambiguous, left to the interpretation of the reader, and that's what I'm referring to.) Given that, there's no reason to choose to believe in the more cruel version as the "real" story. The more fantastical version is more beautiful, more interesting, and more fun, and so given the choice I don't see any reason why anyone would choose the version based on cruelty. As a more real world example, [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/28xepf/change_of_heart_found_at_supermarket/) post showed up in /r/vegan yesterday. Someone posted a picture of meat left on the tofu in the supermarket. Now there are three possible versions of events regarding this: 1) someone (as OP seems to have thought) changed their mind from meat to Tofu, selecting a more compassionate option, and decided to leave the meat behind. 2) Someone decided they didn't want the meat for whatever reason, and just put it down wherever they happened to be (on the Tofu). 3) As the majority of commentors seem to believe, someone, in an effort to irritate vegans, decided to intentionally and maliciously place meat on top of tofu for the lolz. We have no way of knowing which of those three versions of reality took place actually happened. There's no evidence one way or the other. All are perfectly plausible. Now, in terms of choosing what to believe, being "right", having guessed the one that actually happened, accomplishes nothing. It doesn't change anything, nor does it provide clarity or truth. And given that there's no way to know what actually happened, there's absolutely no reason to believe the more negative version of events. In fact, choosing to believe in the worst case scenario, the malicious act, is unhealthy. Conversely, choosing to believe in the best case scenario, a change of heart, or the neutral scenario, shows a much healthier and more positive state of mind. In certain situations, what actually happened is irrelevant. Truth can be irrelevant. In fact, when we choose to believe something, when there is no evidence to the contrary, we make it true. By believing in something, we give it power, and so we should believe in those things that are positive and good, that make us feel happy. To do otherwise is to choose pain and misery for it's own sake. 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: In the absence of evidence, not only is it ok to choose whatever version of reality you want, but it's a sign of a healthy mind to choose the version that makes you happiest. At the end of "The Life of Pi" the author provides you with an alternative, more realistic version of events. As apposed to the fantastical story involving being stranded at sea with a tiger, bumping into another stranded blind man in the middle of the ocean, and finding a moving carnivorous island populated with prairy dogs, the author paints a more sober and tragic picture of cruelty and loss. He then asks you to choose which one of those versions to accept as truth. Both versions lead to the same result with Pi in the same place. Neither version has any physical evidence to support it. (Note: in the movie, the actor playing Pi's delivery of the second version seems to be given with the interpretation that the second version is true. In the book it is much more ambiguous, left to the interpretation of the reader, and that's what I'm referring to.) Given that, there's no reason to choose to believe in the more cruel version as the "real" story. The more fantastical version is more beautiful, more interesting, and more fun, and so given the choice I don't see any reason why anyone would choose the version based on cruelty. As a more real world example, [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/28xepf/change_of_heart_found_at_supermarket/) post showed up in /r/vegan yesterday. Someone posted a picture of meat left on the tofu in the supermarket. Now there are three possible versions of events regarding this: 1) someone (as OP seems to have thought) changed their mind from meat to Tofu, selecting a more compassionate option, and decided to leave the meat behind. 2) Someone decided they didn't want the meat for whatever reason, and just put it down wherever they happened to be (on the Tofu). 3) As the majority of commentors seem to believe, someone, in an effort to irritate vegans, decided to intentionally and maliciously place meat on top of tofu for the lolz. We have no way of knowing which of those three versions of reality took place actually happened. There's no evidence one way or the other. All are perfectly plausible. Now, in terms of choosing what to believe, being "right", having guessed the one that actually happened, accomplishes nothing. It doesn't change anything, nor does it provide clarity or truth. And given that there's no way to know what actually happened, there's absolutely no reason to believe the more negative version of events. In fact, choosing to believe in the worst case scenario, the malicious act, is unhealthy. Conversely, choosing to believe in the best case scenario, a change of heart, or the neutral scenario, shows a much healthier and more positive state of mind. In certain situations, what actually happened is irrelevant. Truth can be irrelevant. In fact, when we choose to believe something, when there is no evidence to the contrary, we make it true. By believing in something, we give it power, and so we should believe in those things that are positive and good, that make us feel happy. To do otherwise is to choose pain and misery for it's own sake. CMV!

t3_5vaxm4

CMV: Any review rating should start at the mid-point and vary on either side instead of giving top stars and going down with bad experience

This is regarding many rating scales we come across. May it be App reviews, restaurant reviews, cab reviews. We generally see people rating something 5 stars and then go down with any negative experience they've had. I think on a five-point scale, a reviewer should start at 3. This 3 means the average expected experience from the price point and genre. So if I am hailing an Uber ride, I will expect a certain treatment from the service person. If my service turns out to be exceptionally good, I will go up and give 4 or 5 stars, if not even the average I will go down to 2 and 1. What I see generally is that you are expected to rate a normal, non-incident ride as 5 and only if you encounter a problem, giving less rating is socially acceptable. When we start at the top, we are basically crowding the top rating with many restaurants, driver, etc. between 4.5-4.6-4.7 etc. This is not fair and does not give a clear picture of how things stand. _____ > *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: Any review rating should start at the mid-point and vary on either side instead of giving top stars and going down with bad experience. This is regarding many rating scales we come across. May it be App reviews, restaurant reviews, cab reviews. We generally see people rating something 5 stars and then go down with any negative experience they've had. I think on a five-point scale, a reviewer should start at 3. This 3 means the average expected experience from the price point and genre. So if I am hailing an Uber ride, I will expect a certain treatment from the service person. If my service turns out to be exceptionally good, I will go up and give 4 or 5 stars, if not even the average I will go down to 2 and 1. What I see generally is that you are expected to rate a normal, non-incident ride as 5 and only if you encounter a problem, giving less rating is socially acceptable. When we start at the top, we are basically crowding the top rating with many restaurants, driver, etc. between 4.5-4.6-4.7 etc. This is not fair and does not give a clear picture of how things stand.

t3_1ykrsr

Furries are not acceptable. CMV

My view is that most furries I see are people that either want to have sex with animals, dress up as animals or both. I feel that the idea of people thinking animals are hot or want to have sex with them is morally disgusting and yes, this does include fictional cartoon animals as well. Dress up as animals isn't nearly as bad but I feel like this is weird and not something normal people do. I know all furries are not like this but so many are that it feels like the movement itself is a bad idea.

Furries are not acceptable. CMV. My view is that most furries I see are people that either want to have sex with animals, dress up as animals or both. I feel that the idea of people thinking animals are hot or want to have sex with them is morally disgusting and yes, this does include fictional cartoon animals as well. Dress up as animals isn't nearly as bad but I feel like this is weird and not something normal people do. I know all furries are not like this but so many are that it feels like the movement itself is a bad idea.

t3_1uo6dw

The "Shitty Lock and Master Key analogy" isn't inherently misogynistic, CMV.

There's thee phrase "A key that unlocks many locks is a master key, a lock that can be open by many keys is a shitty lock." A lot of people say that this phrase is misogynistic and/or sexist. I actually see it pretty spot on, here's why. Due to patriarchal society and maybe partly due to evolutionary psychology, women are expected and evolutionary tend to be very picky about partners. Men have to live up to expectations. So a male who can convence many females to mating with him, is an alpha. A woman who isn't as choosey and doesn't have any standards is the "shitty lock" in this analogy. So let's take gender out of this. Think of it as this way "A salesperson who can get many customers is a great salesperson, a customer that buys from many salespeople are a dumb customer." You see? All it means is that a person who is easily convensed by many tactics and people, are not as sharp. A person who can convense many people is pretty damn sharp.

The "Shitty Lock and Master Key analogy" isn't inherently misogynistic, CMV. There's thee phrase "A key that unlocks many locks is a master key, a lock that can be open by many keys is a shitty lock." A lot of people say that this phrase is misogynistic and/or sexist. I actually see it pretty spot on, here's why. Due to patriarchal society and maybe partly due to evolutionary psychology, women are expected and evolutionary tend to be very picky about partners. Men have to live up to expectations. So a male who can convence many females to mating with him, is an alpha. A woman who isn't as choosey and doesn't have any standards is the "shitty lock" in this analogy. So let's take gender out of this. Think of it as this way "A salesperson who can get many customers is a great salesperson, a customer that buys from many salespeople are a dumb customer." You see? All it means is that a person who is easily convensed by many tactics and people, are not as sharp. A person who can convense many people is pretty damn sharp.

t3_5zoqvy

CMV: Violent criminals should be castrated

I think that as a punishment for recidivism violent criminals should be castrated. My rationale is twofold: firstly it is something that is universally humiliating and detrimental to quality of life, unlike imprisonment which increases quality of life for poor people or people who are used to the prison life, in fact if castration were combined with imprisonment then the eunuchs would due to their lack of physical strength be at the bottom of the prison hierarchy so there would be even more deterrence from recidivism, that might also improve the quality of life for second time offenders (first time offenders will go to swedish style prisons) while giving a warning of where they would be if they re-offend; additionally it stops them from reproducing so gradually criminal genes will be eliminated from the gene pool over the course of centuries or millennia. _____ > *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: Violent criminals should be castrated. I think that as a punishment for recidivism violent criminals should be castrated. My rationale is twofold: firstly it is something that is universally humiliating and detrimental to quality of life, unlike imprisonment which increases quality of life for poor people or people who are used to the prison life, in fact if castration were combined with imprisonment then the eunuchs would due to their lack of physical strength be at the bottom of the prison hierarchy so there would be even more deterrence from recidivism, that might also improve the quality of life for second time offenders (first time offenders will go to swedish style prisons) while giving a warning of where they would be if they re-offend; additionally it stops them from reproducing so gradually criminal genes will be eliminated from the gene pool over the course of centuries or millennia.

t3_1un3j0

Moderators undermine democracy on reddit. CMV

Someone has to delete illegal posts and enforce boring but necessary rules. I see why moderators are needed, but this does not change the fact that they undermine democracy. Democracy is about broad participation in public life. Moderators are individuals with more power than great masses of voters. By wielding that power, they can negate the will of the people and diminish the sense of self-determination democracy provides. I see this as a trade-off: the people lose some power, and gain order. It may be worth thinking about ways to preserve order without undermining democracy. Like: let people use karma to buy mod votes that can be used to delete posts, change subreddit settings, etc. There would be different vote thresholds to achieve each kind of action, adjusted for the sub's level of activity. EDIT: Neary half of respondents say reddit isn't a democracy. All the voting belies this point. When most of the power in a system goes to the voters, that makes it a democracy in my book.

Moderators undermine democracy on reddit. CMV. Someone has to delete illegal posts and enforce boring but necessary rules. I see why moderators are needed, but this does not change the fact that they undermine democracy. Democracy is about broad participation in public life. Moderators are individuals with more power than great masses of voters. By wielding that power, they can negate the will of the people and diminish the sense of self-determination democracy provides. I see this as a trade-off: the people lose some power, and gain order. It may be worth thinking about ways to preserve order without undermining democracy. Like: let people use karma to buy mod votes that can be used to delete posts, change subreddit settings, etc. There would be different vote thresholds to achieve each kind of action, adjusted for the sub's level of activity. EDIT: Neary half of respondents say reddit isn't a democracy. All the voting belies this point. When most of the power in a system goes to the voters, that makes it a democracy in my book.

t3_5znqmb

CMV: Regarding any problem, if it does not affect me or my companions directly, then I should be indifferent to it.

People often complain about politics or social issues, which do not affect me. I find social issues and politics are typically trivial issues that people complain about. Furthermore, the existence of two primary political ideologies in western societies is an issue. A lot of arguments devolve into childish bickering. An example of a needless social issue. What qualifies feminism, why one should be a feminist, feminist and individual problems (as in person), feminist and feminist problems, and so on. One example of something that does not affect me (I regard it as useless, essentially) is the struggle between left and right politics, as in, I avoid them. I used to be politically independent, now I simply regard politics as unimportant. I find a useless debate occurs when one's primary concern is offending anyone. A right-wing person, although typically portrayed as insensitive towards deviants of any nature, still has sensitivities of their own. In contrast, a left-wing person, although typically portrayed as sensitive towards deviants of any nature, still has insensitivities of their own. My point is, both parties have their concerns about *offending people*, and if one of your prime concerns is monitoring people for verbal offense or such, you should reevaluate your prime concern. I will not call homosexuals "faggots", I will not call promiscuous women "sluts", I will not call feminists "dykes", and I will not call conservative men "retarded rednecks". I will not call people offensive terms voluntarily, but I will not actively monitor or change my behavior around anyone simply because I *might* offend them. This entire point is going for the controversial nature of what qualifies "free speech".

CMV: Regarding any problem, if it does not affect me or my companions directly, then I should be indifferent to it. People often complain about politics or social issues, which do not affect me. I find social issues and politics are typically trivial issues that people complain about. Furthermore, the existence of two primary political ideologies in western societies is an issue. A lot of arguments devolve into childish bickering. An example of a needless social issue. What qualifies feminism, why one should be a feminist, feminist and individual problems (as in person), feminist and feminist problems, and so on. One example of something that does not affect me (I regard it as useless, essentially) is the struggle between left and right politics, as in, I avoid them. I used to be politically independent, now I simply regard politics as unimportant. I find a useless debate occurs when one's primary concern is offending anyone. A right-wing person, although typically portrayed as insensitive towards deviants of any nature, still has sensitivities of their own. In contrast, a left-wing person, although typically portrayed as sensitive towards deviants of any nature, still has insensitivities of their own. My point is, both parties have their concerns about *offending people*, and if one of your prime concerns is monitoring people for verbal offense or such, you should reevaluate your prime concern. I will not call homosexuals "faggots", I will not call promiscuous women "sluts", I will not call feminists "dykes", and I will not call conservative men "retarded rednecks". I will not call people offensive terms voluntarily, but I will not actively monitor or change my behavior around anyone simply because I *might* offend them. This entire point is going for the controversial nature of what qualifies "free speech".

t3_34793q

CMV: One way to encourage integrity in the media would be to incentivize responsible journalism

It seems to me that the major media outlets (mainly TV news -- Fox, CNN, MSNBC) are becoming increasingly irresponsible and inflammatory. Two events speak to this strongly: The incidents in Ferguson, MO and the current problems in Baltimore. While I see that there are certainly important racial issues, class issues, etc. at play in both situations, I believe the primary factor making them such *huge* issues, is the media manipulating its audience which, if true, is so inexpressibly dangerous and disgusting that... I can't express! However, agree or disagree, that's not actually what I'd like to talk about; I'm just showing my work. So please let's assume, at least hypothetically, that the major media outlets are being irresponsible to a degree that something needs to be done or they will only become more brazen and more people will get hurt and more harm will be done, and the real bad guys will continue laughing all the way to the bank. I realize that congressionally limiting the behavior of the press is expressly unconstitional as per the First Amdendment, so that's why I'm wondering if something couldn't be done to give support to media outlets that perform responsibly. I have truly no idea what the actual mechanism for this would be: I'm not anything near an economist, a lawyer, not really even a politics buff. I just see an awful problem that needs, if not immediate remedying before more damage can be done, at least a decent discussion. (I really wish this would be public, but guess who the gatekeepers are for mass discussion of issues?) But perhaps some office could be established (and surely something like this exists already for business entities?) which allots subsidies to press organizations that meet a certain standard of quality. In other words, what power could elected officials wield for encouraging standards of integrity in journalism, without being both unconstitutional and dangerous to a free press? I realize that as far as functional details go, this is a vague idea, but that's a big part of why I'd like to talk about it. It seems solid in principle, but I'm curious to see what I'm overlooking, why it might not work so easily in reality. Thanks, and I do give deltas where they're earned. EDIT: Thanks for the replies so far, some really thought-provoking stuff. I forgot to factor in that I had work this evening so I'll reply and give deltas tomorrow. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: One way to encourage integrity in the media would be to incentivize responsible journalism. It seems to me that the major media outlets (mainly TV news -- Fox, CNN, MSNBC) are becoming increasingly irresponsible and inflammatory. Two events speak to this strongly: The incidents in Ferguson, MO and the current problems in Baltimore. While I see that there are certainly important racial issues, class issues, etc. at play in both situations, I believe the primary factor making them such *huge* issues, is the media manipulating its audience which, if true, is so inexpressibly dangerous and disgusting that... I can't express! However, agree or disagree, that's not actually what I'd like to talk about; I'm just showing my work. So please let's assume, at least hypothetically, that the major media outlets are being irresponsible to a degree that something needs to be done or they will only become more brazen and more people will get hurt and more harm will be done, and the real bad guys will continue laughing all the way to the bank. I realize that congressionally limiting the behavior of the press is expressly unconstitional as per the First Amdendment, so that's why I'm wondering if something couldn't be done to give support to media outlets that perform responsibly. I have truly no idea what the actual mechanism for this would be: I'm not anything near an economist, a lawyer, not really even a politics buff. I just see an awful problem that needs, if not immediate remedying before more damage can be done, at least a decent discussion. (I really wish this would be public, but guess who the gatekeepers are for mass discussion of issues?) But perhaps some office could be established (and surely something like this exists already for business entities?) which allots subsidies to press organizations that meet a certain standard of quality. In other words, what power could elected officials wield for encouraging standards of integrity in journalism, without being both unconstitutional and dangerous to a free press? I realize that as far as functional details go, this is a vague idea, but that's a big part of why I'd like to talk about it. It seems solid in principle, but I'm curious to see what I'm overlooking, why it might not work so easily in reality. Thanks, and I do give deltas where they're earned. EDIT: Thanks for the replies so far, some really thought-provoking stuff. I forgot to factor in that I had work this evening so I'll reply and give deltas tomorrow.

t3_210nnm

IMDb should divide ratings into ratings done by men and ratings done by women. CMV

I think instead of one gold star with one number rating there should be two stars. One pink and one blue, with separate scores. If the fact that IMDb has been taking ratings since the 90s bothers anybody then I'm not opposed to three stars. The original gold star with a hover option that would show the two stars in a little popup box. My reason for this is many people depend on IMDb for whether or not they should spend money and time watching something. Men and women have different tastes. For example, "Arrow" and "Scandal" both have 8+ ratings on IMDb. After one watch it's apparent that these shows are marketed towards women. If I could see that most men rated them at 1-6 and most women rated them at 7-10 then I could avoid watching them. I'm sure the inverse is true for women. 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!*

IMDb should divide ratings into ratings done by men and ratings done by women. CMV. I think instead of one gold star with one number rating there should be two stars. One pink and one blue, with separate scores. If the fact that IMDb has been taking ratings since the 90s bothers anybody then I'm not opposed to three stars. The original gold star with a hover option that would show the two stars in a little popup box. My reason for this is many people depend on IMDb for whether or not they should spend money and time watching something. Men and women have different tastes. For example, "Arrow" and "Scandal" both have 8+ ratings on IMDb. After one watch it's apparent that these shows are marketed towards women. If I could see that most men rated them at 1-6 and most women rated them at 7-10 then I could avoid watching them. I'm sure the inverse is true for women. CMV

t3_1qt267

The expectation that service workers be tipped is exploited to the point that it is now a form of cooperate welfare. CMV

I am not saying the act of tipping, but rather the expectation that restaurant servers, barbers/stylists/hair cutting people, cab drivers, etc has been exploited to the point that businesses are now able to justify paying their employees below poverty wages. I have worked in food service, and consider myself a rather generous tipper. But lately I've gotten to the point where I'm thinking to myself "I am paying you to drive the cab...why would I pay you again." or "I just paid $28 for you to spend seven minutes giving me a trim and buzz." I know that I'm not paying the actual employee and that I'm paying the business. I tip because I know the employee is generally getting shafted by their employer, and it makes the experience a little more personal, especially when being waited on. I am not numb to the fact that giving a good tip is a way of telling someone "I appreciate your effort. Please remember this when I come back the next time so I can continue to get good service." EDIT: Thank you all for the replies. I feel the discussion has stagnated. The best and most numerous argument being that if the employees were paid more it would inflate the prices to preserve profits. Got it.

The expectation that service workers be tipped is exploited to the point that it is now a form of cooperate welfare. CMV. I am not saying the act of tipping, but rather the expectation that restaurant servers, barbers/stylists/hair cutting people, cab drivers, etc has been exploited to the point that businesses are now able to justify paying their employees below poverty wages. I have worked in food service, and consider myself a rather generous tipper. But lately I've gotten to the point where I'm thinking to myself "I am paying you to drive the cab...why would I pay you again." or "I just paid $28 for you to spend seven minutes giving me a trim and buzz." I know that I'm not paying the actual employee and that I'm paying the business. I tip because I know the employee is generally getting shafted by their employer, and it makes the experience a little more personal, especially when being waited on. I am not numb to the fact that giving a good tip is a way of telling someone "I appreciate your effort. Please remember this when I come back the next time so I can continue to get good service." EDIT: Thank you all for the replies. I feel the discussion has stagnated. The best and most numerous argument being that if the employees were paid more it would inflate the prices to preserve profits. Got it.

t3_6lsdqz

CMV: Wonder Woman is one of the best superhero movies since the creation of the MCU in 2008.

Here's my top 10: 1. The Dark Knight 2. The Dark Knight Rises 3. Logan 4. Wonder Woman 5. Captain America: Winter Soldier 6. Ant-Man 7. The Avengers 8. Guardians of the Galaxy 9. Iron Man 10. Captain America: Civil War Note: I haven't seen Deadpool or Spider-Man: Homecoming, so neither of those is on my list. Captain America: Civil War was good, but to me it felt like it was setting up other movies in the future (especially the ending) instead of being a self-contained good movie in itself. Also, Batman Begins was great but it was made in 2005 so it doesn't qualify. Some Reasons It Was Great: 1. The acting was great in almost every single scene, and Gadot and Pine's chemistry was a highlight. The smaller characters, including Chief, Sameer, Charlie, Hippolyta, Antiope, and Etta Candy were all great and none of the subplots felt like a drag. 2. The movie stood 100% on its own and didn't need to make references to other characters or inside jokes to succeed. 3. The action scenes were great, even if the final fight was nothing special. The fight between the Amazons and the Germans is really exciting, but the best action scene is No Man's Land, which stood out above the rest of the movie and was very well done. She feels more "super" than most other superheroes in movies nowadays. 4. The movie was structured well - no part of it felt like it lasted too long, and the scenes in Themyscira and London never felt like they outstayed their welcome while also showing, not telling, what those worlds were like with vivid colors and imagery. 5. The movie conveys its messages on feminism and the nature of humankind subtly, both making its points clear and not shoving it into the viewer's face. The movie depicted Wonder Woman as strong as independent (without being overly sexualized, which is another positive) without making the men around her look weak. The movie manages to take a stance on social issues and feminism without alienating either gender or feeling overbearing about it. 6. Steve Trevor's death was one of the most emotional moments in a comic book movie in recent memory and felt like a real loss (even in a movie as great as TDK, Rachel's death wasn't nearly as emotional). _____ > *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: Wonder Woman is one of the best superhero movies since the creation of the MCU in 2008. Here's my top 10: 1. The Dark Knight 2. The Dark Knight Rises 3. Logan 4. Wonder Woman 5. Captain America: Winter Soldier 6. Ant-Man 7. The Avengers 8. Guardians of the Galaxy 9. Iron Man 10. Captain America: Civil War Note: I haven't seen Deadpool or Spider-Man: Homecoming, so neither of those is on my list. Captain America: Civil War was good, but to me it felt like it was setting up other movies in the future (especially the ending) instead of being a self-contained good movie in itself. Also, Batman Begins was great but it was made in 2005 so it doesn't qualify. Some Reasons It Was Great: 1. The acting was great in almost every single scene, and Gadot and Pine's chemistry was a highlight. The smaller characters, including Chief, Sameer, Charlie, Hippolyta, Antiope, and Etta Candy were all great and none of the subplots felt like a drag. 2. The movie stood 100% on its own and didn't need to make references to other characters or inside jokes to succeed. 3. The action scenes were great, even if the final fight was nothing special. The fight between the Amazons and the Germans is really exciting, but the best action scene is No Man's Land, which stood out above the rest of the movie and was very well done. She feels more "super" than most other superheroes in movies nowadays. 4. The movie was structured well - no part of it felt like it lasted too long, and the scenes in Themyscira and London never felt like they outstayed their welcome while also showing, not telling, what those worlds were like with vivid colors and imagery. 5. The movie conveys its messages on feminism and the nature of humankind subtly, both making its points clear and not shoving it into the viewer's face. The movie depicted Wonder Woman as strong as independent (without being overly sexualized, which is another positive) without making the men around her look weak. The movie manages to take a stance on social issues and feminism without alienating either gender or feeling overbearing about it. 6. Steve Trevor's death was one of the most emotional moments in a comic book movie in recent memory and felt like a real loss (even in a movie as great as TDK, Rachel's death wasn't nearly as emotional).

t3_6cu4bb

CMV: countries would be better off split into smaller independent states.

I believe that population is the issue for most of the world's problems. Not only does a higher/increasing population affect us in terms of resources and maintenance but it also creates varying levels of opinions and views, and not all of these opinions can be represented in politics. The UK, according to Google, has around 65 million people and in terms of politics it's not black and white - there's a large spectrum. I think it's not effective enough to band the whole country together and instead it should be split up even further. I'm not talking about just Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland but actually based on the region map we use (sadly it applies mostly to England, apologies!) [HERE IS THE MAP](http://projectbritain.com/regions/images/regions.png) What would this achieve? In politics I've studied that while there's devolution of powers it's just not enough. With how backwards and traditional our voting system is (it's not even proportional, in 2015 UKIP ended up with one seat yet so many votes) and considering how many varying opinions we have, we'd probably be better off splitting up and allowing each area to govern itself. There's always complaints in the UK, specifically from northerners/Scottish folk, that London is terrible and they shouldn't have to be ruled from Westminster (however Scotland does have some devolved power). It's a fair point anywhere - life isn't the same for someone in Brighton as it is for someone in a farm up in Yorkshire, and it seems very odd that it's all still one country. We have local governments but they are often powerless or just there for development. In my head it seems like a good idea because it's simple - fewer people to govern means that the political leader of that new state is (on paper anyway) more approachable by the people. Plus alternative states with different politics and laws are nearby also. Immigration is a touchy issue as well so maybe some states will allow it and some won't - it's hard to control immigration for a whole mass of land like the UK but if regions managed it themselves it might be far easier. Some areas of UK are more passionate about immigration (whether for or against it) than others. There might even be new states specialising in certain industries - this has already been a debate between England and Scotland during the Scottish independence talks so it might not go too well. I spoke a heap about UK here because I'm not sure how it works in other countries. I know the USA has states and it's pretty neat how they can adjust laws within a limit, but to what extent? Could this work for the UK? Could smaller populations be way more manageable? **TLDR split countries and the populations up and let smaller areas govern themselves while ideally forming some sort of union. I'm really shitty right now at explaining my point properly but I'm really fixed on the idea that smaller population = much more manageable and a greater sense of unity, thus making goals more achievable.**

CMV: countries would be better off split into smaller independent states. I believe that population is the issue for most of the world's problems. Not only does a higher/increasing population affect us in terms of resources and maintenance but it also creates varying levels of opinions and views, and not all of these opinions can be represented in politics. The UK, according to Google, has around 65 million people and in terms of politics it's not black and white - there's a large spectrum. I think it's not effective enough to band the whole country together and instead it should be split up even further. I'm not talking about just Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland but actually based on the region map we use (sadly it applies mostly to England, apologies!) [HERE IS THE MAP](http://projectbritain.com/regions/images/regions.png) What would this achieve? In politics I've studied that while there's devolution of powers it's just not enough. With how backwards and traditional our voting system is (it's not even proportional, in 2015 UKIP ended up with one seat yet so many votes) and considering how many varying opinions we have, we'd probably be better off splitting up and allowing each area to govern itself. There's always complaints in the UK, specifically from northerners/Scottish folk, that London is terrible and they shouldn't have to be ruled from Westminster (however Scotland does have some devolved power). It's a fair point anywhere - life isn't the same for someone in Brighton as it is for someone in a farm up in Yorkshire, and it seems very odd that it's all still one country. We have local governments but they are often powerless or just there for development. In my head it seems like a good idea because it's simple - fewer people to govern means that the political leader of that new state is (on paper anyway) more approachable by the people. Plus alternative states with different politics and laws are nearby also. Immigration is a touchy issue as well so maybe some states will allow it and some won't - it's hard to control immigration for a whole mass of land like the UK but if regions managed it themselves it might be far easier. Some areas of UK are more passionate about immigration (whether for or against it) than others. There might even be new states specialising in certain industries - this has already been a debate between England and Scotland during the Scottish independence talks so it might not go too well. I spoke a heap about UK here because I'm not sure how it works in other countries. I know the USA has states and it's pretty neat how they can adjust laws within a limit, but to what extent? Could this work for the UK? Could smaller populations be way more manageable? **TLDR split countries and the populations up and let smaller areas govern themselves while ideally forming some sort of union. I'm really shitty right now at explaining my point properly but I'm really fixed on the idea that smaller population = much more manageable and a greater sense of unity, thus making goals more achievable.**

t3_3mx9ku

CMV: I don't think there should be a draft in the US.

I don't think there should be a draft. The US requires all men, ages 18-25 to register for the Selective Service. When I turned 18 I was sort of excited to register, thinking I was servicing my country and I also thought of it like a rite of passage. But recently I've given it some thought and concluded that a draft is unnecessary. If our country was in immanent danger, I would join the military. Otherwise, I'm not going to fight in a senseless war in the Middle East. I think that if I genuinely don't want to fight in a war, I shouldn't have to. If the draft was implemented again, that would mean that many other kids my age have the same feeling, calling into question the legitimacy of the war. _____ > *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 there should be a draft in the US. I don't think there should be a draft. The US requires all men, ages 18-25 to register for the Selective Service. When I turned 18 I was sort of excited to register, thinking I was servicing my country and I also thought of it like a rite of passage. But recently I've given it some thought and concluded that a draft is unnecessary. If our country was in immanent danger, I would join the military. Otherwise, I'm not going to fight in a senseless war in the Middle East. I think that if I genuinely don't want to fight in a war, I shouldn't have to. If the draft was implemented again, that would mean that many other kids my age have the same feeling, calling into question the legitimacy of the war.

t3_1r6pqd

I hate people - CMV

Yeah, so... I hate people, i think we all are just parasites wandering earth. I feel somehow i would die a happy man if i knew that the human race would be exctinct. I hate people because we, kill, rape, fight and just misuse the time we have here. And all we want is money and power over other people, and no one seems to think about other people, and have no problem walking over anyone to get what they want. I used to be more loving, accepting and helping, but i am starting to see people for what they are and that just makes me sick.. Which makes me more of the person i hate, because now i hate people and i'm starting to care less for just random people, i used to like walking up and talking with people i didn't know but now i just assume they are a fucking asshole. So i'm starting to become antisocial aswell, which i used to be the exact opposite of. CMV

I hate people - CMV. Yeah, so... I hate people, i think we all are just parasites wandering earth. I feel somehow i would die a happy man if i knew that the human race would be exctinct. I hate people because we, kill, rape, fight and just misuse the time we have here. And all we want is money and power over other people, and no one seems to think about other people, and have no problem walking over anyone to get what they want. I used to be more loving, accepting and helping, but i am starting to see people for what they are and that just makes me sick.. Which makes me more of the person i hate, because now i hate people and i'm starting to care less for just random people, i used to like walking up and talking with people i didn't know but now i just assume they are a fucking asshole. So i'm starting to become antisocial aswell, which i used to be the exact opposite of. CMV

t3_20lek1

I have little to no problems with the proposed bans in the UK on the production of British halal and kosher meat. CMV!

Anyone who wishes to read the background to this can do so [here](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-top-vet-sparks-controversy-with-call-for-ban-on-slashing-animals-throats-in-ritual-slaughters-for-halal-and-kosher-meat-products-9173258.html). In this country there have been moves towards high standards of animal welfare, including the correct treatment of animals for the slaughtering process. Normally such a process involves stunning the animal, but in the case of kosher and halal slaughter this is not done as it is not permitted according to the religious rules of both religions. This can cause great suffering to the animals, as they are typically conscious when their throats are cut and blood can end up in their lungs as they struggle for breath before dying. But I honestly cannot see why these two groups get some magical exemption where everyone else is forced to abide by the rules under threat of prison sentences and fines. The only justification I have ever heard for such practices is 'because it's in our religion'. Similarly, whilst there is much evidence to suggest than stunning, when done correctly, is effective, no-one seems to be putting any evidence forward (and I'm talking about proper scientific evidence here) that any ritual slaughtering process really is better than the standard practice. If this was the case and evidence was produced in support of non-stunning slaughter, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'll head off one argument though- it's nothing to do with religious persecution. No-one is being prevented from believing whatever they want. No-one is being prevented from practicing a religion. If anything, the failure of both Muslim and Jewish authorities to stop the childish footstamping of stubbornly sticking to a unchanging, uncompromising position and working out a compromise (as Sikhs have managed with the kirpan for example) is a big part of the problem. So, CMV. **IMPORTANT: I know I'm likely to get accusations of anti-Semitism. I personally respect and love all religions deeply, and would fight for religious freedoms, with physical weapons if necessary. However I think that there needs to be free discussion of religious practices and what can be deemed permissible in a modern society, and that any attempt to disrupt such debate with accusations of 'anti-Semitism' is little better than a lazy admission you haven't got any arguments to offer.** **Edit:** It's 1am-ish GMT, so I'll likely not respond to any posts until the morning.

I have little to no problems with the proposed bans in the UK on the production of British halal and kosher meat. CMV!. Anyone who wishes to read the background to this can do so [here](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-top-vet-sparks-controversy-with-call-for-ban-on-slashing-animals-throats-in-ritual-slaughters-for-halal-and-kosher-meat-products-9173258.html). In this country there have been moves towards high standards of animal welfare, including the correct treatment of animals for the slaughtering process. Normally such a process involves stunning the animal, but in the case of kosher and halal slaughter this is not done as it is not permitted according to the religious rules of both religions. This can cause great suffering to the animals, as they are typically conscious when their throats are cut and blood can end up in their lungs as they struggle for breath before dying. But I honestly cannot see why these two groups get some magical exemption where everyone else is forced to abide by the rules under threat of prison sentences and fines. The only justification I have ever heard for such practices is 'because it's in our religion'. Similarly, whilst there is much evidence to suggest than stunning, when done correctly, is effective, no-one seems to be putting any evidence forward (and I'm talking about proper scientific evidence here) that any ritual slaughtering process really is better than the standard practice. If this was the case and evidence was produced in support of non-stunning slaughter, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'll head off one argument though- it's nothing to do with religious persecution. No-one is being prevented from believing whatever they want. No-one is being prevented from practicing a religion. If anything, the failure of both Muslim and Jewish authorities to stop the childish footstamping of stubbornly sticking to a unchanging, uncompromising position and working out a compromise (as Sikhs have managed with the kirpan for example) is a big part of the problem. So, CMV. **IMPORTANT: I know I'm likely to get accusations of anti-Semitism. I personally respect and love all religions deeply, and would fight for religious freedoms, with physical weapons if necessary. However I think that there needs to be free discussion of religious practices and what can be deemed permissible in a modern society, and that any attempt to disrupt such debate with accusations of 'anti-Semitism' is little better than a lazy admission you haven't got any arguments to offer.** **Edit:** It's 1am-ish GMT, so I'll likely not respond to any posts until the morning.

t3_3g3hi2

CMV: I think that given that it isn't resource heavy, ability to give consent will not be based on age or intoxication, but brain scans

So, I just nostalgically remembered a friendly debate I had with my ex once. Basically, I made a little half-assed hypothesis that in the future, the way we measure age now will matter a lot less, and we talked about it pretty deep and considered a lot of things, but I'd like to limit it to the consent aspect right now, as in consent to fucking, of course. So, the reason, I think, that you can't give consent at a certain age or if you're drugged, according to the law, is because people think you don't have the resources to make such a decision. Adolescent brains are impulsive, generally speaking, and intoxicated or drugged brains are the same. I wonder if there's a US law for people who are mentally challenged as well, so you can inform me of such a thing if it exists if you'd like. But anyway, that's my understanding of why the laws are there. If that's not the principle for those laws, then please correct me. But if it isn't now, I think people will come to use the principle I stated as the reason for the laws that say you have to be a certain age to consent, or you have to be sober, and so on. I think that in the future, these will simply be determined based on a brain scan. Ensuring that you have the necessary power in specific parts of your brain, those meant to judge the goodness of a decision or whatever, when you say you want something. Not sure about the mechanism, the overall concept is it judges you dynamically whether you are capable of judging what you're doing or not, so even if you're, say, a 15 yo dude that, based on other teenage behavior, is likely to be impulsive, it will make sure for you individually that you are actually thinking through your situation. If this is confusing, AMA, but otherwise, CMV. **TL;DR: There won't be an age of consent, there'll just be a brainpower of consent. You can convince me that nothing similar to this would ever happen, assuming that laws will still exist and serve the same general, recognizable purpose, or you can convince me that this is a bad idea even if it does happen in comparison to what we have now. Assume we have the resources to do this easily.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think that given that it isn't resource heavy, ability to give consent will not be based on age or intoxication, but brain scans. So, I just nostalgically remembered a friendly debate I had with my ex once. Basically, I made a little half-assed hypothesis that in the future, the way we measure age now will matter a lot less, and we talked about it pretty deep and considered a lot of things, but I'd like to limit it to the consent aspect right now, as in consent to fucking, of course. So, the reason, I think, that you can't give consent at a certain age or if you're drugged, according to the law, is because people think you don't have the resources to make such a decision. Adolescent brains are impulsive, generally speaking, and intoxicated or drugged brains are the same. I wonder if there's a US law for people who are mentally challenged as well, so you can inform me of such a thing if it exists if you'd like. But anyway, that's my understanding of why the laws are there. If that's not the principle for those laws, then please correct me. But if it isn't now, I think people will come to use the principle I stated as the reason for the laws that say you have to be a certain age to consent, or you have to be sober, and so on. I think that in the future, these will simply be determined based on a brain scan. Ensuring that you have the necessary power in specific parts of your brain, those meant to judge the goodness of a decision or whatever, when you say you want something. Not sure about the mechanism, the overall concept is it judges you dynamically whether you are capable of judging what you're doing or not, so even if you're, say, a 15 yo dude that, based on other teenage behavior, is likely to be impulsive, it will make sure for you individually that you are actually thinking through your situation. If this is confusing, AMA, but otherwise, CMV. **TL;DR: There won't be an age of consent, there'll just be a brainpower of consent. You can convince me that nothing similar to this would ever happen, assuming that laws will still exist and serve the same general, recognizable purpose, or you can convince me that this is a bad idea even if it does happen in comparison to what we have now. Assume we have the resources to do this easily.**

t3_3bv0ul

CMV:If an alien race, more advanced and intelligent invaded earth and wanted to control us on the grounds of protecting the planet, we would have no plausible reason to fight back.

I know this may not be the regular deep thought post and it's kind of on the realms of science fiction, but I think that the core point I'm trying to make is: we don't deserve the earth. As individuals, we are, for the most part, responsible for its deterioration, for the extinction of several species and our ignorance is even causing problems for ourselves. The planet is the one that suffers the most on our hands, since we have turned a beautiful paradise filled with amazing species into a cloudy mass of toxic environment. The earth has beautiful sites, but mostly, we destroy in a daily basis a little bit of what this planet has. In years such as 2115 or maybe 2315, human beings will suffer for our passive attitude and have to live in a wasted land, probably fighting each other for ever growing scarce supplies. I can't see the human kind thriving for more than 400 years and our generation will be the ones to blame, since we knew we were in this dire situation, but we didn't do anything because it wouldn't affect us. Future generations will compare all of us to Hitler, since we basically pushed our grand grandsons to a gas chamber, instead of a beautiful garden. So, hypothetically, if an alien race that was more advanced and smarter than us prevented us from ruling ourselves and impose their restriction with the sole purpose to protect the earth - stuff like, no cars, no oil drilling, no toxic waste, basically a completely cease of the human industry - from us, fighting back would make *us* the bad guys, since we would be fighting to keep destroying our planet, by having something we do not deserve: freedom. Under this alien race control, we would still have autonomy to do what we want with our lives as to provide food and shelter for ourselves, mainly cultivating food, destroying large urban sites - New York, Paris, Rio - to bring nature back to those places and not doing anything to the animals, not even treat them as pets, but letting them completely free, even at the cost of our safety. We would still fight, I believe, but this people could never have a good reason to fight an alien race with this exact goal: protecting the earth. We are parasites and they would even be giving us the chance to redeem ourselves, instead of completely exterminating us, as you should do with pests. So, would we have something to say against this? _____ > *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 an alien race, more advanced and intelligent invaded earth and wanted to control us on the grounds of protecting the planet, we would have no plausible reason to fight back. I know this may not be the regular deep thought post and it's kind of on the realms of science fiction, but I think that the core point I'm trying to make is: we don't deserve the earth. As individuals, we are, for the most part, responsible for its deterioration, for the extinction of several species and our ignorance is even causing problems for ourselves. The planet is the one that suffers the most on our hands, since we have turned a beautiful paradise filled with amazing species into a cloudy mass of toxic environment. The earth has beautiful sites, but mostly, we destroy in a daily basis a little bit of what this planet has. In years such as 2115 or maybe 2315, human beings will suffer for our passive attitude and have to live in a wasted land, probably fighting each other for ever growing scarce supplies. I can't see the human kind thriving for more than 400 years and our generation will be the ones to blame, since we knew we were in this dire situation, but we didn't do anything because it wouldn't affect us. Future generations will compare all of us to Hitler, since we basically pushed our grand grandsons to a gas chamber, instead of a beautiful garden. So, hypothetically, if an alien race that was more advanced and smarter than us prevented us from ruling ourselves and impose their restriction with the sole purpose to protect the earth - stuff like, no cars, no oil drilling, no toxic waste, basically a completely cease of the human industry - from us, fighting back would make *us* the bad guys, since we would be fighting to keep destroying our planet, by having something we do not deserve: freedom. Under this alien race control, we would still have autonomy to do what we want with our lives as to provide food and shelter for ourselves, mainly cultivating food, destroying large urban sites - New York, Paris, Rio - to bring nature back to those places and not doing anything to the animals, not even treat them as pets, but letting them completely free, even at the cost of our safety. We would still fight, I believe, but this people could never have a good reason to fight an alien race with this exact goal: protecting the earth. We are parasites and they would even be giving us the chance to redeem ourselves, instead of completely exterminating us, as you should do with pests. So, would we have something to say against this?

t3_2cs6x6

CMV: You are obligated to re-rack weights at the gym after using them.

Every day I go to the gym, I walk over the squat racks and see that some asswipes have left the weights they were using on the bars. Now, I'm not a mega-strong gal and, as a result, I find it a pain to re-rack all the plates these people have used. Moreover, it's hard to tell if the squat rack is available if there are weights on it (maybe someone is just away from the bar getting water or something). I don't see what the big deal is. If you're at the gym and use the weights, re-rack them after you're done. In short, here are the issues associated with not re-racking weights: * It's not fair. If you're a 200lb tough-guy who squats 400 lbs and leave all your weights on the rack, someone has to clean up after you just to use the bar. * It makes it harder to know if a rack or set of weights is available for use. It's unclear if they are still in use or not, which is a waste of time for other people. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: You are obligated to re-rack weights at the gym after using them. Every day I go to the gym, I walk over the squat racks and see that some asswipes have left the weights they were using on the bars. Now, I'm not a mega-strong gal and, as a result, I find it a pain to re-rack all the plates these people have used. Moreover, it's hard to tell if the squat rack is available if there are weights on it (maybe someone is just away from the bar getting water or something). I don't see what the big deal is. If you're at the gym and use the weights, re-rack them after you're done. In short, here are the issues associated with not re-racking weights: * It's not fair. If you're a 200lb tough-guy who squats 400 lbs and leave all your weights on the rack, someone has to clean up after you just to use the bar. * It makes it harder to know if a rack or set of weights is available for use. It's unclear if they are still in use or not, which is a waste of time for other people.

t3_3hzmz3

CMV: It is not vain to listen to, and enjoy your own music that you've created.

I often come across people that react to an artist listening to, and really being into their own music, as being a vain person. Like they are so in love with themselves. However, when an artist creates music, what they are doing, is just creating exactly what they want to hear. Their guide for what they decide what to do is whether or not they like it. If they don't like something, they change it, or re-work it. So, when an artist creates music, it makes perfect sense that it would be music they would really enjoy listening to. It's like making a sandwich. When you make a sandwich, you make it with all the ingredients you want it to have. You choose the condiments, and cuts of meat or whatever, knowing how it's going to taste. You might re-work your sandwich to build a sandwich that you really like. But eating your sandwich and enjoying it, isn't vain. It's not like you're in love with yourself because you made a sandwich you really like. It's like that with music. You create music you want to listen to, based on your taste in music. Just because you make a sandwich you like it doesn't mean nobody else can make sandwiches you like, but it also doesn't mean you are vain, and in love with yourself if you love eating the sandwiches you learned to make. So, I don't think there is anything wrong with listening to your own music, or dancing to it, or acknowledging that you like it, any more than acknowledging that you like your sandwich you made. Especially during improvisation, because the ideas you are coming up with are often nearly as much of a surprise for you, as they are for everyone else, it's just you thought of it a fraction of a second earlier than other people heard it. And on top of that, they are your honest idea of exactly the type of thing you want to hear, or feel, that's why you chose to play it. Of course hearing interesting ideas that you would never think of in a million years, is also cool. But anyways, 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: It is not vain to listen to, and enjoy your own music that you've created. I often come across people that react to an artist listening to, and really being into their own music, as being a vain person. Like they are so in love with themselves. However, when an artist creates music, what they are doing, is just creating exactly what they want to hear. Their guide for what they decide what to do is whether or not they like it. If they don't like something, they change it, or re-work it. So, when an artist creates music, it makes perfect sense that it would be music they would really enjoy listening to. It's like making a sandwich. When you make a sandwich, you make it with all the ingredients you want it to have. You choose the condiments, and cuts of meat or whatever, knowing how it's going to taste. You might re-work your sandwich to build a sandwich that you really like. But eating your sandwich and enjoying it, isn't vain. It's not like you're in love with yourself because you made a sandwich you really like. It's like that with music. You create music you want to listen to, based on your taste in music. Just because you make a sandwich you like it doesn't mean nobody else can make sandwiches you like, but it also doesn't mean you are vain, and in love with yourself if you love eating the sandwiches you learned to make. So, I don't think there is anything wrong with listening to your own music, or dancing to it, or acknowledging that you like it, any more than acknowledging that you like your sandwich you made. Especially during improvisation, because the ideas you are coming up with are often nearly as much of a surprise for you, as they are for everyone else, it's just you thought of it a fraction of a second earlier than other people heard it. And on top of that, they are your honest idea of exactly the type of thing you want to hear, or feel, that's why you chose to play it. Of course hearing interesting ideas that you would never think of in a million years, is also cool. But anyways, CMV!

t3_2j3gbo

CMV: Rock music was once subversive reaction to suburban living but is now a cliche'd soundtrack to it.

Central to rock music was getting kids out of their seats, jumping up and down, challenge the tastes of their parents who had become accustomed to a slow calm eazy lazy suburban life. It's about every generation telling their children that their music sucks. Rock has been, at its roots, subversive. Chuck Berry, Bill Haley and Elvis (to some extent) were subversive in the 1950's but they are seen as tame acts today. The counter-culture was in the 60's. Metal was in the 70's. Punk was in the 80's. Grunge was in the 90's. Perhaps the last popular rock artist to do this was Marilyn Manson in the early 2000's but its certainly been a while. And now it has become a cliche ingrained in suburban white american culture where we must hear people like Bill Clinton singing John Lennon's Imagine while awkwardly omitting the "And no religion too" part. In fact, there's probably a lot of politicians, businessmen and other elderly figures who adorn this music to appeal to its popularity rather than identify with its message. Rock, especially classic rock, has lost its potency. What do I imagine when I think of Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, The Who, Rolling Stones, Black Sabbath, Guns n' Roses and Nirvana? I see newlywed fathers watering their lawn with some rock music playing from their car. I see chubby men in their 50's with faded tattoos and Harley Davidson t-shirts playing pool at their local bar with rock music in the background. I see pregnant 32-year old moms listening to Motley Crue on Youtube reminiscing of their teen years. The classic subversive acts of rock and roll are gone, and no one in the past 10 years has replaced them. You know that Vietnam War movie #398 with "Fortunate Son" and "Sympathy for the Devil" playing in the background as the tanks and Agent Orange airstrikes are rolling in? That's a metaphor for rock music in general. _____ > *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: Rock music was once subversive reaction to suburban living but is now a cliche'd soundtrack to it. Central to rock music was getting kids out of their seats, jumping up and down, challenge the tastes of their parents who had become accustomed to a slow calm eazy lazy suburban life. It's about every generation telling their children that their music sucks. Rock has been, at its roots, subversive. Chuck Berry, Bill Haley and Elvis (to some extent) were subversive in the 1950's but they are seen as tame acts today. The counter-culture was in the 60's. Metal was in the 70's. Punk was in the 80's. Grunge was in the 90's. Perhaps the last popular rock artist to do this was Marilyn Manson in the early 2000's but its certainly been a while. And now it has become a cliche ingrained in suburban white american culture where we must hear people like Bill Clinton singing John Lennon's Imagine while awkwardly omitting the "And no religion too" part. In fact, there's probably a lot of politicians, businessmen and other elderly figures who adorn this music to appeal to its popularity rather than identify with its message. Rock, especially classic rock, has lost its potency. What do I imagine when I think of Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, The Who, Rolling Stones, Black Sabbath, Guns n' Roses and Nirvana? I see newlywed fathers watering their lawn with some rock music playing from their car. I see chubby men in their 50's with faded tattoos and Harley Davidson t-shirts playing pool at their local bar with rock music in the background. I see pregnant 32-year old moms listening to Motley Crue on Youtube reminiscing of their teen years. The classic subversive acts of rock and roll are gone, and no one in the past 10 years has replaced them. You know that Vietnam War movie #398 with "Fortunate Son" and "Sympathy for the Devil" playing in the background as the tanks and Agent Orange airstrikes are rolling in? That's a metaphor for rock music in general.

t3_4lx331

CMV: Rap is the most quintessentially American genre of music.

1: Rap music was created as part of the hip hop movement completely within the United States of America. 2: Rap music has spread to every social class with in the US as a form of creative expression. 3: Rap music speaks to address specific issues within American culture. Issues of Race inequality/socio-economic status/lifestyle differences/ as well as addressing and challenging the idea of the American family. 4: Rap music can also be comical, lighthearted, and purely for entertainment. Playing off of ideas that are shared amongst people all over the United States. I can't think of any other genre of music that represents the views/issues of American culture as completely as Rap. I acknowledge the fact that there are other forms of music that are "American based", blues, country, funk, etc. But these genres do not reach as far into American culture as Rap does, and are instead subcultures within themselves. I also acknowledge the roots of Rap music and that it is a largely African American genre of music, but there are plenty of successful non-black rappers and genre today is largely moving away from the "gangsta rap" form.

CMV: Rap is the most quintessentially American genre of music. 1: Rap music was created as part of the hip hop movement completely within the United States of America. 2: Rap music has spread to every social class with in the US as a form of creative expression. 3: Rap music speaks to address specific issues within American culture. Issues of Race inequality/socio-economic status/lifestyle differences/ as well as addressing and challenging the idea of the American family. 4: Rap music can also be comical, lighthearted, and purely for entertainment. Playing off of ideas that are shared amongst people all over the United States. I can't think of any other genre of music that represents the views/issues of American culture as completely as Rap. I acknowledge the fact that there are other forms of music that are "American based", blues, country, funk, etc. But these genres do not reach as far into American culture as Rap does, and are instead subcultures within themselves. I also acknowledge the roots of Rap music and that it is a largely African American genre of music, but there are plenty of successful non-black rappers and genre today is largely moving away from the "gangsta rap" form.

t3_1raouq

I believe the Republican party will eventually have to get rid of its religious basis if it hopes to survive. CMV

Atheism in the United States is rising. The Republican party, whether you watch Fox News or listen to congressmen, clearly base many of their stances on religious principles. Connected more with the older generation and less with the youth of America (who seem to overwhelmingly support gay rights and environmental protection) the Republican Party isn't really appealing to young people anymore except with its stance on economic issues. A shift from a religious to a more libertarian basis may be inevitable if the Republican Party hopes to continue as a main party within the next ten to thirty years.

I believe the Republican party will eventually have to get rid of its religious basis if it hopes to survive. CMV. Atheism in the United States is rising. The Republican party, whether you watch Fox News or listen to congressmen, clearly base many of their stances on religious principles. Connected more with the older generation and less with the youth of America (who seem to overwhelmingly support gay rights and environmental protection) the Republican Party isn't really appealing to young people anymore except with its stance on economic issues. A shift from a religious to a more libertarian basis may be inevitable if the Republican Party hopes to continue as a main party within the next ten to thirty years.

t3_21t7r7

CMV: I believe that people who only watch dubbed anime aren't really anime fans at all.

Over the course of the years, some dub fans have been able to prove to me that not ALL dubs are terrible; there are some that aren't too bad (not good mind you, just not bad). However, dubbed shows have a much higher chance of being altered in sometimes severe ways. First, the voices have quite a bit to do with the character. Second, the delivery. Third, the dialogue. Sometimes the changes are so drastic that they completely modify the character of the show. And that's not even counting the cases where the American company reordered or cut major parts of the show. Beyond all that, within the Japanese language is a strong sense of their beliefs, religious and social, which have a large impact on what is actually going on. For example, the important the Japanese place on social status and reflect it in name suffixes like "chan" or "sama". This is lost in almost any translation and could be easily handled with a quick pre-video note or just over time with practice. In short, I believe the total experience lost in translation is enough to say that people who watch dubs and have never seen the original with subtitles don't count as anime fans... they're something else. Japanimaiton fans or something. _____ > *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 people who only watch dubbed anime aren't really anime fans at all. Over the course of the years, some dub fans have been able to prove to me that not ALL dubs are terrible; there are some that aren't too bad (not good mind you, just not bad). However, dubbed shows have a much higher chance of being altered in sometimes severe ways. First, the voices have quite a bit to do with the character. Second, the delivery. Third, the dialogue. Sometimes the changes are so drastic that they completely modify the character of the show. And that's not even counting the cases where the American company reordered or cut major parts of the show. Beyond all that, within the Japanese language is a strong sense of their beliefs, religious and social, which have a large impact on what is actually going on. For example, the important the Japanese place on social status and reflect it in name suffixes like "chan" or "sama". This is lost in almost any translation and could be easily handled with a quick pre-video note or just over time with practice. In short, I believe the total experience lost in translation is enough to say that people who watch dubs and have never seen the original with subtitles don't count as anime fans... they're something else. Japanimaiton fans or something.

t3_56uy49

CMV: I believe racism and xenophobia are sometimes justified, in other words: I am racist/xenophobe.

I am from small country in the corners of Europe (provided this is of some importance...). My views on other cultures are based on their history and I believe this is the right way to judge, and not from "personal experience" - you may have good experience with serial killer who gives you million dollars, but if this person happens to be black/american/westerner etc. this doesn't change the fact that he is still serial killer, hence your positive experience here means zero. Also to clarify that I am not Islamophobic, as people these days confuse the meaning of the word. I am also not "classic racist" in the sense that I am not pro-blond/aryan, nor antisemitic. In the case of xenophobia I believe it's even easier to see the justification here as culture has various traits that define it, it's not even just race and the history of how they behave.

CMV: I believe racism and xenophobia are sometimes justified, in other words: I am racist/xenophobe. I am from small country in the corners of Europe (provided this is of some importance...). My views on other cultures are based on their history and I believe this is the right way to judge, and not from "personal experience" - you may have good experience with serial killer who gives you million dollars, but if this person happens to be black/american/westerner etc. this doesn't change the fact that he is still serial killer, hence your positive experience here means zero. Also to clarify that I am not Islamophobic, as people these days confuse the meaning of the word. I am also not "classic racist" in the sense that I am not pro-blond/aryan, nor antisemitic. In the case of xenophobia I believe it's even easier to see the justification here as culture has various traits that define it, it's not even just race and the history of how they behave.

t3_1kkc5y

I think the very fact that marijuana is so widely accepted makes it more dangerous than 'harder' drugs, CMV

A lot of people, on the internet and otherwise, have some fairly valid reasons why marijuana isn't all that bad, and why it should be legalised. While I acknowledge that there is sound science behind some of these reasons, I think the fact that people are so keen on espousing marijuana's harmlessness is actually dangerous in and of itself. When people think something isn't 'all that bad', they tend to become complacent about it - look at alcohol and cigarettes - like marijuana, they're not the most medically dangerous of drugs, but they do more damage than all the others combined, not because of their physical properties but because **they're accepted**, and this is the same thing which makes marijuana a problem. Change my view?

I think the very fact that marijuana is so widely accepted makes it more dangerous than 'harder' drugs, CMV. A lot of people, on the internet and otherwise, have some fairly valid reasons why marijuana isn't all that bad, and why it should be legalised. While I acknowledge that there is sound science behind some of these reasons, I think the fact that people are so keen on espousing marijuana's harmlessness is actually dangerous in and of itself. When people think something isn't 'all that bad', they tend to become complacent about it - look at alcohol and cigarettes - like marijuana, they're not the most medically dangerous of drugs, but they do more damage than all the others combined, not because of their physical properties but because **they're accepted**, and this is the same thing which makes marijuana a problem. Change my view?

t3_5uviff

CMV: There's an insane sexual deprivation problem in our current society and it's time we embrace and face it

Me being a male in the mid twenties, I get to openly discuss with several men of different age groups, frankly speaking sex or girls in a general sense never ceases to be part of a conversation among men, that being said, I assume any person that has access to any form of media hears everyday stories about child molesters, predators and all weird categories of sexual crimes, though am fully aware that it would require a profound research based on data to firmly proove my point, I have a strong belief these issues have significantly increased over the days, flags and examples vary, like presidents having affairs and publicly apologizing, 3 times married billionaire business men expressing how they enjoy grabbing women by their genitals, severe rape and unconsensual sex accusations to celebrities, leaders and so on, without even going farther I personally also often hear scary statements from male peers claiming how much they are in need of sex lately, to sum everything up, everyday I increasedly realize an insane sexual problem in the current society and I have a belief that sexual deprivation is a major factor, please change my view

CMV: There's an insane sexual deprivation problem in our current society and it's time we embrace and face it. Me being a male in the mid twenties, I get to openly discuss with several men of different age groups, frankly speaking sex or girls in a general sense never ceases to be part of a conversation among men, that being said, I assume any person that has access to any form of media hears everyday stories about child molesters, predators and all weird categories of sexual crimes, though am fully aware that it would require a profound research based on data to firmly proove my point, I have a strong belief these issues have significantly increased over the days, flags and examples vary, like presidents having affairs and publicly apologizing, 3 times married billionaire business men expressing how they enjoy grabbing women by their genitals, severe rape and unconsensual sex accusations to celebrities, leaders and so on, without even going farther I personally also often hear scary statements from male peers claiming how much they are in need of sex lately, to sum everything up, everyday I increasedly realize an insane sexual problem in the current society and I have a belief that sexual deprivation is a major factor, please change my view

t3_2aou05

CMV: Most of US corporate culture will not consider shorts to be professional until a global phenomenon occurs or a century passes

I like the idea of wearing shorts to work, but unfortunately in USA's corporate culture they are not widely accepted or defined as professional attire. When I looked into the history of shorts [in response to a CMV about the professionalism of shorts coming from a gender bias](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2abu4s/cmv_men_should_be_able_to_wear_shorts_to_work_if/ciu2wvx), I learned that there has been some [historical sociological bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorts#Sociology): >In much of Europe and North America during the 19th and early 20th centuries **shorts were worn as outerwear only by young boys until they reached a certain height or maturity**. When boys got older, typically around puberty, they would receive their first pair of long trousers. Some additional historical perspective [is shown here](http://drbj.hubpages.com/hub/History-of-Shorts-with-OMG-Photos), which shows that shorts have been oppressed in the past for being "outlandish attire", but it took the first World War for them to become more socially acceptable: >Let’s fast forward to the 1930s When women displayed their proclivity, To wear shorts like their children did For casual and athletic activity. >Before the first World War women were arrested for smoking cigarettes in public, for using profanity, for appearing on beaches without stockings, for driving automobiles without a man beside them, and for wearing outlandish attire – for example, shorts. >Shorts were worn by our brave service men In tropical climes during World War Two. It then became commonplace for those shorts To be worn everywhere by men … and women, too. Based on this, **I believe it would take a global phenomenon (World War, massive climate change, other global catastrophe, etc), or another century to pass for shorts to become accepted by most of US corporate culture - Whichever comes first**. Please change my view, because I want to believe that myself or my children will someday live in a country where shorts are socially acceptable by most of the workplace! EDIT: Clarification to my primary statement in bold. _____ > *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 of US corporate culture will not consider shorts to be professional until a global phenomenon occurs or a century passes. I like the idea of wearing shorts to work, but unfortunately in USA's corporate culture they are not widely accepted or defined as professional attire. When I looked into the history of shorts [in response to a CMV about the professionalism of shorts coming from a gender bias](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2abu4s/cmv_men_should_be_able_to_wear_shorts_to_work_if/ciu2wvx), I learned that there has been some [historical sociological bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorts#Sociology): >In much of Europe and North America during the 19th and early 20th centuries **shorts were worn as outerwear only by young boys until they reached a certain height or maturity**. When boys got older, typically around puberty, they would receive their first pair of long trousers. Some additional historical perspective [is shown here](http://drbj.hubpages.com/hub/History-of-Shorts-with-OMG-Photos), which shows that shorts have been oppressed in the past for being "outlandish attire", but it took the first World War for them to become more socially acceptable: >Let’s fast forward to the 1930s When women displayed their proclivity, To wear shorts like their children did For casual and athletic activity. >Before the first World War women were arrested for smoking cigarettes in public, for using profanity, for appearing on beaches without stockings, for driving automobiles without a man beside them, and for wearing outlandish attire – for example, shorts. >Shorts were worn by our brave service men In tropical climes during World War Two. It then became commonplace for those shorts To be worn everywhere by men … and women, too. Based on this, **I believe it would take a global phenomenon (World War, massive climate change, other global catastrophe, etc), or another century to pass for shorts to become accepted by most of US corporate culture - Whichever comes first**. Please change my view, because I want to believe that myself or my children will someday live in a country where shorts are socially acceptable by most of the workplace! EDIT: Clarification to my primary statement in bold.

t3_2zavyn

CMV: Emotional Support Animals are BS

Emotional support animals are just pets. The label is abused by people who want to bring their pets with them into inappropriate (human-only) places. I have no problem with people who like their pets. But there are good reasons some places prohibit pets. Animals are generally not sanitary, and are prone to bothering people, urinating and defecating, and being loud. Most health codes prohibit pets in foodservice establishments for example. Disabilities accommodation laws allow people with **service animals** to bring those animals into places where they'd otherwise be prohibited. A service animal has been specifically trained to perform task(s) to aid their owner in overcoming their disability. So for example seeing eye dogs are specially trained to help their owners navigate the world. Emotional support animals are not trained in any way. They're just pets. Sometimes with a doctor's note saying this person is very attached to their pet. Sometimes with a BS letter you buy on the internet to scare businesses into letting your pet in. Unless the animal is trained to do something specific, it should just be treated as a pet, and you should not be allowed to bring it anywhere pets aren't allowed. _____ > *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: Emotional Support Animals are BS. Emotional support animals are just pets. The label is abused by people who want to bring their pets with them into inappropriate (human-only) places. I have no problem with people who like their pets. But there are good reasons some places prohibit pets. Animals are generally not sanitary, and are prone to bothering people, urinating and defecating, and being loud. Most health codes prohibit pets in foodservice establishments for example. Disabilities accommodation laws allow people with **service animals** to bring those animals into places where they'd otherwise be prohibited. A service animal has been specifically trained to perform task(s) to aid their owner in overcoming their disability. So for example seeing eye dogs are specially trained to help their owners navigate the world. Emotional support animals are not trained in any way. They're just pets. Sometimes with a doctor's note saying this person is very attached to their pet. Sometimes with a BS letter you buy on the internet to scare businesses into letting your pet in. Unless the animal is trained to do something specific, it should just be treated as a pet, and you should not be allowed to bring it anywhere pets aren't allowed.

t3_3atkce

CMV: Volunteer Fire departments should not exist, all fire fighting officials should be paid and trained employees of the state

So I've always kind of thought that it was ridiculous that my hometowns line of defense against fires was a bunch of volunteers. I know that they do receive training but knowing some of them personally they really take it all as some joke- not saying that all volunteers do -but I think that if your going to be in charge of saving someones life and are going to risk your own life you should be a paid professional. Other than the argument that paying firefighters is too expensive for the state why the heck else do all these small towns rely on locals to just figure it out themselves. **Edit:** **Please see thndrchld and Mine's conversation below** >And as far a what I said by taking it as a joke I know a kid that joined because he wanted to shack-up in a fire engine, An ex of mine's grandfather was the long running lead volunteer fighter and often joke that if a N****'s house caught fire he'd let them burn- these are the things that went on in my small home town. >And that is one of the main reason that i feel this should be handled by professionals, not just and guy off the street with his own agenda.- so one more question- if you were volunteering with either of the guys I mentioned what would you do? and how could you have those people removed? **celeritas365 made a good point** >What about mixed? In my town we have some professionals and some volunteers. Some of the volunteers are more for support and can't go into a burning building. The stuff that happens outside is still important. Why pay a full firefighter when you don't need all of his or her skills? Also, much of what fire departments do is checking for fires when a house alarm goes off and doing small yet important things like chemically treating gasoline spills from auto accidents so they don't catch fire. While important, I don't see why a team of ALL professional firefighters need to do these tasks. I think maybe thats what i mean more- There should be professionals at all depts, no ALL volunteer depts should exist.- that also solves the money issue with for example 1 pro for every 5 volunteers. **Ada1629 Also had a good point on my thoughts** >However, I feel uncomfortable with people working for free - it becomes suspect to me that something more nefarious is going on >I also question how stringent the rules are when there is nothing on the line but free labor for those doing the "hiring"? _____ > *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: Volunteer Fire departments should not exist, all fire fighting officials should be paid and trained employees of the state. So I've always kind of thought that it was ridiculous that my hometowns line of defense against fires was a bunch of volunteers. I know that they do receive training but knowing some of them personally they really take it all as some joke- not saying that all volunteers do -but I think that if your going to be in charge of saving someones life and are going to risk your own life you should be a paid professional. Other than the argument that paying firefighters is too expensive for the state why the heck else do all these small towns rely on locals to just figure it out themselves. **Edit:** **Please see thndrchld and Mine's conversation below** >And as far a what I said by taking it as a joke I know a kid that joined because he wanted to shack-up in a fire engine, An ex of mine's grandfather was the long running lead volunteer fighter and often joke that if a N****'s house caught fire he'd let them burn- these are the things that went on in my small home town. >And that is one of the main reason that i feel this should be handled by professionals, not just and guy off the street with his own agenda.- so one more question- if you were volunteering with either of the guys I mentioned what would you do? and how could you have those people removed? **celeritas365 made a good point** >What about mixed? In my town we have some professionals and some volunteers. Some of the volunteers are more for support and can't go into a burning building. The stuff that happens outside is still important. Why pay a full firefighter when you don't need all of his or her skills? Also, much of what fire departments do is checking for fires when a house alarm goes off and doing small yet important things like chemically treating gasoline spills from auto accidents so they don't catch fire. While important, I don't see why a team of ALL professional firefighters need to do these tasks. I think maybe thats what i mean more- There should be professionals at all depts, no ALL volunteer depts should exist.- that also solves the money issue with for example 1 pro for every 5 volunteers. **Ada1629 Also had a good point on my thoughts** >However, I feel uncomfortable with people working for free - it becomes suspect to me that something more nefarious is going on >I also question how stringent the rules are when there is nothing on the line but free labor for those doing the "hiring"?

t3_6k92nv

CMV: Politicians should be legally held accountable for campaign promises.

There should be an unbiased committee, or a straight forward law that should punish politicians who spout blatant lies about what they plan to do in campaigns only to do the exact opposite and flip their stance as soon as they are elected. If you for example, state continuously that you are not going to support Medicaid and social security cuts, and then proceed to support every health bill that cuts Medicaid, you would be in violation of this law. When ever you violate this law you must either pay a large fine, or give a written statement as to why you no longer support one of your own campaign promises Congress lies, past presidents lied, most politicians lie. How can we have a functioning democracy if we allow them to lie and trust the multi-million dollar media companies to hold them accountable? I'm not talking about things that could be misconstrued as a lie, I'm talking about blatant lies that can be clearly shown. Donald Trump is the most obvious example of a politician that lies constantly and does not even care if he can easily be fact checked, because he knows a good chunk of America will believe him either way. If he wants to pay, fine, have it on record that he was in violation, but if he doesn't want to pay, he has to admit he either lied or no longer supports one of the reasons the voters picked him. Edit: to be clear, I'm basically saying they should have their promises be a part of a contract with the American people. A break of one of your promises is a breach of contract, and therefore has penalties. If there was adequate reasoning for you not fulfilling your end of the contract, you must properly give reasons and submit it in writing. I just want to get away from the whole "what are you talking about, I didn't lie, I am doing everything I said I was going to do"

CMV: Politicians should be legally held accountable for campaign promises. There should be an unbiased committee, or a straight forward law that should punish politicians who spout blatant lies about what they plan to do in campaigns only to do the exact opposite and flip their stance as soon as they are elected. If you for example, state continuously that you are not going to support Medicaid and social security cuts, and then proceed to support every health bill that cuts Medicaid, you would be in violation of this law. When ever you violate this law you must either pay a large fine, or give a written statement as to why you no longer support one of your own campaign promises Congress lies, past presidents lied, most politicians lie. How can we have a functioning democracy if we allow them to lie and trust the multi-million dollar media companies to hold them accountable? I'm not talking about things that could be misconstrued as a lie, I'm talking about blatant lies that can be clearly shown. Donald Trump is the most obvious example of a politician that lies constantly and does not even care if he can easily be fact checked, because he knows a good chunk of America will believe him either way. If he wants to pay, fine, have it on record that he was in violation, but if he doesn't want to pay, he has to admit he either lied or no longer supports one of the reasons the voters picked him. Edit: to be clear, I'm basically saying they should have their promises be a part of a contract with the American people. A break of one of your promises is a breach of contract, and therefore has penalties. If there was adequate reasoning for you not fulfilling your end of the contract, you must properly give reasons and submit it in writing. I just want to get away from the whole "what are you talking about, I didn't lie, I am doing everything I said I was going to do"

t3_2q0lij

CMV: Reddit's worldnews and politics subs are counter-productive to understanding issues

Within many subreddits, especially worldnews and politics, the articles that present the unbiased facts end up getting buried while the hyperbolic articles always bubble to the top. as a redditor who wants understand the whole issue, I often find myself frustrated that it's nigh impossible to find a source for many/most of the claims made. for example, the "cia snooping on the senate" subject left me frustrated by both reddit and major news outlets since nobody linked to a source. they mention "in the unclassified report by..." but nobody links to the report. I'm no better informed after reading The Guardian article and reading the reddit comments than I was before; each creates their own echo-chamber for advancing a particular view, but nobody is giving sources or facts, which leads to a biased, and often wrong, understanding that wouldn't have existed before (counter productive). (as an side, is there a subreddit where I can reward people with reddit gold for finding me information?)

CMV: Reddit's worldnews and politics subs are counter-productive to understanding issues. Within many subreddits, especially worldnews and politics, the articles that present the unbiased facts end up getting buried while the hyperbolic articles always bubble to the top. as a redditor who wants understand the whole issue, I often find myself frustrated that it's nigh impossible to find a source for many/most of the claims made. for example, the "cia snooping on the senate" subject left me frustrated by both reddit and major news outlets since nobody linked to a source. they mention "in the unclassified report by..." but nobody links to the report. I'm no better informed after reading The Guardian article and reading the reddit comments than I was before; each creates their own echo-chamber for advancing a particular view, but nobody is giving sources or facts, which leads to a biased, and often wrong, understanding that wouldn't have existed before (counter productive). (as an side, is there a subreddit where I can reward people with reddit gold for finding me information?)

t3_3wu7je

CMV: Livin' on a Prayer by Bon Jovi would be a better US National anthem than the Star Spangled Banner

I'll start with the problems with the current anthem 1.) The Star Spangled Banner is unnecessarily violent A.) Americans internalize that war is glorious and what birthed their country. While the american revolution was obviously important in creating america, countries are born out of shared identity and collective action, not out of killing people. This damages america bc leads to poor policy making and poor national identity. America was in fact started because of tea taxes not out of a glorious struggle for freedom from english oppression. B.) Americans internalize that the nature of war is that it is glorious, rather than brutal, terrifying, PTSD inducing and unnecessary, it makes war seem good rather than a sometimes regrettably necessary evil. C.) Americans have a warlike culture and are easy to provoke into war. Vietnam, Iraq. Americans believe violence is the way to solve conflicts, that participating in war is a way for the nation and its citizens to feel good about themselves, and to self-actualize and “become a man”. D.) This leads to more wars, more conflict, etc., this is bad. We acknowledge that the national anthem is not the only source of propagandizing that americans receive regarding war, but we think it is a significant source of this propaganda. The current anthem is also historically inaccurate. There weren’t rockets in the revolutionary war or war of 1812, nor were there bombs bursting in air like airbust bombs showed up when planes did. 2.) Livin’ On A Prayer more accurately reflects America A.) Livin’ On A Prayer reflects the struggle of the american worker. It talks about the average person struggling to get by, and how they can find meaning in their lives even in poverty. This is a message americans need. It addresses rising income inequality. B.) Livin’ On A Prayer reflects the religious nature of america without excluding the non-religious, and excluding non Judeo-Christian religions. References prayer, but atheists still like Bon Jovi because that prayer is not for a stated religious purpose or goal, it's about the general yearning for something better. People of all denominations and religions use language like this, e.g. "We're praying that he gets the promotion at work." or "I swear to God." 3.) Practical uses of the National Anthem The most common time you will encounter a national anthem - statistically - is at a sporting event. The current anthem takes the wind out of your sails, you’re all stoked for spots and you listen to some dreary, very slow paced trumpet bullshit. Bon Jovi is pump up music. It’s not politically divisive, it’s been used by democrats and republicans in campaign rallies. For somber uses of the anthem, the song’s music structure allows it to be interpreted as sad. Bon Jovi uses a musical technique where depending on how exactly you decide to hear the chords, they can be interpreted as minor and descending or rising and ascending. This, combined with the lyrics, mean it’s also appropriate to use in other circumstances like at soldier’s or politician’s funerals. It states “Even if we don’t make it, we’ve got each other” - an important message in times of loss or hardship, that we must value our relationships with other people. The last important use of the anthem is when greeting dignitaries or holding government events or opening school in the morning - these are all occasions we want people to be excited about the possibilities of the event for. Livin' on a Prayer is exciting, genuine, and real. It should be the National Anthem for the USA.

CMV: Livin' on a Prayer by Bon Jovi would be a better US National anthem than the Star Spangled Banner. I'll start with the problems with the current anthem 1.) The Star Spangled Banner is unnecessarily violent A.) Americans internalize that war is glorious and what birthed their country. While the american revolution was obviously important in creating america, countries are born out of shared identity and collective action, not out of killing people. This damages america bc leads to poor policy making and poor national identity. America was in fact started because of tea taxes not out of a glorious struggle for freedom from english oppression. B.) Americans internalize that the nature of war is that it is glorious, rather than brutal, terrifying, PTSD inducing and unnecessary, it makes war seem good rather than a sometimes regrettably necessary evil. C.) Americans have a warlike culture and are easy to provoke into war. Vietnam, Iraq. Americans believe violence is the way to solve conflicts, that participating in war is a way for the nation and its citizens to feel good about themselves, and to self-actualize and “become a man”. D.) This leads to more wars, more conflict, etc., this is bad. We acknowledge that the national anthem is not the only source of propagandizing that americans receive regarding war, but we think it is a significant source of this propaganda. The current anthem is also historically inaccurate. There weren’t rockets in the revolutionary war or war of 1812, nor were there bombs bursting in air like airbust bombs showed up when planes did. 2.) Livin’ On A Prayer more accurately reflects America A.) Livin’ On A Prayer reflects the struggle of the american worker. It talks about the average person struggling to get by, and how they can find meaning in their lives even in poverty. This is a message americans need. It addresses rising income inequality. B.) Livin’ On A Prayer reflects the religious nature of america without excluding the non-religious, and excluding non Judeo-Christian religions. References prayer, but atheists still like Bon Jovi because that prayer is not for a stated religious purpose or goal, it's about the general yearning for something better. People of all denominations and religions use language like this, e.g. "We're praying that he gets the promotion at work." or "I swear to God." 3.) Practical uses of the National Anthem The most common time you will encounter a national anthem - statistically - is at a sporting event. The current anthem takes the wind out of your sails, you’re all stoked for spots and you listen to some dreary, very slow paced trumpet bullshit. Bon Jovi is pump up music. It’s not politically divisive, it’s been used by democrats and republicans in campaign rallies. For somber uses of the anthem, the song’s music structure allows it to be interpreted as sad. Bon Jovi uses a musical technique where depending on how exactly you decide to hear the chords, they can be interpreted as minor and descending or rising and ascending. This, combined with the lyrics, mean it’s also appropriate to use in other circumstances like at soldier’s or politician’s funerals. It states “Even if we don’t make it, we’ve got each other” - an important message in times of loss or hardship, that we must value our relationships with other people. The last important use of the anthem is when greeting dignitaries or holding government events or opening school in the morning - these are all occasions we want people to be excited about the possibilities of the event for. Livin' on a Prayer is exciting, genuine, and real. It should be the National Anthem for the USA.

t3_56ittt

CMV: The GOP should respect the primary elections and keep Trump on the ticket.

For most of this election cycle a large variety of groups have found Trump to be offensive. At the same time, he has consistently won primary election after primary election. His base has said repeatedly that there isn't much that Trump could say or do that will make them not vote for him. This needs to be respected. Now is not the time for polls and public outrage to impact the will of the people shown through votes. The GOP leadership should not pursue methods of removing him from the ticket simply because he has offended so many with this particular outburst. They should not pressure him to step down as the nomination. Nothing he said was really unexpected if folks had listened to his many interviews. This perhaps was more graphic, but was it more graphic than his statements that have offended other smaller groups? By removing Trump, the GOP will have shown contempt for Republican and Independent voters who went to the ballot box. Trump received more votes than any other Republican primary candidate, [ever](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-got-the-most-votes-in-gop-primary-history-a-historic-number-of-people-voted-against-him-too/). There is no reason to disallow these results. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The GOP should respect the primary elections and keep Trump on the ticket. For most of this election cycle a large variety of groups have found Trump to be offensive. At the same time, he has consistently won primary election after primary election. His base has said repeatedly that there isn't much that Trump could say or do that will make them not vote for him. This needs to be respected. Now is not the time for polls and public outrage to impact the will of the people shown through votes. The GOP leadership should not pursue methods of removing him from the ticket simply because he has offended so many with this particular outburst. They should not pressure him to step down as the nomination. Nothing he said was really unexpected if folks had listened to his many interviews. This perhaps was more graphic, but was it more graphic than his statements that have offended other smaller groups? By removing Trump, the GOP will have shown contempt for Republican and Independent voters who went to the ballot box. Trump received more votes than any other Republican primary candidate, [ever](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-got-the-most-votes-in-gop-primary-history-a-historic-number-of-people-voted-against-him-too/). There is no reason to disallow these results.

t3_4dqnh9

CMV: It's impossible to really know enough about any political topic. So what's the point?

I've been following the US election pretty closely, but I feel that the more I read about politician policies, the less I know. 1) Everything is too complex. With so many agents involved in almost every deal, many of which never have their intentions made public, how can we follow a sequence of events with any certainty? 2) Reporters suck. 99% of the news I read/ hear is poor journalism. It's so difficult to even try to get informed at any more than a superficial level. 3) Since I am not that well versed in the history behind political decisions, I am too impressionable to "convincing-sounding" arguments, and don't feel that I have enough basis to think critically.

CMV: It's impossible to really know enough about any political topic. So what's the point?. I've been following the US election pretty closely, but I feel that the more I read about politician policies, the less I know. 1) Everything is too complex. With so many agents involved in almost every deal, many of which never have their intentions made public, how can we follow a sequence of events with any certainty? 2) Reporters suck. 99% of the news I read/ hear is poor journalism. It's so difficult to even try to get informed at any more than a superficial level. 3) Since I am not that well versed in the history behind political decisions, I am too impressionable to "convincing-sounding" arguments, and don't feel that I have enough basis to think critically.

t3_1wzao5

CMV: Google has ceased being an innovator and is currently self destructing.

Over the last year it seems that all of the Google services have gone down hill at varying paces but steadily. **GMAIL** - Nothing major here but I see no innovation like there used to be. Other Google services are being forced in and the UI is becoming a little over ambitious for what used to be a ridiculously simply email site. **Android** - For a company that did so many things so well, they've yet to be applied to crucial parts of android such as the appstore, permissions, and privacy options. What first made android appealing has gone down the drain and things are becoming increasingly messy while they should be getting better. **Google+** - I don't even want to go here. Stay the fuck out of my life or at least make it seem that you don't exist. It's quickly becoming more invasive than facebook AND I DON'T EVEN USE IT. **Youtube** - I don't even know how to use this site anymore. It might as well just be a search bar that returns semi relevant results. Ads are becoming worse, relevant links are batshit insane, and the player itself is quite possible the worst the internet has to offer. The only thing I can think of that still works the way it used to is Google.com, but then I realize that's only because I am using Ad-Block and not subjected to a lot of the bad shit. Am I missing something or should we be abadoning ship and hoping someone new jumps in to this game? **Edit:** Thanks for all the great(and shitty) replies folks. I made this post before I went to bed and didn't expect it to blow up the way it did, and will not be replying to any of them individually as I am BURIED under school work, but I have read all of them and thank you for the time invested in them. I am glad to see Google is still working on some interesting things but my opinion has not changed. I wish them luck in the future and hope that some of these interesting projects come to fruition and work out well for them. Until then I remain unimpressed with where things currently stand.

CMV: Google has ceased being an innovator and is currently self destructing. Over the last year it seems that all of the Google services have gone down hill at varying paces but steadily. **GMAIL** - Nothing major here but I see no innovation like there used to be. Other Google services are being forced in and the UI is becoming a little over ambitious for what used to be a ridiculously simply email site. **Android** - For a company that did so many things so well, they've yet to be applied to crucial parts of android such as the appstore, permissions, and privacy options. What first made android appealing has gone down the drain and things are becoming increasingly messy while they should be getting better. **Google+** - I don't even want to go here. Stay the fuck out of my life or at least make it seem that you don't exist. It's quickly becoming more invasive than facebook AND I DON'T EVEN USE IT. **Youtube** - I don't even know how to use this site anymore. It might as well just be a search bar that returns semi relevant results. Ads are becoming worse, relevant links are batshit insane, and the player itself is quite possible the worst the internet has to offer. The only thing I can think of that still works the way it used to is Google.com, but then I realize that's only because I am using Ad-Block and not subjected to a lot of the bad shit. Am I missing something or should we be abadoning ship and hoping someone new jumps in to this game? **Edit:** Thanks for all the great(and shitty) replies folks. I made this post before I went to bed and didn't expect it to blow up the way it did, and will not be replying to any of them individually as I am BURIED under school work, but I have read all of them and thank you for the time invested in them. I am glad to see Google is still working on some interesting things but my opinion has not changed. I wish them luck in the future and hope that some of these interesting projects come to fruition and work out well for them. Until then I remain unimpressed with where things currently stand.

t3_1ln84t

I believe that we shouldn't make a decision on how 3D technology will shape the movie industry. CMV

I am against the overuse of 3D technology. But note the word "overuse," not "use." I believe that we aren't in a position to see how 3D technology will shape the movie industry. No one in the movie industry ever sees changes and can predict how they can be used in the future. I have no idea what new advances in 3D technology will come out. They may be great, for all we know. James Cameron might be right, 3D may revolutionize movies forever. We just don't know. As I write this, I'm looking at a poster of Charlie Chaplin. Charlie Chaplin was a well-spoken opponent of another new film technology - sound. Sound! Could you imagine a film without sound in 2013? You'd get laughed out of Hollywood if you made a silent film today. My point is, if Chaplin was so against sound, and was wrong, maybe we shouldn't pass judgement on 3D technology just yet. CMV

I believe that we shouldn't make a decision on how 3D technology will shape the movie industry. CMV. I am against the overuse of 3D technology. But note the word "overuse," not "use." I believe that we aren't in a position to see how 3D technology will shape the movie industry. No one in the movie industry ever sees changes and can predict how they can be used in the future. I have no idea what new advances in 3D technology will come out. They may be great, for all we know. James Cameron might be right, 3D may revolutionize movies forever. We just don't know. As I write this, I'm looking at a poster of Charlie Chaplin. Charlie Chaplin was a well-spoken opponent of another new film technology - sound. Sound! Could you imagine a film without sound in 2013? You'd get laughed out of Hollywood if you made a silent film today. My point is, if Chaplin was so against sound, and was wrong, maybe we shouldn't pass judgement on 3D technology just yet. CMV

t3_1qym6y

I don't want to have a child for fear of them being born with something severely wrong that would result in me being burdened/devastated for the rest of my life. CMV.

There are lots of possibilities. Autism would be difficult, but something I think I could learn to accept. But what about severe mental retardation, or even worse, giving birth to a complete sociopath? Why should I give up my life for the possibility of someone with no hope for a successful future? Even a pothead college dropout would make me feel like I made a giant mistake. I have always told my girlfriend, "three dogs and zero kids." She feels largely the same way that I do. Reddit, change my view.

I don't want to have a child for fear of them being born with something severely wrong that would result in me being burdened/devastated for the rest of my life. CMV. There are lots of possibilities. Autism would be difficult, but something I think I could learn to accept. But what about severe mental retardation, or even worse, giving birth to a complete sociopath? Why should I give up my life for the possibility of someone with no hope for a successful future? Even a pothead college dropout would make me feel like I made a giant mistake. I have always told my girlfriend, "three dogs and zero kids." She feels largely the same way that I do. Reddit, change my view.

t3_21g3vd

CMV: As a "casual" gamer and a person who moderately uses Facebook, I'm really happy about the Facebook-Oculus deal. CMV.

So the Facebook-Oculus deal is erupting all over reddit right now, and I'm just doing some light reading over what that deal means. Essentially, Facebook gets to incorporate Oculus into its advertising platform but will probably not interfere too much with the company. I see it like what happened to Instagram. Yeah, Facebook bought them out too but Instagram works pretty much as a separate entity even in the current day. As a person who is pretty illiterate about the deep nuances of gaming technology, gaming company politics, etc, I honestly don't see what's so bad about this. I like using Facebook and I occasionally play games on my Xbox360 like Skyrim, Mass Effect, etc. Having the Facebook brand attached to the new generation of gaming doesn't evoke the same outrage in me as it does in apparently so many other people. I'm seeing posts where people are complaining that the entire future of gaming has been shot, that Facebook will now shove advertisement after advertisement down our throats, etc. That just seems silly. I mean, look at Facebook right now. I barely even notice the advertisements, they're very inconspicuous and don't worsen my facebook browsing experience at all. So if facebook throws a few ads here and there when playing games, who gives a shit. But the benefits seem enormous! Oculus will now have oodles of cash to further improve their virtual reality technology - in a way they never could have earlier. CMV and convince me (**remember**, I'm a pretty casual non-expert when it comes to gaming) that this deal is bad for people like me.

CMV: As a "casual" gamer and a person who moderately uses Facebook, I'm really happy about the Facebook-Oculus deal. CMV. So the Facebook-Oculus deal is erupting all over reddit right now, and I'm just doing some light reading over what that deal means. Essentially, Facebook gets to incorporate Oculus into its advertising platform but will probably not interfere too much with the company. I see it like what happened to Instagram. Yeah, Facebook bought them out too but Instagram works pretty much as a separate entity even in the current day. As a person who is pretty illiterate about the deep nuances of gaming technology, gaming company politics, etc, I honestly don't see what's so bad about this. I like using Facebook and I occasionally play games on my Xbox360 like Skyrim, Mass Effect, etc. Having the Facebook brand attached to the new generation of gaming doesn't evoke the same outrage in me as it does in apparently so many other people. I'm seeing posts where people are complaining that the entire future of gaming has been shot, that Facebook will now shove advertisement after advertisement down our throats, etc. That just seems silly. I mean, look at Facebook right now. I barely even notice the advertisements, they're very inconspicuous and don't worsen my facebook browsing experience at all. So if facebook throws a few ads here and there when playing games, who gives a shit. But the benefits seem enormous! Oculus will now have oodles of cash to further improve their virtual reality technology - in a way they never could have earlier. CMV and convince me (**remember**, I'm a pretty casual non-expert when it comes to gaming) that this deal is bad for people like me.

t3_1puc9g

I am A teenager who is deeply ashamed of his generation. CMV.

When I go to school, it makes me very upset when I see someone who is more focused on popularity and sports than actually trying to get good grades and actually getting to A decent college. What makes me even more pissed is when I see fellow students get horrible grades, and they're just like "Who cares about this, I can just play in the NFL when I get older." First of all, you should still try to get good grades in school regardless, and second of all, ONLY 0.01% of high school football players get to the NFL, and ONLY 1% of College players. Also, it makes me even more crazy when I see girls crying over their ex-boyfriends who they only dated them for about 2 days. And it's not just grades, it's how many of them just spend their free time getting high and drinking. Most of them just care about becoming "Vine famous" or being popular in school. Worst of all, people actually PAY (through taxes) for us to get an education, and some, if not most, just WASTE IT! I'm in no way perfect student or am amazing in school, but I still try to get exceptional grades and am part of quite a few clubs. Am I in the minority? Please CMV!

I am A teenager who is deeply ashamed of his generation. CMV. When I go to school, it makes me very upset when I see someone who is more focused on popularity and sports than actually trying to get good grades and actually getting to A decent college. What makes me even more pissed is when I see fellow students get horrible grades, and they're just like "Who cares about this, I can just play in the NFL when I get older." First of all, you should still try to get good grades in school regardless, and second of all, ONLY 0.01% of high school football players get to the NFL, and ONLY 1% of College players. Also, it makes me even more crazy when I see girls crying over their ex-boyfriends who they only dated them for about 2 days. And it's not just grades, it's how many of them just spend their free time getting high and drinking. Most of them just care about becoming "Vine famous" or being popular in school. Worst of all, people actually PAY (through taxes) for us to get an education, and some, if not most, just WASTE IT! I'm in no way perfect student or am amazing in school, but I still try to get exceptional grades and am part of quite a few clubs. Am I in the minority? Please CMV!

t3_1xgqxe

I am British, and the mentality that "we" won a bronze medal at the Winter Olympics is not a pleasant one. CMV

Already I've heard multiple people tell me that "we won a bronze medal in Sochi". I dislike this mentality that someone of my nationality 'represents' me. Why should they? I am aware that people like to feel complicit in things, to make them feel like they have some kind of an impact on things they perceive as important. I am also aware that this sort of mentality is highly useful to a country - if the mentality did not exist, wars could not be fought in its name. But on a personal level, why *should* we feel like someone else's achievements are our achievements just because they happened to have been born on the same landmass as us, along with millions of other people? At what point in choosing to remain in the country I was arbitrarily born in, did I decide that everyone from that country somehow 'represented' me? Isn't this the same fundamental idea behind prejudice, stereotyping and racial hatred - the idea that the actions of the few represent the many individuals of the nation they come from? Isn't there something intrinsically sinister and tribalist about this whole attitude? In hope of trying to make the world a more peaceful and tolerant place, shouldn't we attempt to reduce nationalistic fervour by ditching this whole ridiculous focus on making 'where you're from' the most important thing about your identity? If someone *has* to represent me (and I don't believe anyone does, unless I have personally had an influence on them in some way) - why couldn't it be a bit more specific? Millions of people are English, but far less than that are fans of Blade Runner. If an athlete from the Russian team happened to be a Blade Runner fan, could I consider him 'representing' me at the Winter Olympics? If he won a medal, could I say "we won a medal at the Winter Olympics?" ("We" being Blade Runner fans). ---------- *Important disclaimer: I've noticed a tendency in this subreddit to assume that the OP, in criticising something, absolutely detests that thing and believes it is an incredibly serious issue in society - a matter of life or death. That is not the case in this thread. I am critical of this issue, but I am in no way trying to assert that this issue is as bad as the holocaust, nor am I trying to convey any sort of passionate hated for it. I dislike it, and I wish to hear the views of those who either like it, or are indifferent to it. I am not claiming that it's as bad as cancer, so please do not attempt to dramatise my opinion. It's something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and something that represents a more sinister attitude latent within society, in my opinion.*

I am British, and the mentality that "we" won a bronze medal at the Winter Olympics is not a pleasant one. CMV. Already I've heard multiple people tell me that "we won a bronze medal in Sochi". I dislike this mentality that someone of my nationality 'represents' me. Why should they? I am aware that people like to feel complicit in things, to make them feel like they have some kind of an impact on things they perceive as important. I am also aware that this sort of mentality is highly useful to a country - if the mentality did not exist, wars could not be fought in its name. But on a personal level, why *should* we feel like someone else's achievements are our achievements just because they happened to have been born on the same landmass as us, along with millions of other people? At what point in choosing to remain in the country I was arbitrarily born in, did I decide that everyone from that country somehow 'represented' me? Isn't this the same fundamental idea behind prejudice, stereotyping and racial hatred - the idea that the actions of the few represent the many individuals of the nation they come from? Isn't there something intrinsically sinister and tribalist about this whole attitude? In hope of trying to make the world a more peaceful and tolerant place, shouldn't we attempt to reduce nationalistic fervour by ditching this whole ridiculous focus on making 'where you're from' the most important thing about your identity? If someone *has* to represent me (and I don't believe anyone does, unless I have personally had an influence on them in some way) - why couldn't it be a bit more specific? Millions of people are English, but far less than that are fans of Blade Runner. If an athlete from the Russian team happened to be a Blade Runner fan, could I consider him 'representing' me at the Winter Olympics? If he won a medal, could I say "we won a medal at the Winter Olympics?" ("We" being Blade Runner fans). ---------- *Important disclaimer: I've noticed a tendency in this subreddit to assume that the OP, in criticising something, absolutely detests that thing and believes it is an incredibly serious issue in society - a matter of life or death. That is not the case in this thread. I am critical of this issue, but I am in no way trying to assert that this issue is as bad as the holocaust, nor am I trying to convey any sort of passionate hated for it. I dislike it, and I wish to hear the views of those who either like it, or are indifferent to it. I am not claiming that it's as bad as cancer, so please do not attempt to dramatise my opinion. It's something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and something that represents a more sinister attitude latent within society, in my opinion.*

t3_1k8wzc

Feminism has significantly worsened the quality of public schooling in the US. CMV

By drastically increasing the possibility for smart and capable women to pursue careers in areas outside of education and nursing, feminism has inadvertently led to a lower quality in both areas. Women who at one time would have been outstanding teachers/nurses, now might pursue a career as a businesswoman/doctor, etc. This is not to say that there aren't still great women(and men) in either of the former professions. Just that, by accepting women in a wider array of career paths, they have been able to pursue higher paying jobs in areas that had traditionally been restricted to men. Because we don't pay public school teachers very well in the US, there is significant economic pressure to pursue careers in other areas for highly qualified people. The improved economic possibilities in other professional tracks discourages top talent from going into teaching. Unless they are passionate about teaching/education, in which case the pay may not be a deciding factor. While this is certainly not a new phenomenon, due to the limits on "socially acceptable" jobs for women prior to women's lib, top female talent was often "forced" into teaching and nursing. This resulted in a higher quality of teachers and nurses. Caveats: 1. I do not forward this position as a good argument for reversing the progress made by women over the past 50 years. I think we are much better off, both economically and socially, with women being fully equal participating members of our economy. 2. Feminism hasn't only led to women's access to previously male-only industries, but also led to much larger numbers of women participating in the workforce. Whereas before, many women with the potential to be good [insert profession here]s stayed home as homemakers, today more work. Some of the women that would have stayed home 50 years ago will be great teachers or nurses today. But, I don't think this is enough to overcome the exodus of talent. 3. Certainly there are other factors which have led to today's lower quality, beyond just a lowering of the average caliber of teachers/nurses.

Feminism has significantly worsened the quality of public schooling in the US. CMV. By drastically increasing the possibility for smart and capable women to pursue careers in areas outside of education and nursing, feminism has inadvertently led to a lower quality in both areas. Women who at one time would have been outstanding teachers/nurses, now might pursue a career as a businesswoman/doctor, etc. This is not to say that there aren't still great women(and men) in either of the former professions. Just that, by accepting women in a wider array of career paths, they have been able to pursue higher paying jobs in areas that had traditionally been restricted to men. Because we don't pay public school teachers very well in the US, there is significant economic pressure to pursue careers in other areas for highly qualified people. The improved economic possibilities in other professional tracks discourages top talent from going into teaching. Unless they are passionate about teaching/education, in which case the pay may not be a deciding factor. While this is certainly not a new phenomenon, due to the limits on "socially acceptable" jobs for women prior to women's lib, top female talent was often "forced" into teaching and nursing. This resulted in a higher quality of teachers and nurses. Caveats: 1. I do not forward this position as a good argument for reversing the progress made by women over the past 50 years. I think we are much better off, both economically and socially, with women being fully equal participating members of our economy. 2. Feminism hasn't only led to women's access to previously male-only industries, but also led to much larger numbers of women participating in the workforce. Whereas before, many women with the potential to be good [insert profession here]s stayed home as homemakers, today more work. Some of the women that would have stayed home 50 years ago will be great teachers or nurses today. But, I don't think this is enough to overcome the exodus of talent. 3. Certainly there are other factors which have led to today's lower quality, beyond just a lowering of the average caliber of teachers/nurses.

t3_22varo

CMV: I believe that libertarians should consider the Republican Party the lesser of two evils.

I identify as mostly libertarian, and although I do not like the Republican Party, I consider them to be the lesser of two evils (especially with the Tea Party Movement). I think that most libertarians should have the same attitude. I do NOT think that libertarians should be active supporters of the GOP, but I think that most of them should be hating the Republican Party slightly less than they hate the Democratic Party, and at least be taking a closer look at them at the voting booth. In most cases, libertarians support very limited government. When you compare the two major parties, the Democrats really don't have many policies that support the notion of "get the government out of the picture" whereas the Republicans have this attitude on good amount issues. Fiscal policy is pretty much a no-brainer. Yes, Republicans have had some not-so-ideal fiscal policies, especially under Bush, but generally they support lower taxes, lower spending, less handouts, less regulations, etc. I believe there is a clear lesser of two evils on fiscal policy. On social issues, libertarians would only agree with Democrats on a few issues, but disagree with them on some too. Agree: gay marriage, abortion, immigration, separation of church/state. Disagree: guns, affirmative action. Democrats are slightly more attractive on social policy but not by much. We can forget about the following issues, because neither party has a specific stance on them: foreign policy, homeland security, drugs, prostitution, gambling, free speech. Again, my opinion is NOT that libertarians should be proud, active, card-carrying members of the Republican Party. I'm only trying to say that libertarians should be seeing a lesser of two evils. _____ > *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 libertarians should consider the Republican Party the lesser of two evils. I identify as mostly libertarian, and although I do not like the Republican Party, I consider them to be the lesser of two evils (especially with the Tea Party Movement). I think that most libertarians should have the same attitude. I do NOT think that libertarians should be active supporters of the GOP, but I think that most of them should be hating the Republican Party slightly less than they hate the Democratic Party, and at least be taking a closer look at them at the voting booth. In most cases, libertarians support very limited government. When you compare the two major parties, the Democrats really don't have many policies that support the notion of "get the government out of the picture" whereas the Republicans have this attitude on good amount issues. Fiscal policy is pretty much a no-brainer. Yes, Republicans have had some not-so-ideal fiscal policies, especially under Bush, but generally they support lower taxes, lower spending, less handouts, less regulations, etc. I believe there is a clear lesser of two evils on fiscal policy. On social issues, libertarians would only agree with Democrats on a few issues, but disagree with them on some too. Agree: gay marriage, abortion, immigration, separation of church/state. Disagree: guns, affirmative action. Democrats are slightly more attractive on social policy but not by much. We can forget about the following issues, because neither party has a specific stance on them: foreign policy, homeland security, drugs, prostitution, gambling, free speech. Again, my opinion is NOT that libertarians should be proud, active, card-carrying members of the Republican Party. I'm only trying to say that libertarians should be seeing a lesser of two evils.

t3_3d5cq0

CMV: I like Dave Grohl, but I don't like Foo Fighters.

Dave's quotes and antics make it almost impossible not to love him. Breaking a leg on stage recently, and finishing the concert...major credit and rock n roll points. I enjoy Nirvana's music, Queens of the Stone Age and Them Crooked Vultures. All great bands that I can enjoy. I even enjoyed a War Pigs cover that the Foo Fighters did on David Letterman. However, I've not found a Foo Fighters song that I enjoy. I like bands that sound recognizable. ...by a musical style or vocal style. Every FF song I've heard simply sounds generic, like background noise. (Granted I've only delved into their popular stuff). So, I really *WANT* to like them because of Dave...can you help me? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I like Dave Grohl, but I don't like Foo Fighters. Dave's quotes and antics make it almost impossible not to love him. Breaking a leg on stage recently, and finishing the concert...major credit and rock n roll points. I enjoy Nirvana's music, Queens of the Stone Age and Them Crooked Vultures. All great bands that I can enjoy. I even enjoyed a War Pigs cover that the Foo Fighters did on David Letterman. However, I've not found a Foo Fighters song that I enjoy. I like bands that sound recognizable. ...by a musical style or vocal style. Every FF song I've heard simply sounds generic, like background noise. (Granted I've only delved into their popular stuff). So, I really *WANT* to like them because of Dave...can you help me?

t3_6t2sh9

CMV:"Mars" is a very underwhelming and uncool name for a planet.

I think the name "Mars" is a very stupid and underwhelming name for an otherwise incredible planet. I'm sure its has to do with pop culture cheapening the name through stories of aliens from mars or other lame endeavors. Perhaps it reminds me of the 1950s style and representation of Mars which has (through mere exposure) dulled the name and perhaps the reputation of the planet Mars. If a new movie about aliens comes out and I learn that they are from Mars I will have no interest in the movie, nor will I think the movie is in any way terrifying. The word Martians and Invaders are synonymous with how uncool I think Mars is as well. I am very afraid that the current discoveries of the Curiosity rover and the incredible exploration of Mars are lost on me due this perception. I apologize in advance that this post is a somewhat tasteless and trivial. Edit. Thank you everyone for the responses. Many of you have mentioned Mars being the God of War and although I didn't see it first I see how bad ass that actually is. To further clarify, my gripe was with the association that Mars has with *silly* retro movies from the 50s. And though many of you probably thought my topic was stupid, I totally agree. May it be movies about robots or green alien invaders, they have given me this perception that Mars is a joke; when clearly it is a place to be taken very seriously. Mars has a very incredible reputation of being deadly, bloody, and ruthless place, like Venus which is an equally incredibly inhospitable planet.

CMV:"Mars" is a very underwhelming and uncool name for a planet. I think the name "Mars" is a very stupid and underwhelming name for an otherwise incredible planet. I'm sure its has to do with pop culture cheapening the name through stories of aliens from mars or other lame endeavors. Perhaps it reminds me of the 1950s style and representation of Mars which has (through mere exposure) dulled the name and perhaps the reputation of the planet Mars. If a new movie about aliens comes out and I learn that they are from Mars I will have no interest in the movie, nor will I think the movie is in any way terrifying. The word Martians and Invaders are synonymous with how uncool I think Mars is as well. I am very afraid that the current discoveries of the Curiosity rover and the incredible exploration of Mars are lost on me due this perception. I apologize in advance that this post is a somewhat tasteless and trivial. Edit. Thank you everyone for the responses. Many of you have mentioned Mars being the God of War and although I didn't see it first I see how bad ass that actually is. To further clarify, my gripe was with the association that Mars has with *silly* retro movies from the 50s. And though many of you probably thought my topic was stupid, I totally agree. May it be movies about robots or green alien invaders, they have given me this perception that Mars is a joke; when clearly it is a place to be taken very seriously. Mars has a very incredible reputation of being deadly, bloody, and ruthless place, like Venus which is an equally incredibly inhospitable planet.

t3_1ld3hb

I believe that in a Groundhog Day scenario, murder is still morally wrong. CMV.

We all know the scenario, right? You wake up to the same day, over and over again in seeming perpetuity, but you are the only one experiencing the repeating effect. Everybody else on the planet is living the day as though it is the first time, every time. “Restore to factory settings” at 6am. There are no external consequences lasting longer than 24 hours. The reasons I think murder is still morally wrong, despite the person being reincarnated the next day as though the act had never occurred, are the following: * **The big R.** Let’s cut right to it. If murder is okay, then rape is okay, and now you are really in a dark place. * **The mouse in the glue trap.** There are no consequences for leaving a mouse in a glue trap to die slowly of dehydration or self-inflicted wounds, but many would agree that it is moral to end the mouse’s suffering quickly. The mouse dies either way, but the moral choice is to minimize pain and suffering. In a Groundhog Day murder there are also no consequences, but you are increasing pain and suffering. Even a swift murder causes some pain and suffering in others, and if it’s not swift you’ve left someone to suffer for potentially hours. * **Consequences to one’s self.** The emotional trauma you inflict on yourself is immoral. You have created unnecessary pain and suffering for yourself, and this does carry over to the next day, and the day after that. I have met many people who have casually agreed that murder is okay in a Groundhog Day scenario, and I often assume this is a nod to their own immorality. But, admittedly, I’ve never lived the same day over and over again, so maybe I’m overlooking some variables that would change the rules of the game. Edit: Okay, I had to sleep, and now I'm at work, but some more responses have piled up. I'll try to take a look at each response sometime throughout the day to give some consideration everybody's perspectives.

I believe that in a Groundhog Day scenario, murder is still morally wrong. CMV. We all know the scenario, right? You wake up to the same day, over and over again in seeming perpetuity, but you are the only one experiencing the repeating effect. Everybody else on the planet is living the day as though it is the first time, every time. “Restore to factory settings” at 6am. There are no external consequences lasting longer than 24 hours. The reasons I think murder is still morally wrong, despite the person being reincarnated the next day as though the act had never occurred, are the following: * **The big R.** Let’s cut right to it. If murder is okay, then rape is okay, and now you are really in a dark place. * **The mouse in the glue trap.** There are no consequences for leaving a mouse in a glue trap to die slowly of dehydration or self-inflicted wounds, but many would agree that it is moral to end the mouse’s suffering quickly. The mouse dies either way, but the moral choice is to minimize pain and suffering. In a Groundhog Day murder there are also no consequences, but you are increasing pain and suffering. Even a swift murder causes some pain and suffering in others, and if it’s not swift you’ve left someone to suffer for potentially hours. * **Consequences to one’s self.** The emotional trauma you inflict on yourself is immoral. You have created unnecessary pain and suffering for yourself, and this does carry over to the next day, and the day after that. I have met many people who have casually agreed that murder is okay in a Groundhog Day scenario, and I often assume this is a nod to their own immorality. But, admittedly, I’ve never lived the same day over and over again, so maybe I’m overlooking some variables that would change the rules of the game. Edit: Okay, I had to sleep, and now I'm at work, but some more responses have piled up. I'll try to take a look at each response sometime throughout the day to give some consideration everybody's perspectives.

t3_1pb8cm

The biggest storm in 26 years is about to hit the area in which I live and it's unnerving me. CMV

There have been a lot of weather reports recently about the upcoming storm to hit the UK, Southwest tonight. Weather warnings have been put in place and it's really starting to shake me up. Here's some more info on the storm: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24674537 I do know that to some Americans this may not be comparatively a very big storm, but I've never seen or been involved in such a storm in the UK. I also live in a very old house and I'm just starting to fear for my home, family and possessions. So CMV on why I shouldn't be scared or nervous. Thanks, Reddit.

The biggest storm in 26 years is about to hit the area in which I live and it's unnerving me. CMV. There have been a lot of weather reports recently about the upcoming storm to hit the UK, Southwest tonight. Weather warnings have been put in place and it's really starting to shake me up. Here's some more info on the storm: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24674537 I do know that to some Americans this may not be comparatively a very big storm, but I've never seen or been involved in such a storm in the UK. I also live in a very old house and I'm just starting to fear for my home, family and possessions. So CMV on why I shouldn't be scared or nervous. Thanks, Reddit.

t3_2dgu6l

CMV: Apple computers are for old people and the technologically illiterate. Anybody else that using Apple products have bought into marketing. (Not just a fanboy, please read)

(Edit) so I learned much less than I thought I would doing this. Even though it was poorly written my hope was that I could find out what is actually superior about Apple and what is just marketing. My point was kind of trying to also find out if Apple's security is actually worth the inflated price. I did learn a good amount about why professionals prefer Apple which I guess did change my mind because I didn't take that into consideration when I originally posted and it negates my claim that Apple is all marketing.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *First off I want to say that I am not a fan boy. It's hard to get people to talk about this stuff because people so closely associate their personalities with branding nowadays but I am interested in learning about why people like Apple products are anything more that easy to use machines with good warranties. I often observe nerds using and touting Apple products but to me the products don't offer any advantage that can't be countered by moderate understanding of computers. I feel that people pay a premium for apple products because the experience is streamlined and more safe from virus' malware etc. For me, Apple offers a dumbed down experience that panders to the technologically illiterate and charges them a premium price because they don't know any better. I understand the arguments that the operating systems run more efficiently and that apple is supposed to have better customer service and warranties but do they? Isn't Apple more just forcing you to buy an extended warranty with your product. The old people comment comes from being in the teaching profession and observing that for the same price, teenagers today prefer similarly priced Android phones to Iphones. Does this mean that Apple is holding onto their market share because of old ideas of their supremacy in the smart phone market maintained by older people? I don't know maybe. I'll give you some of my background with computers and phones. I grew up using Apple products. My parents always had apple's (or macintoshes) when I was a kid. We had a windows and an IMAC, I felt that for the price the Apple products were not worth it especially considering the limited upgradablity, which is only used by Apple to make more money. I have always bought windows computers since. I play games on my computer still but rarely ever a game that is very demanding in terms of graphics and processing. I have used both Android phones and Iphones and in my experience the two offer a similar quality. I prefer that android is far more customization that the Iphone so I use that but my current phone HTC-One M8 cost the same price as an Iphone. Although, I would argue that Apple's refusal to allow a microSD slot makes it a little overpriced still. _____ > *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: Apple computers are for old people and the technologically illiterate. Anybody else that using Apple products have bought into marketing. (Not just a fanboy, please read). (Edit) so I learned much less than I thought I would doing this. Even though it was poorly written my hope was that I could find out what is actually superior about Apple and what is just marketing. My point was kind of trying to also find out if Apple's security is actually worth the inflated price. I did learn a good amount about why professionals prefer Apple which I guess did change my mind because I didn't take that into consideration when I originally posted and it negates my claim that Apple is all marketing.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *First off I want to say that I am not a fan boy. It's hard to get people to talk about this stuff because people so closely associate their personalities with branding nowadays but I am interested in learning about why people like Apple products are anything more that easy to use machines with good warranties. I often observe nerds using and touting Apple products but to me the products don't offer any advantage that can't be countered by moderate understanding of computers. I feel that people pay a premium for apple products because the experience is streamlined and more safe from virus' malware etc. For me, Apple offers a dumbed down experience that panders to the technologically illiterate and charges them a premium price because they don't know any better. I understand the arguments that the operating systems run more efficiently and that apple is supposed to have better customer service and warranties but do they? Isn't Apple more just forcing you to buy an extended warranty with your product. The old people comment comes from being in the teaching profession and observing that for the same price, teenagers today prefer similarly priced Android phones to Iphones. Does this mean that Apple is holding onto their market share because of old ideas of their supremacy in the smart phone market maintained by older people? I don't know maybe. I'll give you some of my background with computers and phones. I grew up using Apple products. My parents always had apple's (or macintoshes) when I was a kid. We had a windows and an IMAC, I felt that for the price the Apple products were not worth it especially considering the limited upgradablity, which is only used by Apple to make more money. I have always bought windows computers since. I play games on my computer still but rarely ever a game that is very demanding in terms of graphics and processing. I have used both Android phones and Iphones and in my experience the two offer a similar quality. I prefer that android is far more customization that the Iphone so I use that but my current phone HTC-One M8 cost the same price as an Iphone. Although, I would argue that Apple's refusal to allow a microSD slot makes it a little overpriced still.

t3_5s5jcb

CMV: Sorting by 'controversial' is the best way to read politically bias subreddits.

Reddit's voting algorithms and voting in general has led to subreddits quickly becoming politically charged as either very left or very right. There are plenty of examples of subreddits like these. The story generally goes that a new thread is posted, and then rapidly upvoted by a small minority in a short time, they also actively downvote posts that disagree with their opinion (Completely disregarding that upvote/downvote should be reserved for relevance as opposed to whether you agree or not). This initial charge affects who else can view the post easily, and therefore what kind of new people arrive to the post. For instance on the_donald i could go and post a critque of one of Trump's policies in a pre-existing thread and get downvoted. My comment is relevent, but not agreeable with the 'majority' of the sub. In such a case I say that the only 'reasonable' way to enjoy such subs, and actually facilitate a conversation is to filter by 'controversial'. The controversial filter provides a middle ground between users, a sort median that samples supporters and detractors from both sides of the subreddit's hivemind to produce a truly 'median' opinion. **example** Let me give you an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s86bz/sanders_on_trump_this_guy_is_a_fraud/?sort=confidence **"Best" Post** >I never knew that you could convince this many people of such a stupid idea like a Manhattan manor born silver spoon billionaire is going to be an iconoclast who is going to bust up Wall Street and win them their jobs at the plant back. It's the most discouraging part of this whole thing to me. We are a profoundly stupid country. **"Controversial" Post** >We know, Bernie. Unfortunately the DNC is also fraudulent and this election looked like each party enduring terribly botched coups. Trump was the outsider that successfully broke in. Bernie was the outsider that successfully broke in and was consequently removed in a loud clumsy mess. ---------------------------- The best post appears to just be randomly attacking trump, wealth, finance, corruption blindly and then comming to the well thought out conclusion that everyone is stupid. The most controversial post gives a pretty agreeable analysis on the current situation that is not flat out pro-trump, but well balanced and reasoned. _____ > *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: Sorting by 'controversial' is the best way to read politically bias subreddits. Reddit's voting algorithms and voting in general has led to subreddits quickly becoming politically charged as either very left or very right. There are plenty of examples of subreddits like these. The story generally goes that a new thread is posted, and then rapidly upvoted by a small minority in a short time, they also actively downvote posts that disagree with their opinion (Completely disregarding that upvote/downvote should be reserved for relevance as opposed to whether you agree or not). This initial charge affects who else can view the post easily, and therefore what kind of new people arrive to the post. For instance on the_donald i could go and post a critque of one of Trump's policies in a pre-existing thread and get downvoted. My comment is relevent, but not agreeable with the 'majority' of the sub. In such a case I say that the only 'reasonable' way to enjoy such subs, and actually facilitate a conversation is to filter by 'controversial'. The controversial filter provides a middle ground between users, a sort median that samples supporters and detractors from both sides of the subreddit's hivemind to produce a truly 'median' opinion. **example** Let me give you an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s86bz/sanders_on_trump_this_guy_is_a_fraud/?sort=confidence **"Best" Post** >I never knew that you could convince this many people of such a stupid idea like a Manhattan manor born silver spoon billionaire is going to be an iconoclast who is going to bust up Wall Street and win them their jobs at the plant back. It's the most discouraging part of this whole thing to me. We are a profoundly stupid country. **"Controversial" Post** >We know, Bernie. Unfortunately the DNC is also fraudulent and this election looked like each party enduring terribly botched coups. Trump was the outsider that successfully broke in. Bernie was the outsider that successfully broke in and was consequently removed in a loud clumsy mess. ---------------------------- The best post appears to just be randomly attacking trump, wealth, finance, corruption blindly and then comming to the well thought out conclusion that everyone is stupid. The most controversial post gives a pretty agreeable analysis on the current situation that is not flat out pro-trump, but well balanced and reasoned.

t3_5v17ie

CMV: Overpopulation is a prisoner's dilemma (and thus a two-child policy should be implemented)

I think that the idea that in order to prevent overpopulation any individual person should not have children or should have fewer children is not morally legitimate. In such a case the person has an obligation to have fewer children because someone else has had too many children. This unfairly benefits those who had many children already as well as those who ignore the alleged obligation since they will have as many children as they want whereas those who follow the obligation will not. I see it as being a strategic interaction where if everyone has a small enough amount children the lack of overpopulation makes everyone better off, if not everyone has lots of children then everyone is worse off from overpopulation, and if some people have lots of children and some don't then those who have lots of children benefit and those who don't are harmed. In this case, it is always better for an individual to have lots of children but it is better for everyone to have few children. Developed countries should implement pro-natalist policies in order to compete with developing countries and religious fundamentalists. THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY IN THE OP BUT I REMOVED IT SINCE I NO LONGER AGREE WITH IT: For this reason I support a 2 child policy. Countries that have high fertility rates should have sanctions and have immigration bans unless they implement a 2 child policy so that they won't benefit at the expense of the countries with the 2 child policies. _____ > *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: Overpopulation is a prisoner's dilemma (and thus a two-child policy should be implemented). I think that the idea that in order to prevent overpopulation any individual person should not have children or should have fewer children is not morally legitimate. In such a case the person has an obligation to have fewer children because someone else has had too many children. This unfairly benefits those who had many children already as well as those who ignore the alleged obligation since they will have as many children as they want whereas those who follow the obligation will not. I see it as being a strategic interaction where if everyone has a small enough amount children the lack of overpopulation makes everyone better off, if not everyone has lots of children then everyone is worse off from overpopulation, and if some people have lots of children and some don't then those who have lots of children benefit and those who don't are harmed. In this case, it is always better for an individual to have lots of children but it is better for everyone to have few children. Developed countries should implement pro-natalist policies in order to compete with developing countries and religious fundamentalists. THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY IN THE OP BUT I REMOVED IT SINCE I NO LONGER AGREE WITH IT: For this reason I support a 2 child policy. Countries that have high fertility rates should have sanctions and have immigration bans unless they implement a 2 child policy so that they won't benefit at the expense of the countries with the 2 child policies.

t3_25atsa

CMV: There is no point in #bringbackourgirls and the effort is self defeating

Surely the whole #bringbackourgirls is self defeating. This isn't to say I don't support the sentiment and i do think it's a truly heinous situation, but it doesn't make sense. I feel ultimately iy paradoxically increases the effectiveness of the act of terror and to a degree supports/promotes its style by adding fuel to the fire for the terrorists without having an actual force to change anything. Whilst there are always going to be smug campaigns which are more about feeling better from doing some armchair activism than true will to change, i do think that a lot of people will feel this particular campaign has a lot of merit so that it keeps it in the social conscience. I just don't think it works this time for the reason above.

CMV: There is no point in #bringbackourgirls and the effort is self defeating. Surely the whole #bringbackourgirls is self defeating. This isn't to say I don't support the sentiment and i do think it's a truly heinous situation, but it doesn't make sense. I feel ultimately iy paradoxically increases the effectiveness of the act of terror and to a degree supports/promotes its style by adding fuel to the fire for the terrorists without having an actual force to change anything. Whilst there are always going to be smug campaigns which are more about feeling better from doing some armchair activism than true will to change, i do think that a lot of people will feel this particular campaign has a lot of merit so that it keeps it in the social conscience. I just don't think it works this time for the reason above.

t3_46502o

CMV: If the solution to men's problem is for them to express their emotions and weakness, major effort (that is not being done by those who advocate this solution) needs to be put into getting society to accept men for doing so

Among feminism, it seems that the main approach for solving men's issues is largely based on the expression of emotions. This is what commonly seems to be the suggested solution for men, under their view that men feel restricted by their roles and a desire to fit with in them. While I may disagree with the importance of such focus (I feel there are more pressing needs and that such a solution wouldn't benefit most men necessarily), it's still quite a noble goal in theory. However, in practice there doesn't really ever seem to be much effort in actually applying it. To elaborate, a large aspect of why men seem to be locked into these roles is fear of how others react, and there just seems to be very little effort to actually change how others respond. If men are expected to break their roles to better themselves, others have to begin to accept the roles being broken (especially when what is being asked of men is specifically to open up to others). I mean, look at the civil rights movement, it wasn't said that black people just need to do better to better themselves, but that everyone needs to view everyone as equals. It's not something that can be done alone, yet I don't really see much in ways of even doing so by the people suggesting this solution (and in fact, it seems like the people suggesting such a solution to the problem actually reinforce it with "Male Tears" merchandise). It just seems like this is not as simple process of "men show emotions, men do better" as it just seems to be portrayed, and actual work needs to be done in accepting men who feel such a solution would benefit them. This is a team effort, but it seems that the burden is being put on men to share, but not on everyone else to accept them. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If the solution to men's problem is for them to express their emotions and weakness, major effort (that is not being done by those who advocate this solution) needs to be put into getting society to accept men for doing so. Among feminism, it seems that the main approach for solving men's issues is largely based on the expression of emotions. This is what commonly seems to be the suggested solution for men, under their view that men feel restricted by their roles and a desire to fit with in them. While I may disagree with the importance of such focus (I feel there are more pressing needs and that such a solution wouldn't benefit most men necessarily), it's still quite a noble goal in theory. However, in practice there doesn't really ever seem to be much effort in actually applying it. To elaborate, a large aspect of why men seem to be locked into these roles is fear of how others react, and there just seems to be very little effort to actually change how others respond. If men are expected to break their roles to better themselves, others have to begin to accept the roles being broken (especially when what is being asked of men is specifically to open up to others). I mean, look at the civil rights movement, it wasn't said that black people just need to do better to better themselves, but that everyone needs to view everyone as equals. It's not something that can be done alone, yet I don't really see much in ways of even doing so by the people suggesting this solution (and in fact, it seems like the people suggesting such a solution to the problem actually reinforce it with "Male Tears" merchandise). It just seems like this is not as simple process of "men show emotions, men do better" as it just seems to be portrayed, and actual work needs to be done in accepting men who feel such a solution would benefit them. This is a team effort, but it seems that the burden is being put on men to share, but not on everyone else to accept them.

t3_1n9xu3

I believe Reddit protocol should be that "deleted" comments should never be fully deleted, but merely hidden not unlike a NSFW link. CMV

If a comment is completely deleted without the ability for others to investigate, I believe it allows mods to have too much power & actually creates more interest & curiosity as compared to suppressing the idea, if that is in fact the intent of the deletion. I believe complete deletion makes Reddit less transparent and is many times, too heavy handed. I also believes it allows a door for corporate & political corruption. Crowdsourcing is Reddit's greatest strength, and Redditors should be the ones to decide if a comment is offensive or wrong. If a comment is simply hidden, it allows everyone to see what the mods actually have an issue with, so that others know not to comment in that fashion in the future. Change my view!

I believe Reddit protocol should be that "deleted" comments should never be fully deleted, but merely hidden not unlike a NSFW link. CMV. If a comment is completely deleted without the ability for others to investigate, I believe it allows mods to have too much power & actually creates more interest & curiosity as compared to suppressing the idea, if that is in fact the intent of the deletion. I believe complete deletion makes Reddit less transparent and is many times, too heavy handed. I also believes it allows a door for corporate & political corruption. Crowdsourcing is Reddit's greatest strength, and Redditors should be the ones to decide if a comment is offensive or wrong. If a comment is simply hidden, it allows everyone to see what the mods actually have an issue with, so that others know not to comment in that fashion in the future. Change my view!

t3_1gtyy1

I don't think people should get tickets for not wearing seat belts since the only person they are going to hurt is themselves should something happen. CMV

I think that if someone chooses to not wear a seat belt that is that persons choice, and the only person who can get hurt from that action is the driver or passenger themselves. It's not like someone who was drinking and driving or texting and driving, those people put not only themselves at risk but others around them. CMV

I don't think people should get tickets for not wearing seat belts since the only person they are going to hurt is themselves should something happen. CMV. I think that if someone chooses to not wear a seat belt that is that persons choice, and the only person who can get hurt from that action is the driver or passenger themselves. It's not like someone who was drinking and driving or texting and driving, those people put not only themselves at risk but others around them. CMV

t3_1vhf5g

I believe we should abolish the letter C, CMV.

I speak English, and I think that the letter C is superfluous. C has many different applications, but I think that all of its applications can easily be taken up by a letter that actually makes sense. -Cinderella -:- Sinderella -Chop -:- Xop -Sticks -:- Stiks S can take over the soft C sound, X(I admit this is the weakest link) can take over the Ch sound, and k can take over the ck sound. I know it would be extremely diffikult to redo the language, and that is why I am going to find an island and populate it with people who don't use C.

I believe we should abolish the letter C, CMV. I speak English, and I think that the letter C is superfluous. C has many different applications, but I think that all of its applications can easily be taken up by a letter that actually makes sense. -Cinderella -:- Sinderella -Chop -:- Xop -Sticks -:- Stiks S can take over the soft C sound, X(I admit this is the weakest link) can take over the Ch sound, and k can take over the ck sound. I know it would be extremely diffikult to redo the language, and that is why I am going to find an island and populate it with people who don't use C.

t3_70vhic

CMV: identity politics of the left has contributed to a resurgent white nationalism

I believe that the focus of the left on advocating for equality and rights for minorities has resulted in pushing a significant portion of white voters into supporting white nationalist populist politicians. I am not saying this is the only cause of racism and white nationalism, but rather that identity politics of the left is at least a contributor to it, and certainly tips a significant fraction of votes into the conservative camp that would otherwise vote liberal. When some lower income white voters who themselves have faced police brutality hear "black lives matter" they interpret it as saying "poor white lives don't matter". When lower income white voters hear about affirmative action in universities for minorities they hear that no one gives a damn about how they never went to college because they couldn't afford it. When lower income white people hear about efforts to provide refuge for undocumented immigrants they hear that people care more about the welfare of immigrants than the fact they lost their job and live in a dilapidated trailer. I think that liberals are right to be upset about discrimination and the harm suffered by minorities. However, I feel it would be much less divisive if they re-phrased their activism in a way that didn't rely on identity politics. Fight for an end to police brutality and corruption rather than for better treatment of minorities by law enforcement. Fight for access to education for all rather than access to education for minorities. This way the left could peel away a good enough portion of white voters from the white nationalist populists to change the course of elections. Telling white people that they are the beneficiaries of privilege who need to make sacrifices to redress historic racism will only serve to push poor white people towards white nationalist politicians and create even bigger divides in society. _____ > *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: identity politics of the left has contributed to a resurgent white nationalism. I believe that the focus of the left on advocating for equality and rights for minorities has resulted in pushing a significant portion of white voters into supporting white nationalist populist politicians. I am not saying this is the only cause of racism and white nationalism, but rather that identity politics of the left is at least a contributor to it, and certainly tips a significant fraction of votes into the conservative camp that would otherwise vote liberal. When some lower income white voters who themselves have faced police brutality hear "black lives matter" they interpret it as saying "poor white lives don't matter". When lower income white voters hear about affirmative action in universities for minorities they hear that no one gives a damn about how they never went to college because they couldn't afford it. When lower income white people hear about efforts to provide refuge for undocumented immigrants they hear that people care more about the welfare of immigrants than the fact they lost their job and live in a dilapidated trailer. I think that liberals are right to be upset about discrimination and the harm suffered by minorities. However, I feel it would be much less divisive if they re-phrased their activism in a way that didn't rely on identity politics. Fight for an end to police brutality and corruption rather than for better treatment of minorities by law enforcement. Fight for access to education for all rather than access to education for minorities. This way the left could peel away a good enough portion of white voters from the white nationalist populists to change the course of elections. Telling white people that they are the beneficiaries of privilege who need to make sacrifices to redress historic racism will only serve to push poor white people towards white nationalist politicians and create even bigger divides in society.

t3_1g93jx

I believe that not donating blood to the Canadian blood services because of their stance on gay men is a good stance. CMV

The form they make you fill is here: http://www.bloodservices.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/resources/Eligibility/$file/ROD2011-09-01.pdf See questions #19 and #23. My logic: 1. If my protest makes them change their policy then they will be getting much more blood in the future. 2. If they really do need more blood then they'll let more people (gay men) donate. 3. I haven't seen any research that indicates that gay men pose more risk than the average. Thanks.

I believe that not donating blood to the Canadian blood services because of their stance on gay men is a good stance. CMV. The form they make you fill is here: http://www.bloodservices.ca/CentreApps/Internet/UW_V502_MainEngine.nsf/resources/Eligibility/$file/ROD2011-09-01.pdf See questions #19 and #23. My logic: 1. If my protest makes them change their policy then they will be getting much more blood in the future. 2. If they really do need more blood then they'll let more people (gay men) donate. 3. I haven't seen any research that indicates that gay men pose more risk than the average. Thanks.

t3_1curs6

I don't think there is a problem with the government 'invading my privacy' CMV

I don't see the harm in things like more cameras in public places, listening to my conversations and all those other things they don't tell us. What's the harm? I have nothing to hide, but I'm not that well educated on the matter, so CMV.

I don't think there is a problem with the government 'invading my privacy' CMV. I don't see the harm in things like more cameras in public places, listening to my conversations and all those other things they don't tell us. What's the harm? I have nothing to hide, but I'm not that well educated on the matter, so CMV.

t3_1jhugg

Women shouldn't be expected to wear a bra and we should do away with the tradition altogether. CMV.

Bras are very uncomfortable. Some women might not think so, but the majority do. I've been sized several times, and luckily I can afford to fork out the extra money on well made bras... and believe me, I have. Well made bras certainly are more comfortable than cheap ones, but I have yet to feel completely comfortable wearing one. Which brings me to the fact that women really must fork out a good bit of money simply on bras if they want to feel at least somewhat comfortable. We're expected to wear them at all times in public, which for many of us is nearly the entire length of daylight for nearly the entire week. I don't want to wear a bra. I see why people wear lingerie for sexy purposes, and I see why some women wear them because their boobs are so big that it hurts when they bounce. But as for the expectation for all women to wear one all the time in public, I think it's a bit ridiculous. Why do you think women are expected to wear a bra? And do you think they should be? Change my view, because I'm about to rip off this stupid bra in front of everyone!!!

Women shouldn't be expected to wear a bra and we should do away with the tradition altogether. CMV. Bras are very uncomfortable. Some women might not think so, but the majority do. I've been sized several times, and luckily I can afford to fork out the extra money on well made bras... and believe me, I have. Well made bras certainly are more comfortable than cheap ones, but I have yet to feel completely comfortable wearing one. Which brings me to the fact that women really must fork out a good bit of money simply on bras if they want to feel at least somewhat comfortable. We're expected to wear them at all times in public, which for many of us is nearly the entire length of daylight for nearly the entire week. I don't want to wear a bra. I see why people wear lingerie for sexy purposes, and I see why some women wear them because their boobs are so big that it hurts when they bounce. But as for the expectation for all women to wear one all the time in public, I think it's a bit ridiculous. Why do you think women are expected to wear a bra? And do you think they should be? Change my view, because I'm about to rip off this stupid bra in front of everyone!!!

t3_59uamn

CMV: Its worthless to argue complex things among well educated parties because of the reliance on data

Now if one party doesn't understand basic principles then its fine because there are some general things that are agreed upon across the board. The problem comes when people have different views on how economics (or another complex manifestation) should run. Some people like more command and control, others like more free enterprise. The issue to me is that it isn't an opinion. Societies of various types have been around awhile, and we have a lot of data on how they function and the quality of life of their citizens. It seems that at this point we should have a better grasp of whats best for us. I suppose a big problem in economics specifically is a general lack of education among most people. *********************************************** Either way, this is just an example. I feel like things as complex as economics, like politics as another example, are too complex to be worth arguing because it comes down to "I believe this is better" and that can only be refuted with data. Data that no one can agree on because some of it is fake, some isn't collected well, and some people don't want to believe it. Or different methods achieve different results. Either way, unless a better method of proving things comes about, I currently feel its worthless to argue such things among educated parties. EDIT: by worthless i mean "won't change anothers view"

CMV: Its worthless to argue complex things among well educated parties because of the reliance on data. Now if one party doesn't understand basic principles then its fine because there are some general things that are agreed upon across the board. The problem comes when people have different views on how economics (or another complex manifestation) should run. Some people like more command and control, others like more free enterprise. The issue to me is that it isn't an opinion. Societies of various types have been around awhile, and we have a lot of data on how they function and the quality of life of their citizens. It seems that at this point we should have a better grasp of whats best for us. I suppose a big problem in economics specifically is a general lack of education among most people. *********************************************** Either way, this is just an example. I feel like things as complex as economics, like politics as another example, are too complex to be worth arguing because it comes down to "I believe this is better" and that can only be refuted with data. Data that no one can agree on because some of it is fake, some isn't collected well, and some people don't want to believe it. Or different methods achieve different results. Either way, unless a better method of proving things comes about, I currently feel its worthless to argue such things among educated parties. EDIT: by worthless i mean "won't change anothers view"

t3_4vtoyp

CMV: Cultural Appropriation is BS

This doesn't go much deeper than the title. Recently I've seen videos depicting examples of "cultural appropriation" where members of a certain culture attack other people who are not members of that culture yet are making use of styles/practices which are specific to that culture. Ex: an African American woman attacking a white man for wearing his hair in dreadlocks, a group of Mexicans (literally, people from Mexico, not a pejorative/general term) attacking a group of mostly white college kids for having a Mariachi themed party. Frankly, I think this is ridiculous. While I'm sure there are examples of this that are much less trivial and silly, I still don't think this can ever constitute any sort of moral error. While this type of thing can certainly be tacky and offensive, it's a massive overstep to consider it somehow objectively wrong and worthy of censorship and vigilante justice.

CMV: Cultural Appropriation is BS. This doesn't go much deeper than the title. Recently I've seen videos depicting examples of "cultural appropriation" where members of a certain culture attack other people who are not members of that culture yet are making use of styles/practices which are specific to that culture. Ex: an African American woman attacking a white man for wearing his hair in dreadlocks, a group of Mexicans (literally, people from Mexico, not a pejorative/general term) attacking a group of mostly white college kids for having a Mariachi themed party. Frankly, I think this is ridiculous. While I'm sure there are examples of this that are much less trivial and silly, I still don't think this can ever constitute any sort of moral error. While this type of thing can certainly be tacky and offensive, it's a massive overstep to consider it somehow objectively wrong and worthy of censorship and vigilante justice.

t3_39cljy

CMV: I don't see any reason not to vote for Bernie Sanders

Pretty much all of my social media feeds are a massive hive mind, a huge circlejerk of Sanders quotes and video clips. He seems fantastic, but I'm honestly struggling to find anything bad about him online. I want to be informed and see both sides, so what's a good reason not to vote for Bernie Sanders? From what I see, he's a down to earth guy who wants equality, who wants huge cooperation to actually pay taxes and wants minimum wage to be able to keep people alive. He wants basic healthcare and education and humane living conditions for everyone. He seems like a saint! _____ > *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 see any reason not to vote for Bernie Sanders. Pretty much all of my social media feeds are a massive hive mind, a huge circlejerk of Sanders quotes and video clips. He seems fantastic, but I'm honestly struggling to find anything bad about him online. I want to be informed and see both sides, so what's a good reason not to vote for Bernie Sanders? From what I see, he's a down to earth guy who wants equality, who wants huge cooperation to actually pay taxes and wants minimum wage to be able to keep people alive. He wants basic healthcare and education and humane living conditions for everyone. He seems like a saint!

t3_1fg5wj

I believe the government should not be allowed to censor the majority of speech or media. CMV

The main area where I think this is still relevant is on broadcast TV and radio in the United States. On both venues, there are regulations on [obscenity, indecency, and profanity](http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity). The first amendment is fairly clear on speech regulations, and I don't see why it should matter if there is objectionable material present. Also, placing the limit solely on broadcast airwaves makes no sense at all. Even more people access content from cable, satellite, or the internet which have no such regulations. The argument would be to protect children from that objectionable broadcast content, but they have just as free access to cable and the internet. One reason I asked this was because I felt very conflicted on an issue my friend told me about. In Germany, sharing neo-Nazi beliefs is considered illegal and punishable. While I can understand why that is there, it feels like a serious impediment to free speech. Either we can uphold the principle and let them have their beliefs, or we can ignore principle to prevent this ignorance from spreading. Well, that's my view. Let's see if you can change it! Edit 1: I also disagree with private companies not selling or self-censoring content that is rated X, AO, or NC-17, but I don't think that would apply here since they're not the government. Also, things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre are likely to cause direct harm to people. That I believe would be the only exception to censorship: when it directly hurts people (misleading public, slander, libel, etc.).

I believe the government should not be allowed to censor the majority of speech or media. CMV. The main area where I think this is still relevant is on broadcast TV and radio in the United States. On both venues, there are regulations on [obscenity, indecency, and profanity](http://www.fcc.gov/guides/obscenity-indecency-and-profanity). The first amendment is fairly clear on speech regulations, and I don't see why it should matter if there is objectionable material present. Also, placing the limit solely on broadcast airwaves makes no sense at all. Even more people access content from cable, satellite, or the internet which have no such regulations. The argument would be to protect children from that objectionable broadcast content, but they have just as free access to cable and the internet. One reason I asked this was because I felt very conflicted on an issue my friend told me about. In Germany, sharing neo-Nazi beliefs is considered illegal and punishable. While I can understand why that is there, it feels like a serious impediment to free speech. Either we can uphold the principle and let them have their beliefs, or we can ignore principle to prevent this ignorance from spreading. Well, that's my view. Let's see if you can change it! Edit 1: I also disagree with private companies not selling or self-censoring content that is rated X, AO, or NC-17, but I don't think that would apply here since they're not the government. Also, things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre are likely to cause direct harm to people. That I believe would be the only exception to censorship: when it directly hurts people (misleading public, slander, libel, etc.).

t3_6c5i9v

CMV: The distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction is useful and important.

Right now, the kinds of books that are sometimes labeled "genre" are extremely popular--fantasy, dystopia, science-fiction, horror. Alongside their popularity, I also see people increasingly suggesting that the category of "genre," and especially it's distinction from "literary" fiction, is meaningless or is an arbitrary piece of marketing. "Good books are good books," someone might say. But I don't think so! We can argue about a precise definition for "literary" and "genre," but I hope we won't spend too much time on that. I think these are fairly loose terms with plenty of gray area between them, and two people could reasonably disagree about the "literariness" of some particular book. But, still, we need a definition, so here's a simple one focused on their impact, or their *use*: * Literary fiction aims to impact a reader's understanding of her own life and world. The purpose of literary fiction is to clarify or change the reader's understanding of herself and the people and world around her. * Genre fiction aims to give a reader a break from her own life, and entertain her. The purpose of genre fiction is to let the reader inhabit a *separate* world than the one she actually inhabits. I'm not making any kind of reference to the quality of books. There are many good genre books and many bad literary books, and vice-versa. But what makes a book good or bad is partly a function of the goal of the writer and of the reader. Someone looking to escape and be entertained would be pretty disappointed if they sat down with an [Alice Munro](https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6410.Alice_Munro?from_search=true) story. Likewise, someone looking for the special kind of growth and clarity that comes from experiencing quality Art might not be all that into Sherlock Holmes at the moment. Most people, of course, will want both of these things at different times. It's a good thing that writers of each of these styles enjoy and borrow from one another, and there are many books that straddle the two groups. But the organization of books into these groups is nevertheless useful and meaningful. And when we suggest that there is no distinction, we risk readers missing out on the unique pleasures of one or the other. But no one wants to be a snob about this kind of stuff so, please, 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 distinction between "literary" and "genre" fiction is useful and important. Right now, the kinds of books that are sometimes labeled "genre" are extremely popular--fantasy, dystopia, science-fiction, horror. Alongside their popularity, I also see people increasingly suggesting that the category of "genre," and especially it's distinction from "literary" fiction, is meaningless or is an arbitrary piece of marketing. "Good books are good books," someone might say. But I don't think so! We can argue about a precise definition for "literary" and "genre," but I hope we won't spend too much time on that. I think these are fairly loose terms with plenty of gray area between them, and two people could reasonably disagree about the "literariness" of some particular book. But, still, we need a definition, so here's a simple one focused on their impact, or their *use*: * Literary fiction aims to impact a reader's understanding of her own life and world. The purpose of literary fiction is to clarify or change the reader's understanding of herself and the people and world around her. * Genre fiction aims to give a reader a break from her own life, and entertain her. The purpose of genre fiction is to let the reader inhabit a *separate* world than the one she actually inhabits. I'm not making any kind of reference to the quality of books. There are many good genre books and many bad literary books, and vice-versa. But what makes a book good or bad is partly a function of the goal of the writer and of the reader. Someone looking to escape and be entertained would be pretty disappointed if they sat down with an [Alice Munro](https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6410.Alice_Munro?from_search=true) story. Likewise, someone looking for the special kind of growth and clarity that comes from experiencing quality Art might not be all that into Sherlock Holmes at the moment. Most people, of course, will want both of these things at different times. It's a good thing that writers of each of these styles enjoy and borrow from one another, and there are many books that straddle the two groups. But the organization of books into these groups is nevertheless useful and meaningful. And when we suggest that there is no distinction, we risk readers missing out on the unique pleasures of one or the other. But no one wants to be a snob about this kind of stuff so, please, change my view!

t3_2khar2

CMV: Black face makeup for practical purposes.

I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing a situation in Hollywood where a casting agency casted a white stunt double for a black character and having the white stunt double covered in black skin tone makeup to make her fit the roll. People are going nuts over the painting her black. I never understood why people freak out over "black face" if it's not meant to be derogatory. I mean, if they couldn't find a black woman that fit the part of the stunt double, then they couldn't fulfill the part. I don't see people flipping out over fat suits or fat makeup in movies, or wigs even. I don't see anything wrong with changing someone's appearance with makeup for a role in any case, including race... Change my view?

CMV: Black face makeup for practical purposes. I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing a situation in Hollywood where a casting agency casted a white stunt double for a black character and having the white stunt double covered in black skin tone makeup to make her fit the roll. People are going nuts over the painting her black. I never understood why people freak out over "black face" if it's not meant to be derogatory. I mean, if they couldn't find a black woman that fit the part of the stunt double, then they couldn't fulfill the part. I don't see people flipping out over fat suits or fat makeup in movies, or wigs even. I don't see anything wrong with changing someone's appearance with makeup for a role in any case, including race... Change my view?

t3_3bfolr

CMV: I don't believe it's a good idea to allow any individual to own more than 1/54200th of the net worth of the country of their citizenship.

Here's how I arrived at that number. The measured net worth of the United States was $54.2 trillion in 2009. The Koch Brothers, for a notorious example to start, have a net worth of $84.5 billion right now. That means the Koch Brothers, by themselves, hold **~1/641th** of the United States' wealth. Doesn't sound like much? Well guess what: the number of billionaires in the United States is 536. We are #1 in the world in number of billionaires. Bill Gates, at the top, has $79.3 billion USD. There's 2/641. Warren Buffet, $72.3 billion USD. There's 3/641. Carlos Sim, $72.9 billion USD. There's 4/641. Larry Ellison, $50.8 billion USD. There's 5/641. Jeff Bezos, $39.5 billion. 5.5/641. Mark Zuckerberg, $34.8 billion USD. There's 6/641. You see where I'm going with this? Throw in a couple hundred more billionaires, the fraction starts filling out. Just what percentage are we, the people? About nothing, it seems. The total sum of all billionaire holdings in 2008 was $4.4 trillion. Only seven years later, it's $7.05 trillion. It's approaching double in less than a decade. Number of US billionaires in 2008: 470 (est.). Number in 2015: 536. This isn't a rising tide - it's just the same handful of people siphoning up the world's wealth. Now I'll repeat that he measured net worth of the United States was $54.2 trillion in 2009. 1/5200th, per my belief for a wealth cap, would leave all of these listed US Citizens still billionaires - with exactly one billion each to their names. That would shrink their personal holdings to something less than 300/5200, which is a far more reasonable percentage (minimal) than the insane amounts they have now. They'd also live like kings for the rest of their lives, still, and so would their descendants - basically indefinitely. I don't really have any specific care how they enforce this wealth cap, just that they do. I do know that the US can basically enforce this on the rest of the world, given how they basically assaulted Kim Dotcom in another country and seized his wealth - the US has more military might than all of the other countries combined, and about 7 billion people would support such an action. So it's definitely possible. The negative consequences of so much wealth in so few hands are obvious - we're all dealing with the fallout in a collapsing country based on greed and exploitation. But I am open to the idea that a wealth cap might have negative repercussions. Please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't believe it's a good idea to allow any individual to own more than 1/54200th of the net worth of the country of their citizenship. Here's how I arrived at that number. The measured net worth of the United States was $54.2 trillion in 2009. The Koch Brothers, for a notorious example to start, have a net worth of $84.5 billion right now. That means the Koch Brothers, by themselves, hold **~1/641th** of the United States' wealth. Doesn't sound like much? Well guess what: the number of billionaires in the United States is 536. We are #1 in the world in number of billionaires. Bill Gates, at the top, has $79.3 billion USD. There's 2/641. Warren Buffet, $72.3 billion USD. There's 3/641. Carlos Sim, $72.9 billion USD. There's 4/641. Larry Ellison, $50.8 billion USD. There's 5/641. Jeff Bezos, $39.5 billion. 5.5/641. Mark Zuckerberg, $34.8 billion USD. There's 6/641. You see where I'm going with this? Throw in a couple hundred more billionaires, the fraction starts filling out. Just what percentage are we, the people? About nothing, it seems. The total sum of all billionaire holdings in 2008 was $4.4 trillion. Only seven years later, it's $7.05 trillion. It's approaching double in less than a decade. Number of US billionaires in 2008: 470 (est.). Number in 2015: 536. This isn't a rising tide - it's just the same handful of people siphoning up the world's wealth. Now I'll repeat that he measured net worth of the United States was $54.2 trillion in 2009. 1/5200th, per my belief for a wealth cap, would leave all of these listed US Citizens still billionaires - with exactly one billion each to their names. That would shrink their personal holdings to something less than 300/5200, which is a far more reasonable percentage (minimal) than the insane amounts they have now. They'd also live like kings for the rest of their lives, still, and so would their descendants - basically indefinitely. I don't really have any specific care how they enforce this wealth cap, just that they do. I do know that the US can basically enforce this on the rest of the world, given how they basically assaulted Kim Dotcom in another country and seized his wealth - the US has more military might than all of the other countries combined, and about 7 billion people would support such an action. So it's definitely possible. The negative consequences of so much wealth in so few hands are obvious - we're all dealing with the fallout in a collapsing country based on greed and exploitation. But I am open to the idea that a wealth cap might have negative repercussions. Please CMV.

t3_1ag6cz

American Societal Decay is the Karmic Justice Retribution for the Slave Trade. CMV.

Of course, slavery is wrong. I believe that forced kidnapping, servitude, family disintegration, rape, torture, etc., is evil. That is what Africans who were brought to North America against their will were exposed to. That's historic fact. Can we all agree on that? If you believe in karma, or the concept of the punishment fitting the crime, or even just reaping what one sows, then just think about it. Look at American prison populations. Look at low rates of income and education, then look at high teen birth rates. I'm not saying African Americans the problem. I'm saying they're a lingering cosmic manifestation of the problem. They're the innocent victims. The real offenders are the people who bought and sold them. They created a massive disruption in the normal course of events. Who's to say what fate intended? That's a tough one, but I think massive ~~trans~~intercontinental forced relocation and enslavement is a bit outside the lines of decency, no? Is it that much of a stretch to think there could be lingering effects of such a breach of natural order? Is it possible that descendants of the guilty are being punished exactly as they deserve? Who knows? I'm flexible. Change My View! *edit - It was worse than I originally stated.

American Societal Decay is the Karmic Justice Retribution for the Slave Trade. CMV. Of course, slavery is wrong. I believe that forced kidnapping, servitude, family disintegration, rape, torture, etc., is evil. That is what Africans who were brought to North America against their will were exposed to. That's historic fact. Can we all agree on that? If you believe in karma, or the concept of the punishment fitting the crime, or even just reaping what one sows, then just think about it. Look at American prison populations. Look at low rates of income and education, then look at high teen birth rates. I'm not saying African Americans the problem. I'm saying they're a lingering cosmic manifestation of the problem. They're the innocent victims. The real offenders are the people who bought and sold them. They created a massive disruption in the normal course of events. Who's to say what fate intended? That's a tough one, but I think massive ~~trans~~intercontinental forced relocation and enslavement is a bit outside the lines of decency, no? Is it that much of a stretch to think there could be lingering effects of such a breach of natural order? Is it possible that descendants of the guilty are being punished exactly as they deserve? Who knows? I'm flexible. Change My View! *edit - It was worse than I originally stated.

t3_6b07ig

CMV: There should be an upper age limit on voting age, too

As I understand it, the lower limit for voting age in the United States is 18 because 18 year olds are mature and have a better chance of being politically aware than those who are younger. I don't disagree with this rationale. However, with old age you lose memory and other functionality. Couldn't it be argued that at a certain point, people become too old to make a proper, informed political decision much like a child? I don't know exactly what this age cutoff would be. Maybe as low as 65, or perhaps quite a bit higher. Either way, I believe that there should be a cutoff somewhere so that only people between 18 and x years old can vote. Please help me understand why there isn't. **Edit:** My view has been changed. If someone must pay taxes, I agree that they should be allowed to vote.

CMV: There should be an upper age limit on voting age, too. As I understand it, the lower limit for voting age in the United States is 18 because 18 year olds are mature and have a better chance of being politically aware than those who are younger. I don't disagree with this rationale. However, with old age you lose memory and other functionality. Couldn't it be argued that at a certain point, people become too old to make a proper, informed political decision much like a child? I don't know exactly what this age cutoff would be. Maybe as low as 65, or perhaps quite a bit higher. Either way, I believe that there should be a cutoff somewhere so that only people between 18 and x years old can vote. Please help me understand why there isn't. **Edit:** My view has been changed. If someone must pay taxes, I agree that they should be allowed to vote.

t3_2epb04

CMV:Being proud of something you were born with

People are "proud" to be an American, an Egyptian, an Israeli, people are proud to be Black, to be Hispanic etc, proud to be a Man or Woman or Gay. If you were born that way, I think you shouldn't be proud of it, because non of it was your achievement, if you traveled across the world on a small boat with no money and the inability to speak the language and spread your roots in a country where your children fight to defend it, maybe be proud. But for all others, your genetic traits are assigned to you at birth, your country was formed before you were born, by others who did the actual work to make invisible lines on the soil. So why be proud? _____ > *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:Being proud of something you were born with. People are "proud" to be an American, an Egyptian, an Israeli, people are proud to be Black, to be Hispanic etc, proud to be a Man or Woman or Gay. If you were born that way, I think you shouldn't be proud of it, because non of it was your achievement, if you traveled across the world on a small boat with no money and the inability to speak the language and spread your roots in a country where your children fight to defend it, maybe be proud. But for all others, your genetic traits are assigned to you at birth, your country was formed before you were born, by others who did the actual work to make invisible lines on the soil. So why be proud?

t3_20chy7

CMV - I believe companies have the right to proportion prices to demand and the cost of serving that demand

Obviously this is in response to the recent hubbub about data caps. You see, I believe companies have the right to match costs with the costs of serving that demand during a certain time period. Now you see, it already happens. You ask for a repairman right away or at the dead of the night, they'll charge more. You go to a movie theater, in the morning, you pay for matinee rates. In a supermarket, they sell easter, halloween, and valentine's candy a week after the holidays at discount rates. Some cell phone plans offer unlimited weekend and night minutes while still keeping data caps for the weekday. What industries do I think should proportion prices to the cost of the service? There's various package delivery services, who are essentially subsidizing Christmas, not that I have anything against Christmas. But, they accept more packages then they can handle within the time they promise, they hire more workers, pay more overtime, without increasing postage or shipping prices. I would think that if they *temporarily* raised postage rates for packages by 25% 30 days before Christmas, and another 25% 10 days before Christmas, they'd be able to hire more people, pay for more overtime, and handle even more packages. It's the fault of people mailing packages for Christmas by not mailing it two months ahead of time and avoid clogging the whole system. Yes, there are sales after black friday and cyber monday, but consumers should balance postage costs with the discounts they'll receive. Now there are internet companies. I think data caps are acceptable, but only if they want to limit demand during certain times. If they establish a data cap for an entire month that's wrong, only because it seems to not be disincentive behavior they don't want. The cost of operating their equipment is small compared to the cost of building new equipment. The only times their equipment is run to capacity is during internet rush hour, between 6 PM and 10 PM, roughly. I think it would be fine if they had data caps during internet rush hour, but otherwise offered unlimited bandwidth for the rest of the day. Encourages people to leave their computers on and download gigabytes of data while they're sleeping, not while other people are trying to watch Netflix. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be price discrimination based on geography, I do think it's wrong, many areas in the United States are close enough to the third world as it is, it'd be terrible if they were forced to pay usurious rates for telephone, gas, and internet. But I think that prices should change based on the time of demand.

CMV - I believe companies have the right to proportion prices to demand and the cost of serving that demand. Obviously this is in response to the recent hubbub about data caps. You see, I believe companies have the right to match costs with the costs of serving that demand during a certain time period. Now you see, it already happens. You ask for a repairman right away or at the dead of the night, they'll charge more. You go to a movie theater, in the morning, you pay for matinee rates. In a supermarket, they sell easter, halloween, and valentine's candy a week after the holidays at discount rates. Some cell phone plans offer unlimited weekend and night minutes while still keeping data caps for the weekday. What industries do I think should proportion prices to the cost of the service? There's various package delivery services, who are essentially subsidizing Christmas, not that I have anything against Christmas. But, they accept more packages then they can handle within the time they promise, they hire more workers, pay more overtime, without increasing postage or shipping prices. I would think that if they *temporarily* raised postage rates for packages by 25% 30 days before Christmas, and another 25% 10 days before Christmas, they'd be able to hire more people, pay for more overtime, and handle even more packages. It's the fault of people mailing packages for Christmas by not mailing it two months ahead of time and avoid clogging the whole system. Yes, there are sales after black friday and cyber monday, but consumers should balance postage costs with the discounts they'll receive. Now there are internet companies. I think data caps are acceptable, but only if they want to limit demand during certain times. If they establish a data cap for an entire month that's wrong, only because it seems to not be disincentive behavior they don't want. The cost of operating their equipment is small compared to the cost of building new equipment. The only times their equipment is run to capacity is during internet rush hour, between 6 PM and 10 PM, roughly. I think it would be fine if they had data caps during internet rush hour, but otherwise offered unlimited bandwidth for the rest of the day. Encourages people to leave their computers on and download gigabytes of data while they're sleeping, not while other people are trying to watch Netflix. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be price discrimination based on geography, I do think it's wrong, many areas in the United States are close enough to the third world as it is, it'd be terrible if they were forced to pay usurious rates for telephone, gas, and internet. But I think that prices should change based on the time of demand.

t3_2b2yjr

CMV: Gentrification is a good thing.

A bit of background first. I'm a white, 20-something, middle-class housewife with no children and no plan on having any in the near future. I live with my husband on the edge of the "wealthy" part of town, in an inexpensive but extremely-well-kept apartment complex. To the north of us are designer stores, sprawling mansions, spas, country clubs, and organic groceries. To the south of us are much more "ordinary" neighborhoods. My husband works for my father and makes approximately 600 dollars a week after tax. I don't work. I'm a full-time student and my upper-middle-class parents pay for the entirety of my education. I'd say we're doing quite well for ourselves, especially having only been married a year ago. I wouldn't consider myself to be "rich" or "upper middle class" but I enjoy the finer things in life, like designer clothes and very expensive scotch. I just watched a documentary called "Seperate yet Unequal" about a Louisiana city district trying to break off its wealthier half of the city and create a new, gentrified city. Advocates of the plan to split off said it meant better schools and a better life in general for the new city's citizens. I was rooting for those who wanted the new city, instead of being horrified. I like gentrification, it means Starbucks and decent shopping malls. It means less "ghettos" and "thugs" and crime. Those who opposed it talked about the fact that poor people would be left behind in the old city. 1) Can't the old city just have construction projects to make things nice and shiny and new? Apartment complexes can start refurbishing projects and suburbs can have contests for who can DIY their house to look the nicest. Stores and shop owners can clean up a little better, and the city itself can have a recycling program or a tree-planting program or something. It'll only become a second Detroit if the citizens allow it to. 2)The citizens of the old city can live on the fringes of the new one, like my husband and I do. Technically speaking, we're not in the "rich" part of town, but because of its very close proximity, our apartments are just as well-kept as the expensive villas a neighborhood over. We have our own clubhouse, gym, pool, and all the luxury amenities are within walking distance. Luxury living at ghetto prices! Problem solved! ...Right? Am I missing something here? The people in the documentary seemed outraged, as though this wasn't something they knew how to fix. I don't understand. Please help me understand their point of view. Maybe you'll CMV in the process. _____ > *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: Gentrification is a good thing. A bit of background first. I'm a white, 20-something, middle-class housewife with no children and no plan on having any in the near future. I live with my husband on the edge of the "wealthy" part of town, in an inexpensive but extremely-well-kept apartment complex. To the north of us are designer stores, sprawling mansions, spas, country clubs, and organic groceries. To the south of us are much more "ordinary" neighborhoods. My husband works for my father and makes approximately 600 dollars a week after tax. I don't work. I'm a full-time student and my upper-middle-class parents pay for the entirety of my education. I'd say we're doing quite well for ourselves, especially having only been married a year ago. I wouldn't consider myself to be "rich" or "upper middle class" but I enjoy the finer things in life, like designer clothes and very expensive scotch. I just watched a documentary called "Seperate yet Unequal" about a Louisiana city district trying to break off its wealthier half of the city and create a new, gentrified city. Advocates of the plan to split off said it meant better schools and a better life in general for the new city's citizens. I was rooting for those who wanted the new city, instead of being horrified. I like gentrification, it means Starbucks and decent shopping malls. It means less "ghettos" and "thugs" and crime. Those who opposed it talked about the fact that poor people would be left behind in the old city. 1) Can't the old city just have construction projects to make things nice and shiny and new? Apartment complexes can start refurbishing projects and suburbs can have contests for who can DIY their house to look the nicest. Stores and shop owners can clean up a little better, and the city itself can have a recycling program or a tree-planting program or something. It'll only become a second Detroit if the citizens allow it to. 2)The citizens of the old city can live on the fringes of the new one, like my husband and I do. Technically speaking, we're not in the "rich" part of town, but because of its very close proximity, our apartments are just as well-kept as the expensive villas a neighborhood over. We have our own clubhouse, gym, pool, and all the luxury amenities are within walking distance. Luxury living at ghetto prices! Problem solved! ...Right? Am I missing something here? The people in the documentary seemed outraged, as though this wasn't something they knew how to fix. I don't understand. Please help me understand their point of view. Maybe you'll CMV in the process.

t3_2on0k6

CMV: All organized human interaction is predicated on either the threat of or the application of violence.

Without the threat of violence, no agreement can be enforced, and if no agreement can be enforced, then it makes no sense to make agreements. It is important to distinguish between the threat of violence and the application of violence. Threat is potential. Application is kinetic. Before government, if you made an agreement with your neighbor and he refused to comply with the terms, your only recourse was to whack him over the head with your club either until he died or until he agreed. Application of violence. Government was invented to provide a means of enforcing agreements without so much death and chaos. Governments allow recalcitrant individuals to be intimidated (via the threat of violence) rather than whacked on the head (to use our example from earlier). This results both in a higher rate of compliance with agreements, due to the potential of getting whacked; and in less chance of a bloodbath when someone doesn't meet their end of an agreement. More advanced governments are those which: 1) Have more layers in the buffer zone between the agreements made in society and the threat of violence and between the threat of violence and the application of violence. 2) Allow agreements to be entered into and decided upon by greater representative majorities, with the most advanced being inclusive of all all genders, races, creeds, and socio-economic classes. But the basic mechanic of "do what you're supposed to do and don't do what you're not supposed to do, or someone will threaten to whack you on the head, and then actually whack you on the head if you don't toe the line/cut it out" is preserved in every aspect of our society. Advocating for the removal of violence from human interaction displays a fundamental misunderstanding of human interaction. Eliminating government would eliminate the threat of violence... but it would be replaced proportionally by the application of violence. **EDIT: I need a better way of stating this view. "All organized human interaction" is too broad. My view is that all governments, societies, laws, contracts, etc. are predicated on violence. Things like poker games, fishing trips, going to the movies with Bob, and the like are not so, in my view. I apologize for my failure to clearly state my view. Mods, should I take this down and consider reposting it more clearly?** _____ > *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 organized human interaction is predicated on either the threat of or the application of violence. Without the threat of violence, no agreement can be enforced, and if no agreement can be enforced, then it makes no sense to make agreements. It is important to distinguish between the threat of violence and the application of violence. Threat is potential. Application is kinetic. Before government, if you made an agreement with your neighbor and he refused to comply with the terms, your only recourse was to whack him over the head with your club either until he died or until he agreed. Application of violence. Government was invented to provide a means of enforcing agreements without so much death and chaos. Governments allow recalcitrant individuals to be intimidated (via the threat of violence) rather than whacked on the head (to use our example from earlier). This results both in a higher rate of compliance with agreements, due to the potential of getting whacked; and in less chance of a bloodbath when someone doesn't meet their end of an agreement. More advanced governments are those which: 1) Have more layers in the buffer zone between the agreements made in society and the threat of violence and between the threat of violence and the application of violence. 2) Allow agreements to be entered into and decided upon by greater representative majorities, with the most advanced being inclusive of all all genders, races, creeds, and socio-economic classes. But the basic mechanic of "do what you're supposed to do and don't do what you're not supposed to do, or someone will threaten to whack you on the head, and then actually whack you on the head if you don't toe the line/cut it out" is preserved in every aspect of our society. Advocating for the removal of violence from human interaction displays a fundamental misunderstanding of human interaction. Eliminating government would eliminate the threat of violence... but it would be replaced proportionally by the application of violence. **EDIT: I need a better way of stating this view. "All organized human interaction" is too broad. My view is that all governments, societies, laws, contracts, etc. are predicated on violence. Things like poker games, fishing trips, going to the movies with Bob, and the like are not so, in my view. I apologize for my failure to clearly state my view. Mods, should I take this down and consider reposting it more clearly?**

t3_23bzd4

CMV: Drone attacks aren't any worse than manned attacks

I don't think drone attacks are any worse than conventional attacks. An argument I see a lot is that there is no judge or jury to decide whether or not someone is guilty. Isn't this true in the case of most military involvement? If we were to hold a trial for *every* enemy combatant, by the time we were over they'd have killed us already. People say that anyone could be considered a terrorist, and therefore drone-striked, but that seems like a failure in deciding who is a terrorist rather than a failure with drones. And regardless, that concern in itself is kind of flawed, since there is a legal definition of terrorist that prevents just anyone from being defined as a terrorist. Another argument is that civilians are sometimes killed in the crossfire, I know that and I've read the sad stories, but how is this different from a conventional attack? A drone strike has the potential to kill civilians, but so does every other attack, and a drone strike is more precise than dropping explosives by air or launching them at a camp from a further distance. Also, it prevents our own servicemen from being captured (and used for a bargaining chip) or killed. As far as I can tell, drones are an improvement to our military system, but people seem to be attributing already-existing flaws with military to drones. These problems weren't created by drones at all, and if anything many of them are reduced by drones. It seems like everyone is just hopping on the anti-drone band wagon for the sake of hopping on the anti-drone band wagon. Is there any reasons drones are worse than conventional military attacks? If there are none, other than bandwagoning, why would someone be against drones? _____ > *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: Drone attacks aren't any worse than manned attacks. I don't think drone attacks are any worse than conventional attacks. An argument I see a lot is that there is no judge or jury to decide whether or not someone is guilty. Isn't this true in the case of most military involvement? If we were to hold a trial for *every* enemy combatant, by the time we were over they'd have killed us already. People say that anyone could be considered a terrorist, and therefore drone-striked, but that seems like a failure in deciding who is a terrorist rather than a failure with drones. And regardless, that concern in itself is kind of flawed, since there is a legal definition of terrorist that prevents just anyone from being defined as a terrorist. Another argument is that civilians are sometimes killed in the crossfire, I know that and I've read the sad stories, but how is this different from a conventional attack? A drone strike has the potential to kill civilians, but so does every other attack, and a drone strike is more precise than dropping explosives by air or launching them at a camp from a further distance. Also, it prevents our own servicemen from being captured (and used for a bargaining chip) or killed. As far as I can tell, drones are an improvement to our military system, but people seem to be attributing already-existing flaws with military to drones. These problems weren't created by drones at all, and if anything many of them are reduced by drones. It seems like everyone is just hopping on the anti-drone band wagon for the sake of hopping on the anti-drone band wagon. Is there any reasons drones are worse than conventional military attacks? If there are none, other than bandwagoning, why would someone be against drones?

t3_3oq17f

CMV: Groups like Hamas and the IRA are one in the same.

People are quick to judge Hamas for their actions in Israel and Palestine without really delving into the actual situation. These are people who are slowly being wedged out of their homeland that they have lived in for centuries. People are quick to say the actions of Hamas are fanatical and write them off as crazy Muslims. Most of the time when I bring up the IRA a lot of people support their actions with getting England out of Ireland and all of that. They often will look past the car bombings and murders that the IRA has committed but in the same breath denounce Hamas. The way I see it they are two groups that are more a like than they are different and they are people who are fighting for,the same thing, what they believe is their homeland. _____ > *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: Groups like Hamas and the IRA are one in the same. People are quick to judge Hamas for their actions in Israel and Palestine without really delving into the actual situation. These are people who are slowly being wedged out of their homeland that they have lived in for centuries. People are quick to say the actions of Hamas are fanatical and write them off as crazy Muslims. Most of the time when I bring up the IRA a lot of people support their actions with getting England out of Ireland and all of that. They often will look past the car bombings and murders that the IRA has committed but in the same breath denounce Hamas. The way I see it they are two groups that are more a like than they are different and they are people who are fighting for,the same thing, what they believe is their homeland.

t3_1c56oe

I believe that insider trading should be legal. CMV

Insider trading provides a more accurate evaluation for companies and reduces bubbles. Also, if you know something about a company, how are you supposed to trade against your own knowledge? I just can't understand what the moral wrong in insider trading is. CMV

I believe that insider trading should be legal. CMV. Insider trading provides a more accurate evaluation for companies and reduces bubbles. Also, if you know something about a company, how are you supposed to trade against your own knowledge? I just can't understand what the moral wrong in insider trading is. CMV