Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1xtst3

I believe pirating software/music/etc is wrong CMV

Well, as I understand it, you are ~~taking~~ benefiting from someone else's work that they put hours in to making and not reimbursing them for their efforts. For example, music. A musician put hours into writing and recording that music. That music had hours spent fixing the audio quality. That musician paid a publisher to promote their music and they deserve money for the hours they put in as well. **EDIT** (if it is a good song, etc.) I am not saying all work should be rewarded, the market decides that, I am saying that these people put their songs out there that are popular and a good 75%+ of people I know refuse to buy it but pirate it instead, depriving the artist of the meager fee they ask if you appreciate their work. The simplest way to explain my view is that when people make something and put their time money and talent into something it is not ok to just ~~take it from them~~ benefit from the use of that work without reimbursing them. Change my view.

I believe pirating software/music/etc is wrong CMV. Well, as I understand it, you are ~~taking~~ benefiting from someone else's work that they put hours in to making and not reimbursing them for their efforts. For example, music. A musician put hours into writing and recording that music. That music had hours spent fixing the audio quality. That musician paid a publisher to promote their music and they deserve money for the hours they put in as well. **EDIT** (if it is a good song, etc.) I am not saying all work should be rewarded, the market decides that, I am saying that these people put their songs out there that are popular and a good 75%+ of people I know refuse to buy it but pirate it instead, depriving the artist of the meager fee they ask if you appreciate their work. The simplest way to explain my view is that when people make something and put their time money and talent into something it is not ok to just ~~take it from them~~ benefit from the use of that work without reimbursing them. Change my view.

t3_1x4w51

I think accepting creationism and rejecting evolution isn't necessarily illogical. CMV

After the Nye/Ham debate, there were a lot of comments being made about how irrational/illogical Ham was being by rejecting all the evidence the Nye was presenting. I think that is is incorrect to say that the rejection of evolution makes a person necessarily illogical, or at least no more illogical than people who say creationism is wrong. Let me explain why: As we know, science is really just a standardized method for learning about the universe. However, science has some pretty fundamental assumptions which require it to work. Wikipedia [states them pretty well](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Philosophy_and_sociology_of_science), but to paraphrase, they are: 1. The universe operates according to laws which are objective and consistent. 2. Humans have the ability to perceive and understand these laws. The entire body of scientific knowledge is based upon these assumptions. If they were incorrect, the scientific method wouldn't work and any of its assumptions would be suspect. Science has no way of proving either of these assumptions, they are just accepted as fact in order to facilitate scientific progress. From my understanding, some creationists reject both of these assumptions. They contend that: 1. Although there are physical laws, such as gravity, which are normally very consistent, there exists a power which is able to change them at will. For example, the biblical example of the burning bush: a higher power was able to temporarily "override" the laws of nature to stop the bush from being consumed. 2. This higher power which controls the universe is not knowable or prove-able by humans. This higher power could reveal themselves, but chooses not to. Since this power controls the entire universe, they are able to prevent their existence from being proven. Rather, this power chooses to provide some evidence of their existence (such as the bible), and let people choose whether or not they will believe. Although creationists have no way of proving that their assumptions are accurate, scientists have no way of proving theirs are either. So, it seems perfectly logical for a creationist to reject scientific fact (such as evolution), on the basis that scientific fact itself is meaningless since the foundation science itself is flawed. It seems to me that it is completely logical for someone like Ken Ham to say that nothing would convince him that evolution was incorrect, since he probably believes the word of the bible is beyond question. In a way, it's really no different that scientists believing the evidence found on the earth is beyond question. Am I wrong? CMV.

I think accepting creationism and rejecting evolution isn't necessarily illogical. CMV. After the Nye/Ham debate, there were a lot of comments being made about how irrational/illogical Ham was being by rejecting all the evidence the Nye was presenting. I think that is is incorrect to say that the rejection of evolution makes a person necessarily illogical, or at least no more illogical than people who say creationism is wrong. Let me explain why: As we know, science is really just a standardized method for learning about the universe. However, science has some pretty fundamental assumptions which require it to work. Wikipedia [states them pretty well](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Philosophy_and_sociology_of_science), but to paraphrase, they are: 1. The universe operates according to laws which are objective and consistent. 2. Humans have the ability to perceive and understand these laws. The entire body of scientific knowledge is based upon these assumptions. If they were incorrect, the scientific method wouldn't work and any of its assumptions would be suspect. Science has no way of proving either of these assumptions, they are just accepted as fact in order to facilitate scientific progress. From my understanding, some creationists reject both of these assumptions. They contend that: 1. Although there are physical laws, such as gravity, which are normally very consistent, there exists a power which is able to change them at will. For example, the biblical example of the burning bush: a higher power was able to temporarily "override" the laws of nature to stop the bush from being consumed. 2. This higher power which controls the universe is not knowable or prove-able by humans. This higher power could reveal themselves, but chooses not to. Since this power controls the entire universe, they are able to prevent their existence from being proven. Rather, this power chooses to provide some evidence of their existence (such as the bible), and let people choose whether or not they will believe. Although creationists have no way of proving that their assumptions are accurate, scientists have no way of proving theirs are either. So, it seems perfectly logical for a creationist to reject scientific fact (such as evolution), on the basis that scientific fact itself is meaningless since the foundation science itself is flawed. It seems to me that it is completely logical for someone like Ken Ham to say that nothing would convince him that evolution was incorrect, since he probably believes the word of the bible is beyond question. In a way, it's really no different that scientists believing the evidence found on the earth is beyond question. Am I wrong? CMV.

t3_3amjrk

CMV: I do not believe in a progressive tax system. Change my view.

I believe in a flat tax system, where everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings in income tax. I do not believe in a progressive tax system where richer people pay a higher percentage than poor people. I am a working class democrat, but I do not see a progressive system stimulating economic growth. It seems to me that it is punishing somebody for making more money, making it more desirable to stay in the middle class instead of encouraging people to work their way up into a higher class.. On the other hand, I believe a flat tax based would be fairer. Rich people would pay more (because 15% of a million is higher than 15% of 35'000) but would still be encouraged to leave their capital in the US economy instead of finding ways around the tax code... Can someone make a solid case for a progressive tax system directed at a working class guy like 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 do not believe in a progressive tax system. Change my view. I believe in a flat tax system, where everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings in income tax. I do not believe in a progressive tax system where richer people pay a higher percentage than poor people. I am a working class democrat, but I do not see a progressive system stimulating economic growth. It seems to me that it is punishing somebody for making more money, making it more desirable to stay in the middle class instead of encouraging people to work their way up into a higher class.. On the other hand, I believe a flat tax based would be fairer. Rich people would pay more (because 15% of a million is higher than 15% of 35'000) but would still be encouraged to leave their capital in the US economy instead of finding ways around the tax code... Can someone make a solid case for a progressive tax system directed at a working class guy like me?

t3_1etvg0

I don't think that transgendered, transsexual, gender queer, gender bent, or intersex people should be included in with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. CMV

I'm a lesbian and I think that all of these "alternative" forms of sexuality shouldn't be included in with gay, lesbian and bisexual. It seems that because their sexuality isn't the norm then they are in the same fight as gays, but I think that it's an entirely different situation. It also confuses the situation on what gay people are fighting for and I think that this confusion would steer people away. I also just don't understand when people say things like "I'm a gay man trapped in a lesbian woman's body", then they expect for you to know which gender to refer to them as. How can you be a man with a full beard and penis, but feel that you can talk about the struggles of being a woman? And with transsexual people, if you are a female to male trans, and you enter into a relationship with a woman after your transition, I think that you are now a straight person. It doesn't feel right to just kick them out of the gay community then, but I feel that they should have their own community. I don't have a problem with these type of people, I just think that they shouldn't be used in the same sentence as gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. I hope that I didn't add too many opinions in there, but I was just trying to explain why I feel this way. Oh, and I probably missed a few of the sexualities, but there are so many of them right now that it's hard to keep up.

I don't think that transgendered, transsexual, gender queer, gender bent, or intersex people should be included in with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. CMV. I'm a lesbian and I think that all of these "alternative" forms of sexuality shouldn't be included in with gay, lesbian and bisexual. It seems that because their sexuality isn't the norm then they are in the same fight as gays, but I think that it's an entirely different situation. It also confuses the situation on what gay people are fighting for and I think that this confusion would steer people away. I also just don't understand when people say things like "I'm a gay man trapped in a lesbian woman's body", then they expect for you to know which gender to refer to them as. How can you be a man with a full beard and penis, but feel that you can talk about the struggles of being a woman? And with transsexual people, if you are a female to male trans, and you enter into a relationship with a woman after your transition, I think that you are now a straight person. It doesn't feel right to just kick them out of the gay community then, but I feel that they should have their own community. I don't have a problem with these type of people, I just think that they shouldn't be used in the same sentence as gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. I hope that I didn't add too many opinions in there, but I was just trying to explain why I feel this way. Oh, and I probably missed a few of the sexualities, but there are so many of them right now that it's hard to keep up.

t3_1kmp3x

I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, as stated in the constitution. CMV

I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, as stated in the constitution. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." From a moral perspective, I believe that government should have the right to restrict citizens' access to weaponry. Legally, suicidal people, violent criminals, and others pose enough of a threat to allow temporary suspension of their rights. I also do not believe in the infallibility of the constitution. However, from a legal perspective, I cannot see how the clause "shall not be infringed" allows the government to restrict the types of weapons available to perfectly law-abiding citizens. Also, a clarification of a relevant and common misconception: the word "militia" does not mean that firearm owning citizens need to be part of a militia. See "District of Columbia v. Heller." Change my view! Edit: I want a discussion of legality, not gun control. What it seems to come down to is this: 1. There is a right to bear arms. 2. The government is allowed to supersede rights for public safety reasons. 3. This allows the restriction of guns for children and violent offenders. Why does this allow restriction of guns across the entire populace? Is it not the government's job to discern between dangerous and safe people, and therefor allow those who are safe to absolutely exercise their rights?

I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, as stated in the constitution. CMV. I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, as stated in the constitution. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." From a moral perspective, I believe that government should have the right to restrict citizens' access to weaponry. Legally, suicidal people, violent criminals, and others pose enough of a threat to allow temporary suspension of their rights. I also do not believe in the infallibility of the constitution. However, from a legal perspective, I cannot see how the clause "shall not be infringed" allows the government to restrict the types of weapons available to perfectly law-abiding citizens. Also, a clarification of a relevant and common misconception: the word "militia" does not mean that firearm owning citizens need to be part of a militia. See "District of Columbia v. Heller." Change my view! Edit: I want a discussion of legality, not gun control. What it seems to come down to is this: 1. There is a right to bear arms. 2. The government is allowed to supersede rights for public safety reasons. 3. This allows the restriction of guns for children and violent offenders. Why does this allow restriction of guns across the entire populace? Is it not the government's job to discern between dangerous and safe people, and therefor allow those who are safe to absolutely exercise their rights?

t3_2aay7y

CMV: I have no problem with cannibalism.

Every being within a natural environment or ecosystem has some form of a predatory-prey relationship with the other inhabitants; animals eat each other and this is acceptable, it is a natural way of creating an ecological balance within the given environment. This all got a little misconstrued with us, as we currently stand, humans are *now* completely removed form any form of food chain and yet it is still socially acceptable and even actively encouraged that we eat meat. So much so that sentient beings are bred - in mass quantity - to be steroid pumped, force fed and devoid of movement in order to create larger, tastier morsels for us to consume. **DISCLAIMER: I eat so much meat** There is no ecological balance here and it certainly isn't "humane"; so why does this occur? It's self indulgent, it's delicious. Why can't this be taken one step further? I simply ask, why can't we eat our own species if every other is present on the menu (harhar)? EDIT: As this has been brought up twice, I thought I would clarify; I am interested in the opinion as to why eating human flesh is unacceptable. So for the sake of arguement, the scenario is you are at a restaurant and it is on the menu. There is no life threatening situation, you can order something else, but why can't I eat human? EDIT 2: Quite a few replies have mentioned issues to do with disease (eg. Kuru), what if this is relieved from the equation with a risk of infection being zero. **I mean to question morality** not self preservation. EDIT 3: The latest trending reply is about "meat sourcing", now, obviously factory farming humans would be disgusting but what if the meat presents itself in a **similar manner as** it did for **Armin Meiwes**. That is a willing, able and sane volunteer chooses to be consumed. I can appreciate how the shifting of parameters can be annoying with all the editing but the question has grown and changed as better answers are given but I can't quite find myself convinced.

CMV: I have no problem with cannibalism. Every being within a natural environment or ecosystem has some form of a predatory-prey relationship with the other inhabitants; animals eat each other and this is acceptable, it is a natural way of creating an ecological balance within the given environment. This all got a little misconstrued with us, as we currently stand, humans are *now* completely removed form any form of food chain and yet it is still socially acceptable and even actively encouraged that we eat meat. So much so that sentient beings are bred - in mass quantity - to be steroid pumped, force fed and devoid of movement in order to create larger, tastier morsels for us to consume. **DISCLAIMER: I eat so much meat** There is no ecological balance here and it certainly isn't "humane"; so why does this occur? It's self indulgent, it's delicious. Why can't this be taken one step further? I simply ask, why can't we eat our own species if every other is present on the menu (harhar)? EDIT: As this has been brought up twice, I thought I would clarify; I am interested in the opinion as to why eating human flesh is unacceptable. So for the sake of arguement, the scenario is you are at a restaurant and it is on the menu. There is no life threatening situation, you can order something else, but why can't I eat human? EDIT 2: Quite a few replies have mentioned issues to do with disease (eg. Kuru), what if this is relieved from the equation with a risk of infection being zero. **I mean to question morality** not self preservation. EDIT 3: The latest trending reply is about "meat sourcing", now, obviously factory farming humans would be disgusting but what if the meat presents itself in a **similar manner as** it did for **Armin Meiwes**. That is a willing, able and sane volunteer chooses to be consumed. I can appreciate how the shifting of parameters can be annoying with all the editing but the question has grown and changed as better answers are given but I can't quite find myself convinced.

t3_1zrror

CMV: I fear loved ones deaths.

Many people have a fear of themselves dying, but I have an intense fear of loved ones dying. I can't not think about my parents dying eventually or someone important to me suddenly dropping dead. Now, the thing is, I don't really care if I die. Perhaps this is slightly selfish, but I'm okay with dying. It's just the pain of having other people whom I love dying that seems to get to me most. CMV...why should I not worry over others passing before me?

CMV: I fear loved ones deaths. Many people have a fear of themselves dying, but I have an intense fear of loved ones dying. I can't not think about my parents dying eventually or someone important to me suddenly dropping dead. Now, the thing is, I don't really care if I die. Perhaps this is slightly selfish, but I'm okay with dying. It's just the pain of having other people whom I love dying that seems to get to me most. CMV...why should I not worry over others passing before me?

t3_26xf31

CMV: I believe that since the United States stopped exporting oil to Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, Japan acted out of desperation and the United States is to blame for the Pacific War.

As far as I understand, the ultimate casus belli was the resource embargo, headed by the US and Britain, prior to which, 80% of Japan's total oil was imported and 74% of it's scrap iron (useful for recycling into new products) and 93% of it copper were imported from the US alone. After that embargo, there really wasn't another way to resolve the crisis in East Asian other than war. The Dutch East Indies could have provided a significant amount of oil, and places in China could provide other resources, but the US's military support for the Chinese and strong ties with Britain, as well as the US's overseas possessions in the Western Pacific (Guam, Philippines, etc.), would eventually lead to conflict either way. Therefore the United States could only have avoided war by continuing exports to Japan. By not exporting oil to Japan, the United States was responsible for Pearl Harbor and Japan's desperation to try and force an American surrender. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that since the United States stopped exporting oil to Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, Japan acted out of desperation and the United States is to blame for the Pacific War. As far as I understand, the ultimate casus belli was the resource embargo, headed by the US and Britain, prior to which, 80% of Japan's total oil was imported and 74% of it's scrap iron (useful for recycling into new products) and 93% of it copper were imported from the US alone. After that embargo, there really wasn't another way to resolve the crisis in East Asian other than war. The Dutch East Indies could have provided a significant amount of oil, and places in China could provide other resources, but the US's military support for the Chinese and strong ties with Britain, as well as the US's overseas possessions in the Western Pacific (Guam, Philippines, etc.), would eventually lead to conflict either way. Therefore the United States could only have avoided war by continuing exports to Japan. By not exporting oil to Japan, the United States was responsible for Pearl Harbor and Japan's desperation to try and force an American surrender.

t3_31w5mm

CMV: I agree with the "Surf and Turf Bill" that is on the front of /r/all

[To sum up the issue: A senator in MO has proposed a bill that regulates what tax funded welfare funds may be used for, basically making 'luxury' items ineligible.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rush-to-humiliate-the-poor/2015/04/07/8795b192-dd67-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?tid=rssfeed) When I entered the comment section, I was honestly really surprised to find that I hold a minority opinion. I feel like this is a perfectly reasonable proposal. The programs allot specific amounts of money to aid families in getting the essentials. If there is enough of a surplus to purchase "extras", then the budget should be re-evaluated. I don't think this has anything to do with privilege or fairness, but regulations to ensure that the goals of the programs are met at the lowest possible cost. _____ > *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 agree with the "Surf and Turf Bill" that is on the front of /r/all. [To sum up the issue: A senator in MO has proposed a bill that regulates what tax funded welfare funds may be used for, basically making 'luxury' items ineligible.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-rush-to-humiliate-the-poor/2015/04/07/8795b192-dd67-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?tid=rssfeed) When I entered the comment section, I was honestly really surprised to find that I hold a minority opinion. I feel like this is a perfectly reasonable proposal. The programs allot specific amounts of money to aid families in getting the essentials. If there is enough of a surplus to purchase "extras", then the budget should be re-evaluated. I don't think this has anything to do with privilege or fairness, but regulations to ensure that the goals of the programs are met at the lowest possible cost.

t3_4386or

CMV: The National League shouldn't adopt the designated hitter rule

It seems like the National League will adopt the DH sometime in the future, perhaps as early as 2017. This is a mistake in my opinion. I have seen several arguments in favor of the DH in national league and I will address each one. - **Watching pitchers hit is boring** Personally I think watching the fat washed up dhs of the AL hit is boring, but to each their own. I prefer the low scoring games, and more subtle strategy of the National League. If someone finds watching pitchers hit boring there is an easy solution - don't root for an NL team. Watch and root for AL teams. As it is now there is a league for both preferences. Why force your preferred style on me? - **There needs to be a uniform style of play** Why? The different rules of play is one of the beautiful things about baseball. - **There needs to be a uniform style of play because there are more interleague games these days** Again why? I personally don't see any problem with the way it is now where it varies depending on the league of the home team. Though it is new, teams and strategy will adjust. But other than there are many other solutions for example ending inter-league play or ending the DH in the AL. There is no logical reason to force it on the NL. - **The DH will bring more fans to baseball** Disagree. My hometown team, the SF Giants, regularly draws more than the AL team in the same marketplace and has for a long time (before the current success). The Giants have TV ratings comparable to the local football team the 49ers. Is there any compelling evidence that the DH will bring more fans to baseball? - **Baseball has to change with the times** At this point in the post steroid era, a game that is devoid of strategy and small ball and only revolves around big hitters is also dated and archaic. I see reason why the DH is more futuristic or forward looking. _____ > *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 National League shouldn't adopt the designated hitter rule. It seems like the National League will adopt the DH sometime in the future, perhaps as early as 2017. This is a mistake in my opinion. I have seen several arguments in favor of the DH in national league and I will address each one. - **Watching pitchers hit is boring** Personally I think watching the fat washed up dhs of the AL hit is boring, but to each their own. I prefer the low scoring games, and more subtle strategy of the National League. If someone finds watching pitchers hit boring there is an easy solution - don't root for an NL team. Watch and root for AL teams. As it is now there is a league for both preferences. Why force your preferred style on me? - **There needs to be a uniform style of play** Why? The different rules of play is one of the beautiful things about baseball. - **There needs to be a uniform style of play because there are more interleague games these days** Again why? I personally don't see any problem with the way it is now where it varies depending on the league of the home team. Though it is new, teams and strategy will adjust. But other than there are many other solutions for example ending inter-league play or ending the DH in the AL. There is no logical reason to force it on the NL. - **The DH will bring more fans to baseball** Disagree. My hometown team, the SF Giants, regularly draws more than the AL team in the same marketplace and has for a long time (before the current success). The Giants have TV ratings comparable to the local football team the 49ers. Is there any compelling evidence that the DH will bring more fans to baseball? - **Baseball has to change with the times** At this point in the post steroid era, a game that is devoid of strategy and small ball and only revolves around big hitters is also dated and archaic. I see reason why the DH is more futuristic or forward looking.

t3_3sv95o

CMV: Is a 9-to-5 work life worth it?

I'm going to put it out there. I'm a failure and the scum of the earth. I'm a 22 year old college dropout. I quit a part-time job as a greeter at a big box store for 6 months. It was hell, and I was 2 days away from jumping off a bridge. Now, of course, my parents want me to get a job. I totally understand their perspective. Would I support a freeloader, myself? Hell no! I'd rather shoot myself than be a zombie. With 8 hours sleep, 9 hours of work, an hour commute, and an hour of other stuff necessary to get ready, there's barely enough time. Plus, there's always other menial tasks like grocery shopping and dealing with companies on the phone. I'd be lucky to get in a movie at the end of the day. Is it worth it only actually living for 2 out of every 7 days? All I really have enough passion for is getting high with some random chick and making love to her, but that only happens so often. And there's eating too. That's good. Working 40-50 hours a week just to eat is a burden. Worth living through? > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Is a 9-to-5 work life worth it?. I'm going to put it out there. I'm a failure and the scum of the earth. I'm a 22 year old college dropout. I quit a part-time job as a greeter at a big box store for 6 months. It was hell, and I was 2 days away from jumping off a bridge. Now, of course, my parents want me to get a job. I totally understand their perspective. Would I support a freeloader, myself? Hell no! I'd rather shoot myself than be a zombie. With 8 hours sleep, 9 hours of work, an hour commute, and an hour of other stuff necessary to get ready, there's barely enough time. Plus, there's always other menial tasks like grocery shopping and dealing with companies on the phone. I'd be lucky to get in a movie at the end of the day. Is it worth it only actually living for 2 out of every 7 days? All I really have enough passion for is getting high with some random chick and making love to her, but that only happens so often. And there's eating too. That's good. Working 40-50 hours a week just to eat is a burden. Worth living through? > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_4njmy9

CMV: The feminists' "NiceGuy" trope, is nothing more than misandric rhetoric towards shy/socially awkward men.

This is the video that inspired me to make this post, and most of the points I'll be making will be from this video. If you want to watch it, that's fine. Here's the video by Karen Straughan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4 If you go and look at /r/NiceGuys, some of guys ARE in fact assholes. They will message a woman, get rejected and then blow up in her face because she didn't respond to him in time while at the same time, claiming to be 'nice'. Those are not the guys I'm talking about, and those guys deserve to be made fun of. However, most of the posts are just innocent posts venting their sexual frustrations. The NiceGuy I'm talking about is the socially awkward guy that does not have any charisma, and uses kindness as a way to get a woman to notice him. This is the type of guy I am. I have no game, and I suck with women. I used to be the type of guy who would jump through hoops for a woman I like. I didn't feel 'entitled' to love/sex. I was just extra kind to them in hopes that they might notice "hey. He's actually a great guy! I might give him a shot!" But I never got mad when the feelings were not reciprocated. But according to modern feminists, I was one of those 'evil nice guys' that they love to shame. I still am a spinless person who is awkward and too afraid to make a move, but that doesn't make me evil like the feminists say. It's wrong that they mock men like me. Anyways, on to the points Karen Straughan has made. First point was the whole thing where feminists claim that NiceGuys "think of women as prizes to be won. They think of them as sparking prizes with vaginas." How does having romantic feelings for someone, and wanting a romantic relationship with that person, and feeling disappointed when that person doesn't reciprocate when all you get platonic friendship equate to viewing women as "Sparkly prizes with a vagina." She then goes on to the NiceGuy Coins trope, and also makes kinda a good point. It seems a lot like a two way street. A lot of women will exploit a guy that she knows has a crush on her. Karen, in the video, was talking about one of her coworkers had a NiceGuy, and she laughed to her telling him how "[NiceGuy] is totally my bitch." The guy over heard, and then whenever she asked a favor from him again, the guy DID tell her off, and rightfully so. Karen then says that the NiceGuy didn't feel "entitled" because people that are "entitled" don't try to "earn" it or go out of their way to get it. She said that people that feel "entitled" don't jump through hoops, they expect it to be handed to them. He didn't tell her off because he felt "entitled" to sex, he told her off because she used him and she exploited his crush on her. If anything, the girl in the situation felt entitled to his nice actions. Basically, I think that third world feminism is just trying to shame male behavior, and they're going after weak targets and rarely if ever going after the more stronger types (Ie: Frat boys). I'm not saying all feminists are bad, I'm just saying that there's a new wave of feminists that are. They're nothing but online bullies. CMV

CMV: The feminists' "NiceGuy" trope, is nothing more than misandric rhetoric towards shy/socially awkward men. This is the video that inspired me to make this post, and most of the points I'll be making will be from this video. If you want to watch it, that's fine. Here's the video by Karen Straughan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4 If you go and look at /r/NiceGuys, some of guys ARE in fact assholes. They will message a woman, get rejected and then blow up in her face because she didn't respond to him in time while at the same time, claiming to be 'nice'. Those are not the guys I'm talking about, and those guys deserve to be made fun of. However, most of the posts are just innocent posts venting their sexual frustrations. The NiceGuy I'm talking about is the socially awkward guy that does not have any charisma, and uses kindness as a way to get a woman to notice him. This is the type of guy I am. I have no game, and I suck with women. I used to be the type of guy who would jump through hoops for a woman I like. I didn't feel 'entitled' to love/sex. I was just extra kind to them in hopes that they might notice "hey. He's actually a great guy! I might give him a shot!" But I never got mad when the feelings were not reciprocated. But according to modern feminists, I was one of those 'evil nice guys' that they love to shame. I still am a spinless person who is awkward and too afraid to make a move, but that doesn't make me evil like the feminists say. It's wrong that they mock men like me. Anyways, on to the points Karen Straughan has made. First point was the whole thing where feminists claim that NiceGuys "think of women as prizes to be won. They think of them as sparking prizes with vaginas." How does having romantic feelings for someone, and wanting a romantic relationship with that person, and feeling disappointed when that person doesn't reciprocate when all you get platonic friendship equate to viewing women as "Sparkly prizes with a vagina." She then goes on to the NiceGuy Coins trope, and also makes kinda a good point. It seems a lot like a two way street. A lot of women will exploit a guy that she knows has a crush on her. Karen, in the video, was talking about one of her coworkers had a NiceGuy, and she laughed to her telling him how "[NiceGuy] is totally my bitch." The guy over heard, and then whenever she asked a favor from him again, the guy DID tell her off, and rightfully so. Karen then says that the NiceGuy didn't feel "entitled" because people that are "entitled" don't try to "earn" it or go out of their way to get it. She said that people that feel "entitled" don't jump through hoops, they expect it to be handed to them. He didn't tell her off because he felt "entitled" to sex, he told her off because she used him and she exploited his crush on her. If anything, the girl in the situation felt entitled to his nice actions. Basically, I think that third world feminism is just trying to shame male behavior, and they're going after weak targets and rarely if ever going after the more stronger types (Ie: Frat boys). I'm not saying all feminists are bad, I'm just saying that there's a new wave of feminists that are. They're nothing but online bullies. CMV

t3_1rtqr2

in a world where we have those disgusting child pageants and say they're not abuse because "the kid wants to do it" i honestly see nothing wrong with letting your kids do solo CP. CMV

let me expand on that before things get ugly, what i mean to say is, when i was 9-13, there was nothing i personally enjoyed more than being naked, if i knew what a nude beach was then, i would have tried to live on one. anywhere i could be naked, especially around people, was super cool to me, because that was the first time i had every really had the chance, around that time was when my family joined a local recreation center/gym, so it was my first time in a locker room and wow, i got to be totally nude around all these people, and no one yelled at me for it! it was liberating and just mad me feel free. so if someone (now, this is in my alternate little world where CP would be treated like regular talent scouting) approached me/my family and said "gee your boy there is quite a handsome guy, would he be interested in some intimate photography(or whatever term they would come up with) for $100/$1000?(not sure how much porn stars make) and if my mom and dad were like "well, it's up to spudmcnally" i would say HECK YEAH! easy money *and* i get to be naked more? **sign. me. up.** and i should also clarify what i mean when i say solo CP, by that i mean no one is fiddling someone's diddle or stuffing anyone's turkey so to speak, it's just the kid, alone, nothing else. now you may be wondering "but...why?" and i'll answer you with a question, when was the last time you think someone needed to steal a condom? an odd question yes but what i mean is this; you can get condoms, for free or very cheap, just about *everywhere*. most doctors and schools give them away, gas station bathrooms even sell them, so why steal them? and that is the idea i hope this would bring to CP, why abuse a child/ force them to make CP when there could be willing participants? easy as can be and hopefully a victimless crime, i know i for one wouldn't have felt violated just from some pictures. alright, i said my piece, *now* things can get ugly.

in a world where we have those disgusting child pageants and say they're not abuse because "the kid wants to do it" i honestly see nothing wrong with letting your kids do solo CP. CMV. let me expand on that before things get ugly, what i mean to say is, when i was 9-13, there was nothing i personally enjoyed more than being naked, if i knew what a nude beach was then, i would have tried to live on one. anywhere i could be naked, especially around people, was super cool to me, because that was the first time i had every really had the chance, around that time was when my family joined a local recreation center/gym, so it was my first time in a locker room and wow, i got to be totally nude around all these people, and no one yelled at me for it! it was liberating and just mad me feel free. so if someone (now, this is in my alternate little world where CP would be treated like regular talent scouting) approached me/my family and said "gee your boy there is quite a handsome guy, would he be interested in some intimate photography(or whatever term they would come up with) for $100/$1000?(not sure how much porn stars make) and if my mom and dad were like "well, it's up to spudmcnally" i would say HECK YEAH! easy money *and* i get to be naked more? **sign. me. up.** and i should also clarify what i mean when i say solo CP, by that i mean no one is fiddling someone's diddle or stuffing anyone's turkey so to speak, it's just the kid, alone, nothing else. now you may be wondering "but...why?" and i'll answer you with a question, when was the last time you think someone needed to steal a condom? an odd question yes but what i mean is this; you can get condoms, for free or very cheap, just about *everywhere*. most doctors and schools give them away, gas station bathrooms even sell them, so why steal them? and that is the idea i hope this would bring to CP, why abuse a child/ force them to make CP when there could be willing participants? easy as can be and hopefully a victimless crime, i know i for one wouldn't have felt violated just from some pictures. alright, i said my piece, *now* things can get ugly.

t3_4k8ms0

CMV: Communism makes more sense than Capitalism

Let me make this clear: I am NOT talking about Stalinism. Stalinism is nothing like Communism. Anyway, To me, Comunism makes more sense than Capitalism because it gives everyone a fair chance in the world where in Capitalism, not all people can make it to the top because they don't have the opportunities. In Capitalism, people want to extort money from everyone else, whereas in Communism, people wouldn't do that because they don't get any financial benefit to it, thus gettting rid of the class divide. I'd like to see the other side's arguments. Thanks _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Communism makes more sense than Capitalism. Let me make this clear: I am NOT talking about Stalinism. Stalinism is nothing like Communism. Anyway, To me, Comunism makes more sense than Capitalism because it gives everyone a fair chance in the world where in Capitalism, not all people can make it to the top because they don't have the opportunities. In Capitalism, people want to extort money from everyone else, whereas in Communism, people wouldn't do that because they don't get any financial benefit to it, thus gettting rid of the class divide. I'd like to see the other side's arguments. Thanks

t3_1egq3p

The ethnic composition of most developed countries is being reshaped because of immigration from third world countries. CMV

[Look at this map](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_PPP_Per_Capita_IMF_2008.svg) See the countries in magenta/purple colours? Most of those countries have a domestic population that is steadily declining and has been for a few decades now. The birth rate in most of those countries is below the necessary 2.1 children per woman. Population decline on this level is detrimental to the economy, which the politicians understand and because of that they try to combat it through financial incentives but also by a much more open immigration policy from third world countries because its one of the least costly remedies. Nothing wrong with that - the future lies in connecting the world, not isolating. I also understand most people emigrate in hopes of a better life for themselves and their family. I sympathize with that. However, does this not mean that the ethnic composition will be vastly different in let's say 100 years from now if the population loss is being compensated/recouped through immigration from Africa and the Middle East(unstable regions with the largest population growth) but also from countries of the world where the economy is on its knees(the current greek brain drain as an example)? Will there even be caucasians around in 500 years?

The ethnic composition of most developed countries is being reshaped because of immigration from third world countries. CMV. [Look at this map](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_PPP_Per_Capita_IMF_2008.svg) See the countries in magenta/purple colours? Most of those countries have a domestic population that is steadily declining and has been for a few decades now. The birth rate in most of those countries is below the necessary 2.1 children per woman. Population decline on this level is detrimental to the economy, which the politicians understand and because of that they try to combat it through financial incentives but also by a much more open immigration policy from third world countries because its one of the least costly remedies. Nothing wrong with that - the future lies in connecting the world, not isolating. I also understand most people emigrate in hopes of a better life for themselves and their family. I sympathize with that. However, does this not mean that the ethnic composition will be vastly different in let's say 100 years from now if the population loss is being compensated/recouped through immigration from Africa and the Middle East(unstable regions with the largest population growth) but also from countries of the world where the economy is on its knees(the current greek brain drain as an example)? Will there even be caucasians around in 500 years?

t3_1kskvj

I believe that Land Value Taxes are both practical and philosophically fair. CMV.

I've done a lot of studying on the subject of [land value taxation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_taxation) (LVT) and it strikes me as having two powerful arguments for it: one economic and one philosophic. I. Analyzing it economically, land value taxes do not distort the market for land, because the supply of land is static (for all intents and purposes.) Since structures are not taxed under an LVT, it encourages the most economic use of the land and discourages those who would keep land out of productive use. When implemented in cities, the LVT acts to stop sprawl and incentives vertical development. II. I believe in Locke's theory of property: that the fruits of the Earth are held in common by all mankind until an individual mixes his labor with it and creates private property. The LVT can be seen as analogous to a tenant paying rent to the landlord. With the landlord being the community and the tenant being the property owner. For landlords only charge for the space, not what goes inside (within reason.) **** When combined, I believe there is a strong case that LVT is superior to traditional real estate taxes. However, I will consider my mind changed should someone present a compelling argument that the LVT isn't fair or wouldn't be practical to implement.

I believe that Land Value Taxes are both practical and philosophically fair. CMV. I've done a lot of studying on the subject of [land value taxation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_taxation) (LVT) and it strikes me as having two powerful arguments for it: one economic and one philosophic. I. Analyzing it economically, land value taxes do not distort the market for land, because the supply of land is static (for all intents and purposes.) Since structures are not taxed under an LVT, it encourages the most economic use of the land and discourages those who would keep land out of productive use. When implemented in cities, the LVT acts to stop sprawl and incentives vertical development. II. I believe in Locke's theory of property: that the fruits of the Earth are held in common by all mankind until an individual mixes his labor with it and creates private property. The LVT can be seen as analogous to a tenant paying rent to the landlord. With the landlord being the community and the tenant being the property owner. For landlords only charge for the space, not what goes inside (within reason.) **** When combined, I believe there is a strong case that LVT is superior to traditional real estate taxes. However, I will consider my mind changed should someone present a compelling argument that the LVT isn't fair or wouldn't be practical to implement.

t3_6b303q

CMV: As an undergrad, I don't deserve to wear three-piece suits or go to expensive parties.

So there's a line by Shakespeare, "*The apparel oft proclaims the man.*" Or the game scene where Michael wears geek clothes and goes unhindered into a tech company office in GTA V. Still, I think, as a college students, I don't deserve to wear three-piece suits to look big, and here's why: **1: I'm in no position to wear those suits; I have no credible money-making skills** That is, am just a 21 year old undergrad in his second semester. Yes, I know I started college late, but then again, with virtually no professional skills, which three-piece suits usually symbolize, I think that, by ordering one of those shiny suits, that somehow I'm being insincere to myself, that it encroaches on my pride. I'm not Obama, I'm not Samsung's CEO, I'm just an udergrad. **2: I'm from a poor background.** Can't hardly pay my college tuition, and the money that I spend in making those suits, I can use that to survive for months. Heck, I can survive for amonth with the money I give to just *join* those parties. But still, you might think that 2 is clearly the *coup-de-grace* and that I'm right in holding this opinion, but I want to give you a chance by saying that I can apply and get accepted for a scholarship, which is most likely, or at least more than chance. I also have restarted part-timing. But even still, 1 will still hold even in this scholarship scenario with a scholarship and part-time, I think I won't buy three-piece suits even if I do have the money. Because still, 1 will hold, I don't possess any professional skills just yet. Maybe after graduation I will, but not at this particular moment in my life. _____ > *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: As an undergrad, I don't deserve to wear three-piece suits or go to expensive parties. So there's a line by Shakespeare, "*The apparel oft proclaims the man.*" Or the game scene where Michael wears geek clothes and goes unhindered into a tech company office in GTA V. Still, I think, as a college students, I don't deserve to wear three-piece suits to look big, and here's why: **1: I'm in no position to wear those suits; I have no credible money-making skills** That is, am just a 21 year old undergrad in his second semester. Yes, I know I started college late, but then again, with virtually no professional skills, which three-piece suits usually symbolize, I think that, by ordering one of those shiny suits, that somehow I'm being insincere to myself, that it encroaches on my pride. I'm not Obama, I'm not Samsung's CEO, I'm just an udergrad. **2: I'm from a poor background.** Can't hardly pay my college tuition, and the money that I spend in making those suits, I can use that to survive for months. Heck, I can survive for amonth with the money I give to just *join* those parties. But still, you might think that 2 is clearly the *coup-de-grace* and that I'm right in holding this opinion, but I want to give you a chance by saying that I can apply and get accepted for a scholarship, which is most likely, or at least more than chance. I also have restarted part-timing. But even still, 1 will still hold even in this scholarship scenario with a scholarship and part-time, I think I won't buy three-piece suits even if I do have the money. Because still, 1 will hold, I don't possess any professional skills just yet. Maybe after graduation I will, but not at this particular moment in my life.

t3_21euwo

CMV: I think it is futile for Israel to seek peace as its neighbours will never accept its existence

The more i discussed with critics of Israel, the more i realised that Israel pose an existential threat to some people, and while some are very vocal about Israel wall or retaliations, and claim they are the cause of the war, they totally consider the arabs rocket and terrorists attack pretty normal. When discussing what could be a peace, they usually end up asking for Israel dismantellement or at best deportation. These people are also usually very angry about Jews in my country (France) and dont hesitate to blame them for either the middle east conflict, or even some conspiracies. I know it is not pretty solid, but that is how my view was build. The level of hate Israel receive and its total disconnection to the fact of this bitter war whose arab side seem to be more bellicose is convincing me that Israel critics do not want peace in the middle east, but want in essence less Israel or no Israel at all. The fact that this hate of israel is widespread (at least in France and is some forums) is proving me that it is not because i encountered a lot of bad exemples of israel critics, but rather that hate of Israel is the norm in some cirlces (far-right of course, but also far-left and ecologists movements as well as arabs immigrates). So, now, I believe that while Israel may achieve truce with its neighbours, they will always be hated for the fact that a muslim territory with a muslim holy place is not in muslim ground anyone, and they will always be the target of a "crusade", at least, while islam is in its current form. By the way, i reckon that Israel is using methods that we would not see in peaceful democratics countries, but these methods are better than those used by its enemies by many order of magnitudes, and it is not whataboutrism : you cannot afford to bring a rubber hammer to a gunfight, and Israel can't afford not to protect itself. Obviously, insisting on how Israel is a really horrid apartheid state eating babies would only reinforce my views about peace being impossible. edit : mp me for typos and i will try to corect them edit² : thanks to the lot of you that answered to the question. There has been a lot of argumentation about how peace should be prusued even if there is no chance of it in short or even long term, for posture, for slim hope, or for an unpredictable future. _____ > *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 think it is futile for Israel to seek peace as its neighbours will never accept its existence. The more i discussed with critics of Israel, the more i realised that Israel pose an existential threat to some people, and while some are very vocal about Israel wall or retaliations, and claim they are the cause of the war, they totally consider the arabs rocket and terrorists attack pretty normal. When discussing what could be a peace, they usually end up asking for Israel dismantellement or at best deportation. These people are also usually very angry about Jews in my country (France) and dont hesitate to blame them for either the middle east conflict, or even some conspiracies. I know it is not pretty solid, but that is how my view was build. The level of hate Israel receive and its total disconnection to the fact of this bitter war whose arab side seem to be more bellicose is convincing me that Israel critics do not want peace in the middle east, but want in essence less Israel or no Israel at all. The fact that this hate of israel is widespread (at least in France and is some forums) is proving me that it is not because i encountered a lot of bad exemples of israel critics, but rather that hate of Israel is the norm in some cirlces (far-right of course, but also far-left and ecologists movements as well as arabs immigrates). So, now, I believe that while Israel may achieve truce with its neighbours, they will always be hated for the fact that a muslim territory with a muslim holy place is not in muslim ground anyone, and they will always be the target of a "crusade", at least, while islam is in its current form. By the way, i reckon that Israel is using methods that we would not see in peaceful democratics countries, but these methods are better than those used by its enemies by many order of magnitudes, and it is not whataboutrism : you cannot afford to bring a rubber hammer to a gunfight, and Israel can't afford not to protect itself. Obviously, insisting on how Israel is a really horrid apartheid state eating babies would only reinforce my views about peace being impossible. edit : mp me for typos and i will try to corect them edit² : thanks to the lot of you that answered to the question. There has been a lot of argumentation about how peace should be prusued even if there is no chance of it in short or even long term, for posture, for slim hope, or for an unpredictable future.

t3_2k2gwk

CMV: Terrorism is a Law Enforcement problem, not a military one.

Terrorists are criminals. They were also criminals on September 10th, 2001. Killing people is murder. Organizing murder is already illegal. Turning what should he a law enforcement issue into a war plays into the terrorist narrative, lending them legitimacy and making them look stronger than they are. Ebola is a far greater threat to the citizens of the coalition countries than ISIS yet we spend billions blowing up villages in Syria. Treating terrorists as petty people and common criminals is the proper response. Just because a criminal is on the other side of the planet doesn't mean bombing him is the best solution. ISIS is not a nation. Treating them as one does us no benefit. _____ > *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: Terrorism is a Law Enforcement problem, not a military one. Terrorists are criminals. They were also criminals on September 10th, 2001. Killing people is murder. Organizing murder is already illegal. Turning what should he a law enforcement issue into a war plays into the terrorist narrative, lending them legitimacy and making them look stronger than they are. Ebola is a far greater threat to the citizens of the coalition countries than ISIS yet we spend billions blowing up villages in Syria. Treating terrorists as petty people and common criminals is the proper response. Just because a criminal is on the other side of the planet doesn't mean bombing him is the best solution. ISIS is not a nation. Treating them as one does us no benefit.

t3_4gl324

CMV: Selfies of voters with their ballots should be allowed

Many places don't allow voters to take selfies at the voting booth in order to protect the secrecy of the ballot. Why not? If it gets young people to vote then it's a good thing, in my opinion. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I can understand banning selfie sticks from the booth --in order to protect the privacy of *other* voters from snoopers-- but the act of taking a selfie seems to be harmless. It's like an "I voted!" sticker for the social networking age. By the way, I probably wouldn't take a selfie at the voting booth myself because it just holds up the line. But if someone else wants to, then that's up to them. ************* Deltas awarded to /u/micahkfg and /u/ulyssessword for pointing out that it'd make it easier to buy votes.

CMV: Selfies of voters with their ballots should be allowed. Many places don't allow voters to take selfies at the voting booth in order to protect the secrecy of the ballot. Why not? If it gets young people to vote then it's a good thing, in my opinion. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I can understand banning selfie sticks from the booth --in order to protect the privacy of *other* voters from snoopers-- but the act of taking a selfie seems to be harmless. It's like an "I voted!" sticker for the social networking age. By the way, I probably wouldn't take a selfie at the voting booth myself because it just holds up the line. But if someone else wants to, then that's up to them. ************* Deltas awarded to /u/micahkfg and /u/ulyssessword for pointing out that it'd make it easier to buy votes.

t3_2rd3qe

CMV: Cloth car seats are better than leather

Leather seats are often considered a luxury feature, and are a standard feature of high-end cars, but I think the "luxury" isn't really better than cloth seats. Leather seats get incredibly hot during the summer and unless you take a lot of extra care of them, start to crack and look terrible after a few years. In addition, I don't think they're as comfortable and soft as cloth. The only advantage I can see that leather has over cloth is that leather doesn't absorb liquid as easily, so if you spill something, its far easier to clean. On the other hand, if cloth gets stained, its far cheaper to replace it. So, CMV. Tell me why I should look forward to the leather seats I'm probably going to be stuck with once I can afford a nicer car in 3 years.

CMV: Cloth car seats are better than leather. Leather seats are often considered a luxury feature, and are a standard feature of high-end cars, but I think the "luxury" isn't really better than cloth seats. Leather seats get incredibly hot during the summer and unless you take a lot of extra care of them, start to crack and look terrible after a few years. In addition, I don't think they're as comfortable and soft as cloth. The only advantage I can see that leather has over cloth is that leather doesn't absorb liquid as easily, so if you spill something, its far easier to clean. On the other hand, if cloth gets stained, its far cheaper to replace it. So, CMV. Tell me why I should look forward to the leather seats I'm probably going to be stuck with once I can afford a nicer car in 3 years.

t3_1lvz0g

I believe the concept of chivalry, in all forms that exist today, should end. CMV.

I believe everyone should should give everyone respect regardless of gender. I will hold doors open for anyone who is approaching because it is the decent thing to do, and if the person is younger than me, a different race, or another guy, I don't care I will still show them the same respect I would show a female. People that treat other human beings with more or less kindness, understanding, and respect solely based on the gender they were assigned at birth are practicing a long accepted tradition of discrimination. The practice of chivalry is sexist and harmful to both genders. Most of the commonly accepted chivalrous ideals I believe are inherently good, BUT only if applied to everyone. "Don't hit a woman"; *should be* "Don't hit anyone" (with exceptions of course, i.e. self defense) "Hold the door open for a woman"; *should be* "Hold the door open for the next person" "Walk around and open the car door for a woman"; ...honestly people should open their own car door. but if you are going to do it, do it for everyone. Etc.. I know my argument is pretty short but I am open to have my opinion changed, though as of now I don't see why chivalry is commonly accepted in society. **EDIT**: When I refer to chivalry I'm primarily wanting to discuss the gender aspects of it's definition and how people generally understand its functional definition.

I believe the concept of chivalry, in all forms that exist today, should end. CMV. I believe everyone should should give everyone respect regardless of gender. I will hold doors open for anyone who is approaching because it is the decent thing to do, and if the person is younger than me, a different race, or another guy, I don't care I will still show them the same respect I would show a female. People that treat other human beings with more or less kindness, understanding, and respect solely based on the gender they were assigned at birth are practicing a long accepted tradition of discrimination. The practice of chivalry is sexist and harmful to both genders. Most of the commonly accepted chivalrous ideals I believe are inherently good, BUT only if applied to everyone. "Don't hit a woman"; *should be* "Don't hit anyone" (with exceptions of course, i.e. self defense) "Hold the door open for a woman"; *should be* "Hold the door open for the next person" "Walk around and open the car door for a woman"; ...honestly people should open their own car door. but if you are going to do it, do it for everyone. Etc.. I know my argument is pretty short but I am open to have my opinion changed, though as of now I don't see why chivalry is commonly accepted in society. **EDIT**: When I refer to chivalry I'm primarily wanting to discuss the gender aspects of it's definition and how people generally understand its functional definition.

t3_22khhu

CMV: Parents with 3 and or more kids should be taxed more (per kid too) to control the population

Our problems with human society such as birth defects, overpopulation, low-income families, spread of diseases, crime, along with many others can be patched up (not fixed) with population control. How do you do population control in America? The idea of a One Child policy like China's would be met with extreme opposition. People receive tax breaks if they have more kids and this isn't helpful at all. I believe that to "control" our population (at least in America) we need tax people more if they have more kids. If a couple decides to have 2 kids they do not receive a tax increase since there will be a neutral gain in population gain from when they die. If they have 3 kids, then they are taxed significantly more. If somebody chooses not to have kids, they receive a tax break. By doing this this will force people to make wiser decisions regarding having children. I don't see any cons with this idea so that is why I am on /r/changemyview about this issue. _____ > *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: Parents with 3 and or more kids should be taxed more (per kid too) to control the population. Our problems with human society such as birth defects, overpopulation, low-income families, spread of diseases, crime, along with many others can be patched up (not fixed) with population control. How do you do population control in America? The idea of a One Child policy like China's would be met with extreme opposition. People receive tax breaks if they have more kids and this isn't helpful at all. I believe that to "control" our population (at least in America) we need tax people more if they have more kids. If a couple decides to have 2 kids they do not receive a tax increase since there will be a neutral gain in population gain from when they die. If they have 3 kids, then they are taxed significantly more. If somebody chooses not to have kids, they receive a tax break. By doing this this will force people to make wiser decisions regarding having children. I don't see any cons with this idea so that is why I am on /r/changemyview about this issue.

t3_6xo972

CMV: Prostitution should be legal

Prostitution is the world's oldest profession. It's never going to stop, as long as poverty exists, it will exist. It's better to legalize it, regulate it and make it safe for women who partake in it. A grown woman can choose to do whatever she wants with her body. It's *her* body. The fact that it isn't "Christian" or comports with certain religious points is unconvincing. Pornography doesn't comport with religious views, yet it is legal. Stripping doesn't comport Christianity, etc. but it's still legal. Additionally, if it's legal for a woman to have sex with a man on camera for money, why is it illegal for a woman to have sex with a man off-camera for money? I see no difference. _____ > *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: Prostitution should be legal. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession. It's never going to stop, as long as poverty exists, it will exist. It's better to legalize it, regulate it and make it safe for women who partake in it. A grown woman can choose to do whatever she wants with her body. It's *her* body. The fact that it isn't "Christian" or comports with certain religious points is unconvincing. Pornography doesn't comport with religious views, yet it is legal. Stripping doesn't comport Christianity, etc. but it's still legal. Additionally, if it's legal for a woman to have sex with a man on camera for money, why is it illegal for a woman to have sex with a man off-camera for money? I see no difference.

t3_1c05a2

As an American taving travel around the world, I believe Western Europe is a better place to live than the United States.-CMV

I grow up with the same the USA is better than everybody else propaganda that most youths were subjected to in the 90s. Then at age 17 when I started traveling my entire prospective change. I have travel large portions of the US (38 states) been to most North America countries with the exception of a few Central American counties and two Caribbean (Cuba and Haiti). While I like these places I still value my American life over the ones I visited. Then I turned 20 and was accepted in an internship exchange program that allowed me to stay in Belgium for six months and tour the rest of western European in my free time. While over there because I stayed with an exchange family that spoke little English I was force to learn their language and culture. I was blown away. Not only did I become fond to their culture but I started to resent my own in favor of theirs. And as I traveled to other western European countries and experience more their culture, my resentment grew larger and larger. It was a feeling similar to when you first earned your licenses or started college; it was like I liberated from an invisible cage. When my six months was up I dreaded coming back to the states. The only thing I look forwarded to seeing was my family and friends as they were the only things I miss. Here I was in a country that I can drink before 21 and outside, people viewed me only as an American not my race (I’m mix), all my healthcare needs were met without paying a dime (I can only speak about Belgium but their medical staff interaction with me was by far the best service I ever receive), viewed news program that actually reported on news and not entertainment, lose weight while consuming more food (the food tasted better and was more healthy), didn’t need a car because of the public transportation, etc. I think you get the Idea I could go in and on. I understand they pay more in taxes but the services receive is worth it so I would gladly pay them. Since then I’ve made it a point to travel to Europe every year. Every time I go I get more and more depress to leave. I’ve been actively pursuing citizenship in Belgium and the UK and might get approve for a work Visa for one but it’s been long hard drawn-out process. Because I had to take care of myself in the mean time I have built up quite a life here in the states. I have a good paying job (engineer) with lots of room for advancement, invested money wisely and have a pretty decent portfolio, and a few business connections. The thing is though; if I’m approve for the work visa for either countries I would probably leave everything at a drop of a dime, go aboard until I eligible for citizenship, and then permanently move over there. It may be hard to convince me the US is better but can anybody give arguments about why I should stay in the US and not go to Europe.

As an American taving travel around the world, I believe Western Europe is a better place to live than the United States.-CMV. I grow up with the same the USA is better than everybody else propaganda that most youths were subjected to in the 90s. Then at age 17 when I started traveling my entire prospective change. I have travel large portions of the US (38 states) been to most North America countries with the exception of a few Central American counties and two Caribbean (Cuba and Haiti). While I like these places I still value my American life over the ones I visited. Then I turned 20 and was accepted in an internship exchange program that allowed me to stay in Belgium for six months and tour the rest of western European in my free time. While over there because I stayed with an exchange family that spoke little English I was force to learn their language and culture. I was blown away. Not only did I become fond to their culture but I started to resent my own in favor of theirs. And as I traveled to other western European countries and experience more their culture, my resentment grew larger and larger. It was a feeling similar to when you first earned your licenses or started college; it was like I liberated from an invisible cage. When my six months was up I dreaded coming back to the states. The only thing I look forwarded to seeing was my family and friends as they were the only things I miss. Here I was in a country that I can drink before 21 and outside, people viewed me only as an American not my race (I’m mix), all my healthcare needs were met without paying a dime (I can only speak about Belgium but their medical staff interaction with me was by far the best service I ever receive), viewed news program that actually reported on news and not entertainment, lose weight while consuming more food (the food tasted better and was more healthy), didn’t need a car because of the public transportation, etc. I think you get the Idea I could go in and on. I understand they pay more in taxes but the services receive is worth it so I would gladly pay them. Since then I’ve made it a point to travel to Europe every year. Every time I go I get more and more depress to leave. I’ve been actively pursuing citizenship in Belgium and the UK and might get approve for a work Visa for one but it’s been long hard drawn-out process. Because I had to take care of myself in the mean time I have built up quite a life here in the states. I have a good paying job (engineer) with lots of room for advancement, invested money wisely and have a pretty decent portfolio, and a few business connections. The thing is though; if I’m approve for the work visa for either countries I would probably leave everything at a drop of a dime, go aboard until I eligible for citizenship, and then permanently move over there. It may be hard to convince me the US is better but can anybody give arguments about why I should stay in the US and not go to Europe.

t3_2i8xks

CMV: We haven't been made contact with an alien civilization because they don't have any interest in contacting us.

Assumption: Any evidence of alien intelligence would be public knowledge. Early data from the Kepler mission suggests that habitable planets are abundant and when combined with what we know of the history of our planet, this means that most habitable planets do not harbor an intelligent species. If this is true, intelligent species rarely would come into contact with each other as the spread to other planets, and conflict wouldn't be necessary. An alien species, solely interested in studying our planet and species, could do so without ever being detected. Europeans had to make contact with aboriginal tribes in order to study them, but an alien species could collect an enormous amount of data from long distance visual observation and monitoring are telecommunication networks. Making contact provides no benefit, would unnecessarily disrupt human society, and potentially threaten theirs. An alien species gains nothing from contacting us, they don't need to take any of our shit, and our species wouldn't be particularly interesting to anyone watching. Edit: An alien species capable of contacting us is most likely to be predatory and aggressive, biology and human history provides countless examples of the most advanced organisms being the most violent and aggressive, so we should assume the most likely scenario for contact being hostile in nature. So the good news is no contact means no threat, for now. _____ > *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: We haven't been made contact with an alien civilization because they don't have any interest in contacting us. Assumption: Any evidence of alien intelligence would be public knowledge. Early data from the Kepler mission suggests that habitable planets are abundant and when combined with what we know of the history of our planet, this means that most habitable planets do not harbor an intelligent species. If this is true, intelligent species rarely would come into contact with each other as the spread to other planets, and conflict wouldn't be necessary. An alien species, solely interested in studying our planet and species, could do so without ever being detected. Europeans had to make contact with aboriginal tribes in order to study them, but an alien species could collect an enormous amount of data from long distance visual observation and monitoring are telecommunication networks. Making contact provides no benefit, would unnecessarily disrupt human society, and potentially threaten theirs. An alien species gains nothing from contacting us, they don't need to take any of our shit, and our species wouldn't be particularly interesting to anyone watching. Edit: An alien species capable of contacting us is most likely to be predatory and aggressive, biology and human history provides countless examples of the most advanced organisms being the most violent and aggressive, so we should assume the most likely scenario for contact being hostile in nature. So the good news is no contact means no threat, for now.

t3_25nsvw

CMV: Western eating utensils (fork, knife and spoon) are vastly superior to chopsticks.

In sum: I believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and I shouldn't be judged when I opt to use western silverware when I eat Asian cuisine. Yes, I know how to use chop sticks properly. Chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical. You can't cut with them, you can't use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together. Whereas with a fork, I can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort. Secondly, chopsticks are terrible for the environment: the equivalent of 25 million trees are used to make disposable chopsticks every year. I know there are nicer chopsticks that aren't disposable, but the vast majority of people use disposable chopsticks. Whereas one set of metal forks/knives/spoons can last a household till the end of time. Third, because chopsticks can't deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user's mouth, chopstick users (particularly in Asian countries) will slurp the broth directly from the bowl. While I don't want to be horribly ethnocentric, and I know etiquette is a cultural construct, I find that practice to be absolutely revolting. As someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people shouldn't try to be more quiet when they eat. I do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods. I have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because I feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils. But for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.

CMV: Western eating utensils (fork, knife and spoon) are vastly superior to chopsticks. In sum: I believe that chopsticks are terrible eating utensils for a lot of reasons, and I shouldn't be judged when I opt to use western silverware when I eat Asian cuisine. Yes, I know how to use chop sticks properly. Chop sticks are terrible because they are unwieldy and impractical. You can't cut with them, you can't use them as a vessel to transport soup broth to your mouth, and if you do pick something up with them, you have keep your hand tense so the chop sticks are held closer together. Whereas with a fork, I can stab a bite of food and have it on little mini skewers, which requires much less effort. Secondly, chopsticks are terrible for the environment: the equivalent of 25 million trees are used to make disposable chopsticks every year. I know there are nicer chopsticks that aren't disposable, but the vast majority of people use disposable chopsticks. Whereas one set of metal forks/knives/spoons can last a household till the end of time. Third, because chopsticks can't deliver broth from the bowl of soup to the user's mouth, chopstick users (particularly in Asian countries) will slurp the broth directly from the bowl. While I don't want to be horribly ethnocentric, and I know etiquette is a cultural construct, I find that practice to be absolutely revolting. As someone who suffers from misophonia, it makes it unbearable for me to sit near people who are doing that, and there is no objective reason why people shouldn't try to be more quiet when they eat. I do realize that chopsticks are more appropriate for a few select foods. I have no problem eating sushi with chopsticks, for example, because I feel that is one of the few foods where chopsticks have an advantage over western utensils. But for practically everything else, there is just no god damn reason to use chopsticks when western utensils are more practical, and better for the environment.

t3_27vlyk

CMV: Most of the time, it's unnecessary to wash my feet with soap. Rinsing is sufficient.

1. The shower water running across my feet does a good job rinsing off typical levels of dirt and sweat, especially if I've been wearing socks and shoes all day. 2. Getting my feet soapy is potentially hazardous, since if I don't rinse it off before putting my foot down I could slip and fall. 3. My feet don't sweat too much, I rarely have foot odor, and I don't typically have any other foot problems (like athlete's foot, etc). 4. It's not necessary to sanitize my feet, since I don't use them for anything where there's a risk of germ transmission (eating, touching my face, touching other people, etc.) 5. The second I step out of the shower onto the floor, I've undone any good that washing with soap may have done. 6. The only exception to this is if my feet are actually caked in dirt, I step in something nasty, or I have an open wound on my foot. I only started questioning this recently because my SO washes their feet with soap every time they shower. Honestly, I thought it was a little weird. But if there's some pressing reason why I should change my habit, I'm open to having my view changed. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Most of the time, it's unnecessary to wash my feet with soap. Rinsing is sufficient. 1. The shower water running across my feet does a good job rinsing off typical levels of dirt and sweat, especially if I've been wearing socks and shoes all day. 2. Getting my feet soapy is potentially hazardous, since if I don't rinse it off before putting my foot down I could slip and fall. 3. My feet don't sweat too much, I rarely have foot odor, and I don't typically have any other foot problems (like athlete's foot, etc). 4. It's not necessary to sanitize my feet, since I don't use them for anything where there's a risk of germ transmission (eating, touching my face, touching other people, etc.) 5. The second I step out of the shower onto the floor, I've undone any good that washing with soap may have done. 6. The only exception to this is if my feet are actually caked in dirt, I step in something nasty, or I have an open wound on my foot. I only started questioning this recently because my SO washes their feet with soap every time they shower. Honestly, I thought it was a little weird. But if there's some pressing reason why I should change my habit, I'm open to having my view changed.

t3_57ozy9

CMV: The two party system hurts voters. Candidates with ballot access in all 50 states should be in the debates to keep voters informed of their choices.

The Republican and Democratic parties have pigeonholed voters. [42% of people are independent voters](http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx) whose views are not in strict alignment with either party's platforms. [A third party candidate actually has higher support than Clinton or Trump among independent voters in some polls](http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-how-third-party-candidates-could-affect-2016-race-n648266). Officially, the [Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates) is non-partisan. Upon closer inspection, though, the organization has failed its non-partisan mission. Currently, [candidates outside of the Republican and Democratic parties must obtain 15% approval in 5 national polls to qualify for inclusion](http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview), which may sound reasonable, but is an arbitrary metric that limits voters to only seeing debates between tickets in the major parties. In order for a third party candidate to even hope for 15%, they would have to have a massive amount of name recognition before ever announcing their candidacy. Even then, it likely will not work. Donald Trump himself could not get into the debates as a third party candidate in the 2000 election, and he is a nominee for president. [He also agrees that 15% is too high, along with Bernie Sanders.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUKTNJuqhg&feature=youtube_gdata_player) The national polls used for the inclusion criteria [have inherent bias as well](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/survey_bias_how_can_we_trust_opinion_polls_when_so_few_people_respond_.html). Even if the most honest team in the world were conducting them, [there would still be a margin of error because every voter in the country cannot be polled](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2015/most_voters_expect_biased_news_coverage_of_2016_presidential_race); however, if this election has shown us anything, the national polls are anything but honest. [A recent CNN poll excluded ages 18-34 from their polls entirely](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdf)(page 22 of the report). One of the largest demographics in the country totally left out. Your response to all of this may be “Third party candidates are nothing but conspiracy theorists and oddballs. We do not need them on the stage anyway.” Many of them may be odd, but third parties also gave us candidates like Teddy Roosevelt, Ralph Nader, and [Victoria Woodhull](http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-should-know-about-victoria-woodhull), the first female candidate for president in 1870. Limiting American politics to only Republican and Democratic viewpoints is not just ignorant, it is dangerous to all of us. Put plainly, it severely limits our choices by only allowing only a narrow set of ideas and policies. What is a fair metric for inclusion in the debates? [I would argue the laws that are already on the books for ballot access are a fair place to start](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates). States set up ballot access laws to be tough for a reason: it excludes candidates who do not have the support necessary to run a serious campaign. For example, in most states, third party candidates must have a minimum of 5,000 valid signatures to qualify. This number is very difficult to obtain. Volunteers to collect these signatures must dedicate hundreds of hours, and our ballot access criterion is not even the most rigorous among all states. In fact, there is only one ticket outside the Republican and Democratic parties that made it on every state ballot this year out of the dozens of third parties vying for the presidency: [Gary Johnson and Bill Weld](https://www.johnsonweld.com), of the [Libertarian Party](http://http://www.lp.org/). The only other third party ticket that came close was [Jill Stein](http://jill2016.com/) of the [Green Party](http://www.gp.org/) who is on the ballot in 45 states. Millions of Americans signed ballot access petitions, volunteered, and were polled to be in favor of including these candidates as a choice on their ballots, but the system failed them by limiting their choice. The CPD has a virtual monopoly on debate inclusion that hurts voters. EDIT: corrected 18-24 to **18-34** for the CNN poll. _____ > *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 two party system hurts voters. Candidates with ballot access in all 50 states should be in the debates to keep voters informed of their choices. The Republican and Democratic parties have pigeonholed voters. [42% of people are independent voters](http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx) whose views are not in strict alignment with either party's platforms. [A third party candidate actually has higher support than Clinton or Trump among independent voters in some polls](http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/data-points/poll-how-third-party-candidates-could-affect-2016-race-n648266). Officially, the [Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates) is non-partisan. Upon closer inspection, though, the organization has failed its non-partisan mission. Currently, [candidates outside of the Republican and Democratic parties must obtain 15% approval in 5 national polls to qualify for inclusion](http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview), which may sound reasonable, but is an arbitrary metric that limits voters to only seeing debates between tickets in the major parties. In order for a third party candidate to even hope for 15%, they would have to have a massive amount of name recognition before ever announcing their candidacy. Even then, it likely will not work. Donald Trump himself could not get into the debates as a third party candidate in the 2000 election, and he is a nominee for president. [He also agrees that 15% is too high, along with Bernie Sanders.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUKTNJuqhg&feature=youtube_gdata_player) The national polls used for the inclusion criteria [have inherent bias as well](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/survey_bias_how_can_we_trust_opinion_polls_when_so_few_people_respond_.html). Even if the most honest team in the world were conducting them, [there would still be a margin of error because every voter in the country cannot be polled](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2015/most_voters_expect_biased_news_coverage_of_2016_presidential_race); however, if this election has shown us anything, the national polls are anything but honest. [A recent CNN poll excluded ages 18-34 from their polls entirely](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdf)(page 22 of the report). One of the largest demographics in the country totally left out. Your response to all of this may be “Third party candidates are nothing but conspiracy theorists and oddballs. We do not need them on the stage anyway.” Many of them may be odd, but third parties also gave us candidates like Teddy Roosevelt, Ralph Nader, and [Victoria Woodhull](http://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-should-know-about-victoria-woodhull), the first female candidate for president in 1870. Limiting American politics to only Republican and Democratic viewpoints is not just ignorant, it is dangerous to all of us. Put plainly, it severely limits our choices by only allowing only a narrow set of ideas and policies. What is a fair metric for inclusion in the debates? [I would argue the laws that are already on the books for ballot access are a fair place to start](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates). States set up ballot access laws to be tough for a reason: it excludes candidates who do not have the support necessary to run a serious campaign. For example, in most states, third party candidates must have a minimum of 5,000 valid signatures to qualify. This number is very difficult to obtain. Volunteers to collect these signatures must dedicate hundreds of hours, and our ballot access criterion is not even the most rigorous among all states. In fact, there is only one ticket outside the Republican and Democratic parties that made it on every state ballot this year out of the dozens of third parties vying for the presidency: [Gary Johnson and Bill Weld](https://www.johnsonweld.com), of the [Libertarian Party](http://http://www.lp.org/). The only other third party ticket that came close was [Jill Stein](http://jill2016.com/) of the [Green Party](http://www.gp.org/) who is on the ballot in 45 states. Millions of Americans signed ballot access petitions, volunteered, and were polled to be in favor of including these candidates as a choice on their ballots, but the system failed them by limiting their choice. The CPD has a virtual monopoly on debate inclusion that hurts voters. EDIT: corrected 18-24 to **18-34** for the CNN poll.

t3_1xd4gy

I think any person who elects not to wear sunscreen is unintelligent – CMV

It’s not difficult to understand that the sun’s ultraviolet rays are dangerous. Today, it’s almost impossible to walk through a supermarket without brushing by shelves full of sun protection products. Nearly every doctor’s office offers pamphlets on how to check your skin for cancerous lesions, and the media repeatedly shares tragic stories about young cancer patients dying because of their tanning obsession. The knowledge is present and it’s available in front of our eyes—sunscreen helps protect human skin from these obviously dangerous UV rays. What’s more, statistics from the American Academy of Dermatology reveal the unsettling truth about the reality of skin cancer: On average, one American dies from melanoma every hour, and the World Health Organization estimates that 65,000 people a year die worldwide from melanoma. Melanoma and other forms of skin cancer can be deadly, so why would smart, educated people put themselves at risk of it? Furthermore, studies reveal that the main risk factor for cancers of the skin is exposure to ultraviolet light. Avoiding this risk factor alone, according to the AAD, could prevent more than 2 million cases of skin cancer per year. Additionally, recent research found that daily sunscreen use cut the incidence of melanoma—the deadliest form of skin cancer—in half. Sunscreen is the best preventative measure if you’re going to be outdoors. The smart decision would be to apply it to your skin. I understand some people may be allergic to sunscreen, but there are sunscreens made specifically for people with allergies. Furthermore, there are a huge variety of different brands of sunscreens all made with a variety of different ingredients, so there is bound to be an option that works for people with specific allergies. I also understand that sunscreen can be expensive, but wouldn’t spending a few extra dollars to prevent cancer and protect your skin be a much wiser financial decision than taking the risk of having thousands of dollars of medical bills because one is later diagnosed with skin cancer? Sunscreen seems like a smart investment to me. While some people claim to live in only cold and cloudy areas, they may think the sun’s rays won’t affect them. But that’s false. Ultraviolet rays penetrate cloud coverage and can still damage the skin. I also am aware some people could be extremely self-conscious and desire to be tan—some could be uncomfortable and depressed in their own skin and long for a “hot” and “glowing” tan. But is having skin a shade darker worth endangering your life for? If skin appearance is that important to someone, then he or she should go buy bronzing lotion or get a spray tan. Or better yet, try changing one’s hair color, or some other, less life-damaging aspect of one’s physical appearance. Ultimately, if a tan is more important than your health and you won’t take the time to lather on a layer of SPF in order to immensely lower your risk of obtaining a deadly disease, then I can’t help but to think you’re unintelligent. Change my view!

I think any person who elects not to wear sunscreen is unintelligent – CMV. It’s not difficult to understand that the sun’s ultraviolet rays are dangerous. Today, it’s almost impossible to walk through a supermarket without brushing by shelves full of sun protection products. Nearly every doctor’s office offers pamphlets on how to check your skin for cancerous lesions, and the media repeatedly shares tragic stories about young cancer patients dying because of their tanning obsession. The knowledge is present and it’s available in front of our eyes—sunscreen helps protect human skin from these obviously dangerous UV rays. What’s more, statistics from the American Academy of Dermatology reveal the unsettling truth about the reality of skin cancer: On average, one American dies from melanoma every hour, and the World Health Organization estimates that 65,000 people a year die worldwide from melanoma. Melanoma and other forms of skin cancer can be deadly, so why would smart, educated people put themselves at risk of it? Furthermore, studies reveal that the main risk factor for cancers of the skin is exposure to ultraviolet light. Avoiding this risk factor alone, according to the AAD, could prevent more than 2 million cases of skin cancer per year. Additionally, recent research found that daily sunscreen use cut the incidence of melanoma—the deadliest form of skin cancer—in half. Sunscreen is the best preventative measure if you’re going to be outdoors. The smart decision would be to apply it to your skin. I understand some people may be allergic to sunscreen, but there are sunscreens made specifically for people with allergies. Furthermore, there are a huge variety of different brands of sunscreens all made with a variety of different ingredients, so there is bound to be an option that works for people with specific allergies. I also understand that sunscreen can be expensive, but wouldn’t spending a few extra dollars to prevent cancer and protect your skin be a much wiser financial decision than taking the risk of having thousands of dollars of medical bills because one is later diagnosed with skin cancer? Sunscreen seems like a smart investment to me. While some people claim to live in only cold and cloudy areas, they may think the sun’s rays won’t affect them. But that’s false. Ultraviolet rays penetrate cloud coverage and can still damage the skin. I also am aware some people could be extremely self-conscious and desire to be tan—some could be uncomfortable and depressed in their own skin and long for a “hot” and “glowing” tan. But is having skin a shade darker worth endangering your life for? If skin appearance is that important to someone, then he or she should go buy bronzing lotion or get a spray tan. Or better yet, try changing one’s hair color, or some other, less life-damaging aspect of one’s physical appearance. Ultimately, if a tan is more important than your health and you won’t take the time to lather on a layer of SPF in order to immensely lower your risk of obtaining a deadly disease, then I can’t help but to think you’re unintelligent. Change my view!

t3_3fsgbp

CMV:Belief in Christianity Does Not Necessitate the Belief that Homosexuality is a Sin

It is well known that the old testament refers to homosexuality as "an abomination." However, most christians do not believe in the applicability of Old Testament rules to the modern day due to the new covenant of Jesus Christ. Under this interpretation, homosexuality should be judged to be just as immoral as wearing mixed fabrics or eating pig, which to almost all Christians is "not at all". In fact, the notion that "homosexuality is a sin" is inconsistent with the theme of the New Testament, which Christians put much more emphasis on. In the New Testament, Jesus encourages believers not to judge the immorality of a person by what is socially acceptable, which is essentially what those who would say that homosexuality is a sin are doing. *edit. So I have conceded that Homosexuality is a sin in the sense that all sexuality is a sin through lust. BUT that's not the crux of the argument about homosexuality. The question is whether homosexuality is 'especially' sinful. _____ > *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:Belief in Christianity Does Not Necessitate the Belief that Homosexuality is a Sin. It is well known that the old testament refers to homosexuality as "an abomination." However, most christians do not believe in the applicability of Old Testament rules to the modern day due to the new covenant of Jesus Christ. Under this interpretation, homosexuality should be judged to be just as immoral as wearing mixed fabrics or eating pig, which to almost all Christians is "not at all". In fact, the notion that "homosexuality is a sin" is inconsistent with the theme of the New Testament, which Christians put much more emphasis on. In the New Testament, Jesus encourages believers not to judge the immorality of a person by what is socially acceptable, which is essentially what those who would say that homosexuality is a sin are doing. *edit. So I have conceded that Homosexuality is a sin in the sense that all sexuality is a sin through lust. BUT that's not the crux of the argument about homosexuality. The question is whether homosexuality is 'especially' sinful.

t3_4sv3k6

CMV: All law should be publicly available for free.

Some laws refer to third party documents which are copyrighted. Since one is required to follow the law including the portions in the copyrighted document, that makes a portion of the law copyrighted. A person or organization that wants to obey the law must purchase access to it. Examples include CPT codes required for medical billing, ANSI codes, building codes, etc. I believe this is unfair. If I am to be bound by the law, at minimum I should have full access. I am not demanding it be hosted by the government (though that would be nice), but private citizens should be allowed to download that law and share it freely in any form they choose. It should in short have no protections such as copyright. This should apply not only to the text of actual signed bills but also to any documents that it incorporates by reference. Now, I have no objection to a copyright holder refusing to permit a document to be incorporated by reference into law. Perhaps they could charge the legislature once in order to give up their copyright. But once it is incorporated by reference into law, they should have no further right to profit from it. CMV. Why should we have a situation where powerful organizations create documents that I can be punished for failure to follow, and can then charge for anyone to access those documents?

CMV: All law should be publicly available for free. Some laws refer to third party documents which are copyrighted. Since one is required to follow the law including the portions in the copyrighted document, that makes a portion of the law copyrighted. A person or organization that wants to obey the law must purchase access to it. Examples include CPT codes required for medical billing, ANSI codes, building codes, etc. I believe this is unfair. If I am to be bound by the law, at minimum I should have full access. I am not demanding it be hosted by the government (though that would be nice), but private citizens should be allowed to download that law and share it freely in any form they choose. It should in short have no protections such as copyright. This should apply not only to the text of actual signed bills but also to any documents that it incorporates by reference. Now, I have no objection to a copyright holder refusing to permit a document to be incorporated by reference into law. Perhaps they could charge the legislature once in order to give up their copyright. But once it is incorporated by reference into law, they should have no further right to profit from it. CMV. Why should we have a situation where powerful organizations create documents that I can be punished for failure to follow, and can then charge for anyone to access those documents?

t3_53z8x4

CMV: If you're an economics/finance student who wants to start your career by working for politicians so they can "open doors" for you in the banking and finance sector, this is only going to work if you're working for right-wing politicians in a right-wing political party.

In Australia, I have heard many economics/finance students say that they plan to start their career by working for politicians who can "open doors" for them in the banking and finance sector. Okay, I do accept that this is possible. In fact, I can think of two politicians in the Australian Parliament right now who started their career by working for politicians and they ended up becoming directors at investment banks despite having no experience in the banking and finance sector previously - so I accept that it is possible. However my belief is that this is only going to be possible if you work for a right-wing politician in a right-wing political party. My first reason is that left-wing politicians in a left-wing political party generally wouldn't have connections to those in the banking and finance sector. So already it's going to be a challenge for them to "open doors" for you in the banking and finance sector if they don't have any connections there in the first place. Secondly, why would an investment bank put you in a director position when you worked with politicians who want an investigation into the banking sector, want more regulation, want higher taxes, etc - basically everything they oppose? I can accept left-wing politicians "opening doors" for people if they want to work at a law firm, union, etc - but the banking and finance sector? I highly doubt 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: If you're an economics/finance student who wants to start your career by working for politicians so they can "open doors" for you in the banking and finance sector, this is only going to work if you're working for right-wing politicians in a right-wing political party. In Australia, I have heard many economics/finance students say that they plan to start their career by working for politicians who can "open doors" for them in the banking and finance sector. Okay, I do accept that this is possible. In fact, I can think of two politicians in the Australian Parliament right now who started their career by working for politicians and they ended up becoming directors at investment banks despite having no experience in the banking and finance sector previously - so I accept that it is possible. However my belief is that this is only going to be possible if you work for a right-wing politician in a right-wing political party. My first reason is that left-wing politicians in a left-wing political party generally wouldn't have connections to those in the banking and finance sector. So already it's going to be a challenge for them to "open doors" for you in the banking and finance sector if they don't have any connections there in the first place. Secondly, why would an investment bank put you in a director position when you worked with politicians who want an investigation into the banking sector, want more regulation, want higher taxes, etc - basically everything they oppose? I can accept left-wing politicians "opening doors" for people if they want to work at a law firm, union, etc - but the banking and finance sector? I highly doubt it.

t3_1xpqjm

I believe the assertion "you're projecting" provides nothing to an argument. CMV

I hear people use this in arguments in an attempt to discredit what another individual is saying. Hypothetical: John confronts his girlfriend Sue when he catches her reading his diary. He asserts that her actions stem from an insecurity, to which Sue replies, "you're projecting." Even if the claim applies to John, and he is insecure, that has no bearing on the hypothetical argument. It does not change the fact that John sees Sue's actions as insecure and it does nothing to discredit John's (supposed) anger.

I believe the assertion "you're projecting" provides nothing to an argument. CMV. I hear people use this in arguments in an attempt to discredit what another individual is saying. Hypothetical: John confronts his girlfriend Sue when he catches her reading his diary. He asserts that her actions stem from an insecurity, to which Sue replies, "you're projecting." Even if the claim applies to John, and he is insecure, that has no bearing on the hypothetical argument. It does not change the fact that John sees Sue's actions as insecure and it does nothing to discredit John's (supposed) anger.

t3_2ehui0

CMV: Food trucks charge too much money.

I live in a city that has a number of good food trucks. I've also visited food trucks in LA, Portland, and NYC. I've found that most serve entree-sized portions for around ten bucks. This is about the same price for an entree in a pub/chain eatery/sports bar (at least where I'm from). So basically, for ten bucks, I can get a burger from my local Chili's, or I can get dinner from a food truck. Now, I prefer to support locally-owned business when I can, but I just don't understand why the prices are basically the same, for the following reasons: 1. The overhead of food trucks is FAR less than a restaurant. A restaurant pays for a piece of real estate, air conditioning, interior seating, and more. Some Googling tells me that a food truck business can be started for as little as $40,000, up to $250,000, which is still far less than a Chili's-size restaurant would cost to start up. 2. A restaurant employees dozens of people, paying for their salaries, insurance, and training. Most food trucks I've seen have two or three dudes in there. 3. Restaurants include fries (or other sides) with burgers and sandwiches, but it seems like most food trucks are more a la carte with their sides. So my question is twofold. One, am I correct in my "research" that the prices are comparable between food trucks and mid-range restaurants? And two, if the prices are comparable, what justification is there for food trucks charging the same amount as a restaurant that has far higher production costs? _____ > *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: Food trucks charge too much money. I live in a city that has a number of good food trucks. I've also visited food trucks in LA, Portland, and NYC. I've found that most serve entree-sized portions for around ten bucks. This is about the same price for an entree in a pub/chain eatery/sports bar (at least where I'm from). So basically, for ten bucks, I can get a burger from my local Chili's, or I can get dinner from a food truck. Now, I prefer to support locally-owned business when I can, but I just don't understand why the prices are basically the same, for the following reasons: 1. The overhead of food trucks is FAR less than a restaurant. A restaurant pays for a piece of real estate, air conditioning, interior seating, and more. Some Googling tells me that a food truck business can be started for as little as $40,000, up to $250,000, which is still far less than a Chili's-size restaurant would cost to start up. 2. A restaurant employees dozens of people, paying for their salaries, insurance, and training. Most food trucks I've seen have two or three dudes in there. 3. Restaurants include fries (or other sides) with burgers and sandwiches, but it seems like most food trucks are more a la carte with their sides. So my question is twofold. One, am I correct in my "research" that the prices are comparable between food trucks and mid-range restaurants? And two, if the prices are comparable, what justification is there for food trucks charging the same amount as a restaurant that has far higher production costs?

t3_40cnc9

CMV: I don't believe in gender and thus believe that no gender should be identified as, especially trans because it puts them at higher risk of suicide.

This was recently brought up by reading this poorly written criticism of gender http://moreradicalwithage.com/2016/01/06/gender-is-not-a-binary/, and again while poorly written it did have an astonishingly accurate definition of gender, as "an externally imposed set of norms prescribing and proscribing behavior to individuals in accordance with morally arbitrary biological characteristics, and coercively placing them in one of two positions in a hierarchy". Ive read research papers on the subject that show that transgendered people are likely to revert identification later in life and report being simply gay or bisexual. Im scared of gender as a concept being recognized because I know transgendered people have much higher suicide rates than people who are not trans. I also know theres no evidence that gender is in any way biological. I view gender similar to religion, its a concept many people believe in despite lacking in proof of existence simply because everyone around you believes in it and tells you to believe in it. I just believe that gender as a concept should be done away with because it is harmful to queer peoples because they are more prone to adopt transgendered identifications which puts them at a higher risk of suicide. This view makes me seem exceptionally conservative to most liberals, which I consider myself to be, and actually consider my views on transsexualism more liberal than the blind acceptance and encouragement of it. Because my view makes me look like a conservative twat to most liberals, I would be very happy to accept that gender is a fundamental facet of psyche which exists regardless of belief in gender. EDIT: Btw Im accepting torwards trans people regardless I just feel bad that they are seemingly casualties of a strict belief in gender roles by their surroundings.

CMV: I don't believe in gender and thus believe that no gender should be identified as, especially trans because it puts them at higher risk of suicide. This was recently brought up by reading this poorly written criticism of gender http://moreradicalwithage.com/2016/01/06/gender-is-not-a-binary/, and again while poorly written it did have an astonishingly accurate definition of gender, as "an externally imposed set of norms prescribing and proscribing behavior to individuals in accordance with morally arbitrary biological characteristics, and coercively placing them in one of two positions in a hierarchy". Ive read research papers on the subject that show that transgendered people are likely to revert identification later in life and report being simply gay or bisexual. Im scared of gender as a concept being recognized because I know transgendered people have much higher suicide rates than people who are not trans. I also know theres no evidence that gender is in any way biological. I view gender similar to religion, its a concept many people believe in despite lacking in proof of existence simply because everyone around you believes in it and tells you to believe in it. I just believe that gender as a concept should be done away with because it is harmful to queer peoples because they are more prone to adopt transgendered identifications which puts them at a higher risk of suicide. This view makes me seem exceptionally conservative to most liberals, which I consider myself to be, and actually consider my views on transsexualism more liberal than the blind acceptance and encouragement of it. Because my view makes me look like a conservative twat to most liberals, I would be very happy to accept that gender is a fundamental facet of psyche which exists regardless of belief in gender. EDIT: Btw Im accepting torwards trans people regardless I just feel bad that they are seemingly casualties of a strict belief in gender roles by their surroundings.

t3_57hgdt

CMV: Every life is worth living, from the unborn individual's point of view, is an invalid statement

Recently I got into an arguement of absolutes with a friend about parents who chose to bring a child to a 100% life of sorrow (Not a real case), he argued that "every life is worth living even if it has no happiness". That sentence baffeled me, because to me, it seems like saying no life is worth living, even if it's completely full of happiness and delight would be equally correct (or incorrect), we're talking of course from the individual's point of view and not society's. For it to be worth it, there has to be a valid comparison, two states to compare, but there isn't, there's no difference in potenials between these two states, (living and being unborn), and hence there is no loss of happiness or acheivment because the comparison it self is invalid, the system itself is undefinable when T< 0, similiar to how there's no logic in asking about the universe pre the bigbang according to the big bang theory, there simply isn't a reference frame for the question to be valid. Also please note that there's a big difference ( at least in my arguement) between a living person deciding whether it's worth it to continue living and between the arguement in question. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

CMV: Every life is worth living, from the unborn individual's point of view, is an invalid statement. Recently I got into an arguement of absolutes with a friend about parents who chose to bring a child to a 100% life of sorrow (Not a real case), he argued that "every life is worth living even if it has no happiness". That sentence baffeled me, because to me, it seems like saying no life is worth living, even if it's completely full of happiness and delight would be equally correct (or incorrect), we're talking of course from the individual's point of view and not society's. For it to be worth it, there has to be a valid comparison, two states to compare, but there isn't, there's no difference in potenials between these two states, (living and being unborn), and hence there is no loss of happiness or acheivment because the comparison it self is invalid, the system itself is undefinable when T< 0, similiar to how there's no logic in asking about the universe pre the bigbang according to the big bang theory, there simply isn't a reference frame for the question to be valid. Also please note that there's a big difference ( at least in my arguement) between a living person deciding whether it's worth it to continue living and between the arguement in question. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

t3_72l3r4

CMV:PBA cards should not be a thing

A PBA card is basically "a get out of jail free card" that friends, families of police officers and others get and can use. For example if someone is pulled over by a cop and shows their PBA card they don't get a ticket. The legal system is supposed to protect the citizens and we have laws to keep everyone safe. Special treatment to those with a PBA card enables those people to not follow simple laws like abiding by the speed limit and stopping at stop signs. PBA cards are basically the equivalent to bribing a police officer with money. _____ > *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:PBA cards should not be a thing. A PBA card is basically "a get out of jail free card" that friends, families of police officers and others get and can use. For example if someone is pulled over by a cop and shows their PBA card they don't get a ticket. The legal system is supposed to protect the citizens and we have laws to keep everyone safe. Special treatment to those with a PBA card enables those people to not follow simple laws like abiding by the speed limit and stopping at stop signs. PBA cards are basically the equivalent to bribing a police officer with money.

t3_2fphb2

CMV: My two-year-old son getting to meet his grandparents for the first time trumps your few hours of annoyance.

I'm an American expat. There are many difficult points about living abroad, and absence of family is a big one. My dad was born to be a grandpa, but unfortunately he only gets to see his grandchild once or twice a year. I do not take lightly the grueling effort to bring my father and son together for a few weeks out of the year. I often hear people complain about those who bring small children on a plane. In fact, people don't merely complain, they make extreme statements about it (e.g. People who bring small children on planes are horrible people who deserve to have their children taken from them.). First off, the annoyance/discomfort of traveling with a small child is way more difficult for the parents than it is for anyone else on the flight. With that in mind, you can understand that they wouldn't be doing it unless the trip were very important. In many cases, the journey is undertaken to be with family living in different parts of the world. I understand that it's not fun to have to deal with a screaming child on board an airplane. However there are plenty of un-fun things about having to share this planet with other people. I wish that I didn't have to occupy the same earth as people who litter, or smoke cigarettes in public, or drive diesel, or vote for corrupt politicians, or give their money to corrupt businesses, etc...but I do. These inconveniences are something we all just have to deal with. _____ > *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: My two-year-old son getting to meet his grandparents for the first time trumps your few hours of annoyance. I'm an American expat. There are many difficult points about living abroad, and absence of family is a big one. My dad was born to be a grandpa, but unfortunately he only gets to see his grandchild once or twice a year. I do not take lightly the grueling effort to bring my father and son together for a few weeks out of the year. I often hear people complain about those who bring small children on a plane. In fact, people don't merely complain, they make extreme statements about it (e.g. People who bring small children on planes are horrible people who deserve to have their children taken from them.). First off, the annoyance/discomfort of traveling with a small child is way more difficult for the parents than it is for anyone else on the flight. With that in mind, you can understand that they wouldn't be doing it unless the trip were very important. In many cases, the journey is undertaken to be with family living in different parts of the world. I understand that it's not fun to have to deal with a screaming child on board an airplane. However there are plenty of un-fun things about having to share this planet with other people. I wish that I didn't have to occupy the same earth as people who litter, or smoke cigarettes in public, or drive diesel, or vote for corrupt politicians, or give their money to corrupt businesses, etc...but I do. These inconveniences are something we all just have to deal with.

t3_4c6h4q

CMV: Ronald Reagan is responsible for the worst domestic/foreign policy failures in modern US history.

The level of adulation for Reagan among conservatives is incredible to me. Nearly every Republican nominee has tried to tie themselves to his legacy during the debates. Ted Cruz has barely been able to hide his erections at the mere mention of Reagan's name. I find it difficult to reconcile this adoration with my opinion that Regan has been directly responsible for two of the worst policy decisions in modern US history: **War on Drugs** I can't think of a more harmful domestic policy over the last 50 years. It has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, with literally no measurable impact on the prevalence of drugs in America. Worse, it has sent millions of young men to our prisons for victimless crimes and forced their children to grow up in homes devoid of father figures, thus forcing them to look elsewhere for male role models and greatly increasing their chances of repeating the cycle. **Cold War Strategy in the Middle East** Under Reagan, the United States funded fringe Islamist groups like the Muhajideen in Afghanistan in an effort to combat the threat of Communism. For all the credit Reagan gets for winning the Cold War, he rarely gets blamed for the long-term consequences of this strategy. Sure it contributed to the Soviet Union suffering a major defeat in Afghanistan, but it also introduced/fortified a dangerous radical Islamic presence into the region. Back then we called them "freedom fighters" and hosted them in the White House, but these are the same groups that would eventually morph into the Taliban, Al-Queda and ultimately ISIS. It seems evident now that Reagan's strategy was, at best, incredibly short-sighted.

CMV: Ronald Reagan is responsible for the worst domestic/foreign policy failures in modern US history. The level of adulation for Reagan among conservatives is incredible to me. Nearly every Republican nominee has tried to tie themselves to his legacy during the debates. Ted Cruz has barely been able to hide his erections at the mere mention of Reagan's name. I find it difficult to reconcile this adoration with my opinion that Regan has been directly responsible for two of the worst policy decisions in modern US history: **War on Drugs** I can't think of a more harmful domestic policy over the last 50 years. It has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, with literally no measurable impact on the prevalence of drugs in America. Worse, it has sent millions of young men to our prisons for victimless crimes and forced their children to grow up in homes devoid of father figures, thus forcing them to look elsewhere for male role models and greatly increasing their chances of repeating the cycle. **Cold War Strategy in the Middle East** Under Reagan, the United States funded fringe Islamist groups like the Muhajideen in Afghanistan in an effort to combat the threat of Communism. For all the credit Reagan gets for winning the Cold War, he rarely gets blamed for the long-term consequences of this strategy. Sure it contributed to the Soviet Union suffering a major defeat in Afghanistan, but it also introduced/fortified a dangerous radical Islamic presence into the region. Back then we called them "freedom fighters" and hosted them in the White House, but these are the same groups that would eventually morph into the Taliban, Al-Queda and ultimately ISIS. It seems evident now that Reagan's strategy was, at best, incredibly short-sighted.

t3_3ky74r

CMV: Getting a diet drink with a highly caloric meal is not hypocritical.

I feel like there is a negative stereotype towards people who will order at say a fast-food place, getting a burger and fries, for example, and then opting for a diet drink. I think that it is entirely justifiable. I have been very overweight before, and I slimmed down to a healthy weight recently. One of the easiest ways to start getting on the right track is to get rid of unnecessary calories. If somebody was in the habit of having 1-2 regular cans of soda a day, that would amount to around 300 calories of pure sugar a day, or 2100 calories a week. The way I think of food is about spending my "points" where I choose. Logically, liquid calories scare me because you can consume a day's worth of sugar in the blink of an eye. Now, I don't understand why people have a problem with someone who orders a meal that may be over 1000 calories and then getting a diet soda. Especially in situations with refills, you would be saving yourself a few hundred extra calories. Say what you will about the chemicals in diet drinks, but there is not a single piece of evidence that the artificial sweeteners are harmful to humans. Anyway, let me know what you think about this subject. I would love to hear some other opinions.

CMV: Getting a diet drink with a highly caloric meal is not hypocritical. I feel like there is a negative stereotype towards people who will order at say a fast-food place, getting a burger and fries, for example, and then opting for a diet drink. I think that it is entirely justifiable. I have been very overweight before, and I slimmed down to a healthy weight recently. One of the easiest ways to start getting on the right track is to get rid of unnecessary calories. If somebody was in the habit of having 1-2 regular cans of soda a day, that would amount to around 300 calories of pure sugar a day, or 2100 calories a week. The way I think of food is about spending my "points" where I choose. Logically, liquid calories scare me because you can consume a day's worth of sugar in the blink of an eye. Now, I don't understand why people have a problem with someone who orders a meal that may be over 1000 calories and then getting a diet soda. Especially in situations with refills, you would be saving yourself a few hundred extra calories. Say what you will about the chemicals in diet drinks, but there is not a single piece of evidence that the artificial sweeteners are harmful to humans. Anyway, let me know what you think about this subject. I would love to hear some other opinions.

t3_46wyof

CMV: Just because someone is family, does not mean they deserve special treatment

**I am not saying people don't deserve forgiveness, but they do not deserve forgiveness just because they are family. This is illogical thinking. Blood relation should not be a reason to keep toxic and harmful people in your life.** For example: if you would cut out a drug addicted and destructive friend from your life, you should not feel guilty for cutting out, say, your mother. Blood relation does not make that person special and deserving of special treatment. If you would stop being friends with someone who punches you, the same rule should apply to any member of your family if they do the same. I've heard people say things like "but (s)he's my father/mother" etc when they've felt guilt over holding those people accountable for their action by cutting them out of their lives, getting mad at them etc. This is ridicolous and is not a logical way of thinking. _____ > *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: Just because someone is family, does not mean they deserve special treatment. **I am not saying people don't deserve forgiveness, but they do not deserve forgiveness just because they are family. This is illogical thinking. Blood relation should not be a reason to keep toxic and harmful people in your life.** For example: if you would cut out a drug addicted and destructive friend from your life, you should not feel guilty for cutting out, say, your mother. Blood relation does not make that person special and deserving of special treatment. If you would stop being friends with someone who punches you, the same rule should apply to any member of your family if they do the same. I've heard people say things like "but (s)he's my father/mother" etc when they've felt guilt over holding those people accountable for their action by cutting them out of their lives, getting mad at them etc. This is ridicolous and is not a logical way of thinking.

t3_2rxxsn

CMV: Kinetic weapons will never become obsolete.

I did a quick search about this, but didn't find a thread directly addressing this. My view is that energy weapons (lasers, emps) will never completely replace technology that is based on a "gun". Projectile weapons will always have a place because they're based off of a physical chemical reaction that can't be altered by any sort of energy power failure. This may be a futurology-type debate, however I didn't completely form this opinion until the Navy has both completed successful tests of both rail guns, and lasers. The fact that a railgun is still a serious option for the Navy gives a lot of weight to my point. CMV, reddit. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Kinetic weapons will never become obsolete. I did a quick search about this, but didn't find a thread directly addressing this. My view is that energy weapons (lasers, emps) will never completely replace technology that is based on a "gun". Projectile weapons will always have a place because they're based off of a physical chemical reaction that can't be altered by any sort of energy power failure. This may be a futurology-type debate, however I didn't completely form this opinion until the Navy has both completed successful tests of both rail guns, and lasers. The fact that a railgun is still a serious option for the Navy gives a lot of weight to my point. CMV, reddit.

t3_5rc58f

CMV: Transgenderism only reinforces gender stereotypes

Feminism, as a tool for liberating women from gender oppression, shouldn't agree that gender is not necessarily linked to biological sex. Gender is something imposed just because of our individual physical conditions. Although some social performance is always associated with each gender, what define them is ultimately what we have between our legs. Transsexuality as we now it weakens the fight for gender equality. People who "identify" as another gender are only reproducing stereotypes, not breaking them as they believe they are. Female oppression historically linked to their bodies, so ignoring or underastimating these questions is as good as sweeping things under the carpet. _____ > *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: Transgenderism only reinforces gender stereotypes. Feminism, as a tool for liberating women from gender oppression, shouldn't agree that gender is not necessarily linked to biological sex. Gender is something imposed just because of our individual physical conditions. Although some social performance is always associated with each gender, what define them is ultimately what we have between our legs. Transsexuality as we now it weakens the fight for gender equality. People who "identify" as another gender are only reproducing stereotypes, not breaking them as they believe they are. Female oppression historically linked to their bodies, so ignoring or underastimating these questions is as good as sweeping things under the carpet.

t3_6qp9ki

CMV: birth control should be covered by health insurance

1. As a person of the female gender, I have been taking birth control, not as a contraceptive, but rather as a way to keep my menstrual cycle regular, as well as reduce my severe pains from menstruating. In this way, birth control is a drug to keep one healthy, not a drug with any moral complications. 2. If our taxpayer money is not going towards birth control, than I think we then must pay for the healthcare of any child born from an accidental pregnancy, whose parents don't have the means to support that child. A child is does not deserve to die of some illness because their parents cannot afford to raise them. A person does not deserve a shitty life simply for being born. Here is a hypothetical: A person cannot afford birth control and therefore has unprotected sex. They end up with a child that they didn't necessarily want. They are still poor, and therefore unable to pay for health care for that child. Therefore, that child is being payed for by our taxpayer dollars. We must support that child for 18 years, instead of paying for pills, shots, or some rubber, all of which are significantly cheaper than a child. Won't the community paying for birth control allow more children to live quality lives, while we pay less? 3. Now, I do believe that this could all be avoided simply by people having less sex, but as of yet, that is just to optimistic, so we should use contraceptives instead of preaching abstinence. Edit: it has been brought to my attention that I mentioned health insurance rather than general health care and widespread coverage. I do not mean specific companies that launder your money for you, but rather the government and community as a provider of care.

CMV: birth control should be covered by health insurance. 1. As a person of the female gender, I have been taking birth control, not as a contraceptive, but rather as a way to keep my menstrual cycle regular, as well as reduce my severe pains from menstruating. In this way, birth control is a drug to keep one healthy, not a drug with any moral complications. 2. If our taxpayer money is not going towards birth control, than I think we then must pay for the healthcare of any child born from an accidental pregnancy, whose parents don't have the means to support that child. A child is does not deserve to die of some illness because their parents cannot afford to raise them. A person does not deserve a shitty life simply for being born. Here is a hypothetical: A person cannot afford birth control and therefore has unprotected sex. They end up with a child that they didn't necessarily want. They are still poor, and therefore unable to pay for health care for that child. Therefore, that child is being payed for by our taxpayer dollars. We must support that child for 18 years, instead of paying for pills, shots, or some rubber, all of which are significantly cheaper than a child. Won't the community paying for birth control allow more children to live quality lives, while we pay less? 3. Now, I do believe that this could all be avoided simply by people having less sex, but as of yet, that is just to optimistic, so we should use contraceptives instead of preaching abstinence. Edit: it has been brought to my attention that I mentioned health insurance rather than general health care and widespread coverage. I do not mean specific companies that launder your money for you, but rather the government and community as a provider of care.

t3_5pqsw5

CMV: The "alternative facts" outrage is baseless.

Everyone is up in arms over the size of Trump's inauguration and the use of the phrase "alternative facts". I believe that no one is really lying here and the use of the phrase "alternative facts" is completely appropriate. It seems to me that the confusion has stemmed from Trump's team saying before the inauguration that it would be the most attended inauguration in history. Then afterwords, Trump's press secretary said it was still the "most viewed" inauguration in history. This is where the use of "alternative facts" comes in. People have been hammering Trump's team because they think he is still claiming to have the most attended inauguration, while from everything I've seen they have been claiming it was the most viewed. It would make sense to call the facts supporting the "most viewed" claim to be alternative facts compared to the facts supporting the "most attended" claim. Basically I think this boils down to Trump's team trying to save some face by moving the goalposts while the media is looking for any little misstep to jump all over, and "alternative facts" sounds really bad out of context. I think this is a non-issue and people are just looking for an excuse to hate Trump, but I haven't been following this story very closely so if I've missed something damming please feel free to CMV. Edit: Delta awarded to /u/10ebbor10

CMV: The "alternative facts" outrage is baseless. Everyone is up in arms over the size of Trump's inauguration and the use of the phrase "alternative facts". I believe that no one is really lying here and the use of the phrase "alternative facts" is completely appropriate. It seems to me that the confusion has stemmed from Trump's team saying before the inauguration that it would be the most attended inauguration in history. Then afterwords, Trump's press secretary said it was still the "most viewed" inauguration in history. This is where the use of "alternative facts" comes in. People have been hammering Trump's team because they think he is still claiming to have the most attended inauguration, while from everything I've seen they have been claiming it was the most viewed. It would make sense to call the facts supporting the "most viewed" claim to be alternative facts compared to the facts supporting the "most attended" claim. Basically I think this boils down to Trump's team trying to save some face by moving the goalposts while the media is looking for any little misstep to jump all over, and "alternative facts" sounds really bad out of context. I think this is a non-issue and people are just looking for an excuse to hate Trump, but I haven't been following this story very closely so if I've missed something damming please feel free to CMV. Edit: Delta awarded to /u/10ebbor10

t3_1pl76x

I believe there are no atheists in foxholes. CMV

Firstly I think it's important to point out that I don't subscribe to any particular religious belief, nor do I necessarily define myself as an atheist or an agnostic. Religion and the notion of God simply isn't something that I spend time thinking about, if people wish to believe something and they don't try to enforce that on other people then it doesn't bother me. That being said I believe that it is simply human nature that in times of great and overwhelming fear, sadness or stress people will instinctively seek comfort in the existence of and by appealing to, a higher power. I believe that when confronted with incredibly chaotic emotional situations where a person feels completely powerless and has absolutely no control over the situation, a person will, albeit sometimes even unconsciously, appeal to a higher power to protect them, to help them achieve their desired result or otherwise see them through. This higher power may not be the traditional 'god', but luck, the universe, or any other supernatural force the person would otherwise not believe in were they not faced with such a situation. **Edit**: Haha guys I just want to clarify that the title of the post shouldn't be taken literally, I do realise that not every person who serves in the military is actually religious. I thought the title would be a quick way of summarising my general view on this issue, but it's not quite as black and white as that and I probably should have expressed it better. Read through my comments if you want to get a better understanding of my position, I'm still open for having my view changed but unfortunately won't be handing out deltas for a comment saying "I am an atheist who was in a fox hole" or a photo showing the same. Sorry for any false advertising or confusion.

I believe there are no atheists in foxholes. CMV. Firstly I think it's important to point out that I don't subscribe to any particular religious belief, nor do I necessarily define myself as an atheist or an agnostic. Religion and the notion of God simply isn't something that I spend time thinking about, if people wish to believe something and they don't try to enforce that on other people then it doesn't bother me. That being said I believe that it is simply human nature that in times of great and overwhelming fear, sadness or stress people will instinctively seek comfort in the existence of and by appealing to, a higher power. I believe that when confronted with incredibly chaotic emotional situations where a person feels completely powerless and has absolutely no control over the situation, a person will, albeit sometimes even unconsciously, appeal to a higher power to protect them, to help them achieve their desired result or otherwise see them through. This higher power may not be the traditional 'god', but luck, the universe, or any other supernatural force the person would otherwise not believe in were they not faced with such a situation. **Edit**: Haha guys I just want to clarify that the title of the post shouldn't be taken literally, I do realise that not every person who serves in the military is actually religious. I thought the title would be a quick way of summarising my general view on this issue, but it's not quite as black and white as that and I probably should have expressed it better. Read through my comments if you want to get a better understanding of my position, I'm still open for having my view changed but unfortunately won't be handing out deltas for a comment saying "I am an atheist who was in a fox hole" or a photo showing the same. Sorry for any false advertising or confusion.

t3_1edqbg

I think personal material heritage is evil for society, CMV

If we want a perfect society where if I work hard I will get where I want, why material (usually money) heritage is not evil, killing the meritocracy system? Rich people will finance and give so much more opportunities (education, experiences, contacts, influence) to many generations of their offspring, how young people can compete equally so their merit will decide who deserves what and gives the best individuals of a society the top positions!?. Only moral heritage should be valid.

I think personal material heritage is evil for society, CMV. If we want a perfect society where if I work hard I will get where I want, why material (usually money) heritage is not evil, killing the meritocracy system? Rich people will finance and give so much more opportunities (education, experiences, contacts, influence) to many generations of their offspring, how young people can compete equally so their merit will decide who deserves what and gives the best individuals of a society the top positions!?. Only moral heritage should be valid.

t3_1xsyus

I believe Macs are great computers for their price. CMV.

Yes you pay a bit of a premium, but you get what you pay for. I'm a technical user but only order Macs for the following reasons. 1. **Mac OS X**. It's much simpler than Windows 7 and 8 and I just prefer it for an OS because I've found it to be more reliable. Yes, I realize you can run OS X through a Hackintosh PC, but it's never as reliable as Mac computers, plus you can't really update reliably. Or at least it wasn't several years ago, I don't know about now. Plus it seems to be more efficient. I'm typing this on a 4 year old late 2008 MacBook Pro. It still feels as fast as the day I got it. Meanwhile, my Windows performance has slowed down. 2. **Customer service**. You order a Windows PC from Best Buy and when you go in to get it serviced, they tell you to fuck off or charge you an absurd fee. They even charge you to look at your computer. Apple has great customer service. Not only are they great at replacing things under warranty, but they check out your computer free of charge even if it's out of warranty. Recently, my motherboard failed. On any other computer, it would have been a death sentence, but Apple offered to refurbish it for $300. Not only did they replace my motherboard, but they replaced my keyboard that had a few loose keys, my faulty disc drive, my battery, my RAM, a dent in the body (I did have to hassle them for this bc they wanted to charge me extra and wouldn't fix anything without fixing the dent), and my trackpad for the same price. 3. **Build quality**. I'm not a fan of the plastic design of many computers nowadays. I love the unibody design, it just feels solid. 4. **Accessories/Parts**. It's easy to order replacement parts and accessories for a Mac. I easily found a new AC adapter and a new battery through Amazon. Meanwhile, it was a nightmare trying to find a decent AC adapter for my older Toshiba laptop. One of the ones I ordered almost caught on fire when I tried to plug in an S-Video cable. 5. **Processing power**. The Macs on the market now has as much, if not more, processing power than the top of the line PC's out now. Yes you pay a premium, but you gain the other benefits I mentioned above. 6. **Reliability** *Knock on wood*, I've had fewer issues with this computer than any other computer I've had. Like I said, really the only issue in 4 years is a motherboard failure, which is pretty good considering it's used constantly and carried around in a backpack. And if you search around or order from the refurb store (which I tend to do), you pay even less of a premium. Look [here](http://store.apple.com/us/product/FD103LL/A). This is a 2 year old model, but it's still as powerful as many new laptops for a significant discount and all the benefits I mentioned above. By all means, prove me wrong and change my view, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

I believe Macs are great computers for their price. CMV. Yes you pay a bit of a premium, but you get what you pay for. I'm a technical user but only order Macs for the following reasons. 1. **Mac OS X**. It's much simpler than Windows 7 and 8 and I just prefer it for an OS because I've found it to be more reliable. Yes, I realize you can run OS X through a Hackintosh PC, but it's never as reliable as Mac computers, plus you can't really update reliably. Or at least it wasn't several years ago, I don't know about now. Plus it seems to be more efficient. I'm typing this on a 4 year old late 2008 MacBook Pro. It still feels as fast as the day I got it. Meanwhile, my Windows performance has slowed down. 2. **Customer service**. You order a Windows PC from Best Buy and when you go in to get it serviced, they tell you to fuck off or charge you an absurd fee. They even charge you to look at your computer. Apple has great customer service. Not only are they great at replacing things under warranty, but they check out your computer free of charge even if it's out of warranty. Recently, my motherboard failed. On any other computer, it would have been a death sentence, but Apple offered to refurbish it for $300. Not only did they replace my motherboard, but they replaced my keyboard that had a few loose keys, my faulty disc drive, my battery, my RAM, a dent in the body (I did have to hassle them for this bc they wanted to charge me extra and wouldn't fix anything without fixing the dent), and my trackpad for the same price. 3. **Build quality**. I'm not a fan of the plastic design of many computers nowadays. I love the unibody design, it just feels solid. 4. **Accessories/Parts**. It's easy to order replacement parts and accessories for a Mac. I easily found a new AC adapter and a new battery through Amazon. Meanwhile, it was a nightmare trying to find a decent AC adapter for my older Toshiba laptop. One of the ones I ordered almost caught on fire when I tried to plug in an S-Video cable. 5. **Processing power**. The Macs on the market now has as much, if not more, processing power than the top of the line PC's out now. Yes you pay a premium, but you gain the other benefits I mentioned above. 6. **Reliability** *Knock on wood*, I've had fewer issues with this computer than any other computer I've had. Like I said, really the only issue in 4 years is a motherboard failure, which is pretty good considering it's used constantly and carried around in a backpack. And if you search around or order from the refurb store (which I tend to do), you pay even less of a premium. Look [here](http://store.apple.com/us/product/FD103LL/A). This is a 2 year old model, but it's still as powerful as many new laptops for a significant discount and all the benefits I mentioned above. By all means, prove me wrong and change my view, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

t3_5zqpgb

CMV: There is no non-racist reason for people to say "Melania Trump is bringing class back to the White House".

The phrases itself "bring class back" implies heavily that class was gone. So when I see a this phrase written over and over on middle aged White people's Facebook page's I have to wonder what possible way they could mean that other than someone white is back in the White House. These same people only ever managed to complain about Michelle's sleeveless dress. They carefully stayed away from her ivy league degree, her professional success, her work with child health and education. But now that they are celebrating their Trump victory they are saying Melanina will "bring class back". And since every other time they are concerned with family values, how are the over looking her history as a nude model? How are they over looking how she was mistress two before wife three? The only common denominator seems to be that she's white. Please, I'd love to be wrong, convince me not all these people are racist.

CMV: There is no non-racist reason for people to say "Melania Trump is bringing class back to the White House". The phrases itself "bring class back" implies heavily that class was gone. So when I see a this phrase written over and over on middle aged White people's Facebook page's I have to wonder what possible way they could mean that other than someone white is back in the White House. These same people only ever managed to complain about Michelle's sleeveless dress. They carefully stayed away from her ivy league degree, her professional success, her work with child health and education. But now that they are celebrating their Trump victory they are saying Melanina will "bring class back". And since every other time they are concerned with family values, how are the over looking her history as a nude model? How are they over looking how she was mistress two before wife three? The only common denominator seems to be that she's white. Please, I'd love to be wrong, convince me not all these people are racist.

t3_5sn0uc

CMV: Men should be allowed to give up all rights to--and responsibilities of--being the father of an unwanted child up until the mother is no longer legally allowed to abort.

A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy--in many places, at least--for as late as the 14-15th week of pregnancy. That gives the mother a fair-sized window of time in which she can decide whether or not she wishes to be a mother. In contrast, a man has no say in whether he becomes a father, beyond the initial consent for sex. I'm not going to advocate that men should be able to veto a woman's choice to abort--as that would be a violation of a person's rights every bit as much as rape would be. Likewise, a man should have no power to force or coerce a woman into getting an abortion. That being said, he shouldn't have to live with her choices if he doesn't want to be a father. I believe that men should be able to, at any point up until it is illegal to get an abortion, be able to resolve themselves of all rights and responsibilities. No visitation rights, not listed on the birth certificate, nothing. Likewise, he pays no child support and isn't expected to perform any duties related to being a father. I do get that there's a difference between an abortion and this sort of arrangement--namely, the child is still alive and the mother is 'saddled' with him/her alone. But shouldn't that be a personal choice, like abortion? If you feel responsible for the child, then you don't have to sign away your rights. One of those "If you think it's wrong, then don't do it" situations. Okay, so tell me why I'm wrong, just don't approach it from the 'but the child is still here' angle, as my position on that particular point won't change--alive or not, the responsibility is on those who want said child. If there are other reasons I haven't brought up, I'm all ears. EDIT: Okay, so new premise, since someone brought up some good points. What about a way for parents of both genders to give up parental rights, much like when making a child a ward of the state? It enables all kinds of financial aid and keeps the child from being in a situation where one parent hates the situation. _____ > *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: Men should be allowed to give up all rights to--and responsibilities of--being the father of an unwanted child up until the mother is no longer legally allowed to abort. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy--in many places, at least--for as late as the 14-15th week of pregnancy. That gives the mother a fair-sized window of time in which she can decide whether or not she wishes to be a mother. In contrast, a man has no say in whether he becomes a father, beyond the initial consent for sex. I'm not going to advocate that men should be able to veto a woman's choice to abort--as that would be a violation of a person's rights every bit as much as rape would be. Likewise, a man should have no power to force or coerce a woman into getting an abortion. That being said, he shouldn't have to live with her choices if he doesn't want to be a father. I believe that men should be able to, at any point up until it is illegal to get an abortion, be able to resolve themselves of all rights and responsibilities. No visitation rights, not listed on the birth certificate, nothing. Likewise, he pays no child support and isn't expected to perform any duties related to being a father. I do get that there's a difference between an abortion and this sort of arrangement--namely, the child is still alive and the mother is 'saddled' with him/her alone. But shouldn't that be a personal choice, like abortion? If you feel responsible for the child, then you don't have to sign away your rights. One of those "If you think it's wrong, then don't do it" situations. Okay, so tell me why I'm wrong, just don't approach it from the 'but the child is still here' angle, as my position on that particular point won't change--alive or not, the responsibility is on those who want said child. If there are other reasons I haven't brought up, I'm all ears. EDIT: Okay, so new premise, since someone brought up some good points. What about a way for parents of both genders to give up parental rights, much like when making a child a ward of the state? It enables all kinds of financial aid and keeps the child from being in a situation where one parent hates the situation.

t3_602r5g

CMV: There is no ethical reason for most human beings to continue eating meat.

Hey all, I'm new to CMV but have spent my fair share of time lurking. I'm making this thread because animal welfare is something I personally care greatly about, and last year I decided to go vegan and have enjoyed it ever since. Even when I consider incorporating animal products into my diet, I think I would only do so if necessary and would still use them in minor amounts. However, I don't want to shit on meat eaters; I recognize that a lot of people just can't go vegan or vegetarian and there is a wide variety of valid reasons for that: health concerns, financial situation, location/culture, etc. but I believe that people who are in a position where they can reduce their negative impact on the world, and on other living beings, should go out of their way to do so. I think eating meat - especially the way most people consume it, not knowing its sources and obtaining it from factory farming - is unethical. I don't think it makes the individual an unethical person, as we are more than our actions, but I cannot see a way to morally defend, much less advocate for, a diet that includes meat (and/or other animal products, but my main issue is with actual meat). I hope this doesn't sound too high-and-mighty or anything, I sometimes have trouble articulating myself with the right tone over the internet. What I'm trying to get across is that I would like to discuss with other people about why they think eating meat - especially meat that is mass produced - is ethically defensible. I find it really discouraging how most people immediately shut down any conversation on this topic, dismissing me as a preachy vegan or saying "it's just a personal choice". ETA: "[Valid reasons to eat meat] also include financial, cultural, and certain other circumstantial concerns. I'd like to hear an argument that can convince me that killing animals to make meat solely for the purpose of palatal pleasure, personal gain, or habit is ethical or should even be permissible, especially at the level it is accepted now." _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is no ethical reason for most human beings to continue eating meat. Hey all, I'm new to CMV but have spent my fair share of time lurking. I'm making this thread because animal welfare is something I personally care greatly about, and last year I decided to go vegan and have enjoyed it ever since. Even when I consider incorporating animal products into my diet, I think I would only do so if necessary and would still use them in minor amounts. However, I don't want to shit on meat eaters; I recognize that a lot of people just can't go vegan or vegetarian and there is a wide variety of valid reasons for that: health concerns, financial situation, location/culture, etc. but I believe that people who are in a position where they can reduce their negative impact on the world, and on other living beings, should go out of their way to do so. I think eating meat - especially the way most people consume it, not knowing its sources and obtaining it from factory farming - is unethical. I don't think it makes the individual an unethical person, as we are more than our actions, but I cannot see a way to morally defend, much less advocate for, a diet that includes meat (and/or other animal products, but my main issue is with actual meat). I hope this doesn't sound too high-and-mighty or anything, I sometimes have trouble articulating myself with the right tone over the internet. What I'm trying to get across is that I would like to discuss with other people about why they think eating meat - especially meat that is mass produced - is ethically defensible. I find it really discouraging how most people immediately shut down any conversation on this topic, dismissing me as a preachy vegan or saying "it's just a personal choice". ETA: "[Valid reasons to eat meat] also include financial, cultural, and certain other circumstantial concerns. I'd like to hear an argument that can convince me that killing animals to make meat solely for the purpose of palatal pleasure, personal gain, or habit is ethical or should even be permissible, especially at the level it is accepted now."

t3_4qi7gd

CMV: When it comes to politics, no one thinks for themselves

I feel like pretty much everyone who's heavily into politics is just copying whatever is accepted by the political party they've chose to be a part of. i.e. if you've established that you're a conservative republican, you hear other republicans talking about their views & you jump on the "climate change isn't real" bandwagon. And liberal Democrats are just as guilty of following the crowd. I feel like no one really has original political opinions; almost everyone is just regurgitating what they've heard someone else say. Whenever someone brings up their opinions on taxes or minimum wage or whatever, I just think to myself, "How many other people have had this exact same conversation?" And I'm not saying that I'm completely above others or anything; as a pretty liberal person, I'm guilty of jumping on the "get your fucking vaccines!" and "climate change is happening!" bandwagons without being a scientist or at least reading scholarly articles first. I feel like some of these opinions could be switched around ~~(i.e. vaccines are harmful being a liberal opinion instead of conservative)~~ & everyone would just follow the popular opinion of whatever political party they've assigned themselves to. If you have some major political opinions that don't match the accepted opinion of your political party, prove me wrong. Edit: Just forget about the vaccines thing; it's not a great example of left/right wing opinions since there's a lot of disagreement about it within political parties Edit 2: My V has been C'ed. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: When it comes to politics, no one thinks for themselves. I feel like pretty much everyone who's heavily into politics is just copying whatever is accepted by the political party they've chose to be a part of. i.e. if you've established that you're a conservative republican, you hear other republicans talking about their views & you jump on the "climate change isn't real" bandwagon. And liberal Democrats are just as guilty of following the crowd. I feel like no one really has original political opinions; almost everyone is just regurgitating what they've heard someone else say. Whenever someone brings up their opinions on taxes or minimum wage or whatever, I just think to myself, "How many other people have had this exact same conversation?" And I'm not saying that I'm completely above others or anything; as a pretty liberal person, I'm guilty of jumping on the "get your fucking vaccines!" and "climate change is happening!" bandwagons without being a scientist or at least reading scholarly articles first. I feel like some of these opinions could be switched around ~~(i.e. vaccines are harmful being a liberal opinion instead of conservative)~~ & everyone would just follow the popular opinion of whatever political party they've assigned themselves to. If you have some major political opinions that don't match the accepted opinion of your political party, prove me wrong. Edit: Just forget about the vaccines thing; it's not a great example of left/right wing opinions since there's a lot of disagreement about it within political parties Edit 2: My V has been C'ed.

t3_2q2rpq

CMV: The 'songs' that run throughout Tolkien's "The Hobbit" are pretty awful, and the book would be better with the poetry removed.

I am rereading the Hobbit as an adult, and actually reading the poetry that I found too painful to read the first two times I read it as a teen. I'm no literature expert, nor an expert on poetry, but it just seems bad. And, it also seems endless. It's like, "Oh no, the Dwarves are singing again, oh no, now it's the Orcs, now it's the Wood-elves." And to top it off, since it all rhymes, it forces me to think that the story isn't being told in English as a *convenience*. Instead, all these ancient races are all *really* speaking modern English, which seem far-fetched. EDIT: WOW, I'm really, really, REALLY surprised I changed my mind on this. I don't particular like the poetry, still, but I see how it fits in with deeper understanding of the Bilbo, the writer. EDIT 2: I also concede that Tolkien was trying to capture a historic style, not just writing what just writing stuff that turned out to annoy me. And knowing Tolkien conceived of a lingua franca amongst the various groups makes viewing the songs as translations seem believable. > *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 'songs' that run throughout Tolkien's "The Hobbit" are pretty awful, and the book would be better with the poetry removed. I am rereading the Hobbit as an adult, and actually reading the poetry that I found too painful to read the first two times I read it as a teen. I'm no literature expert, nor an expert on poetry, but it just seems bad. And, it also seems endless. It's like, "Oh no, the Dwarves are singing again, oh no, now it's the Orcs, now it's the Wood-elves." And to top it off, since it all rhymes, it forces me to think that the story isn't being told in English as a *convenience*. Instead, all these ancient races are all *really* speaking modern English, which seem far-fetched. EDIT: WOW, I'm really, really, REALLY surprised I changed my mind on this. I don't particular like the poetry, still, but I see how it fits in with deeper understanding of the Bilbo, the writer. EDIT 2: I also concede that Tolkien was trying to capture a historic style, not just writing what just writing stuff that turned out to annoy me. And knowing Tolkien conceived of a lingua franca amongst the various groups makes viewing the songs as translations seem believable. > *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_2q5wpa

CMV: If I'm going the speed limit, it's acceptable for me to be in the left hand lane.

Hi CMV, first time poster. If I'm going the speed limit on a highway or freeway, technically no other cars can pass me unless they were to exceed the speed limit. Because that is against the law, it should be socially acceptable for me to stay in 'the passing lane'. It is also lawfully acceptable, since there is no law that penalizes drivers for being in particular lanes, as long as he/she are going the speed limit. One situation would involve two drivers, where one driver wants to pass simply because he wants to be infront. I fail to see the need to shift over and disrupt traffic in order to let a vehicle pass where that vehicle would simply stay 10 yards ahead of me. If he was passing in order to be able to increase his speed above the speed limit, then that is illegal. I seem to clash whenever this topic comes up and I just don't understand why. Please change my view. EDIT: I'm not going to keep posting if people just downvote anything that they don't agree with. This will be the last time I'm posting on this sub. Unsubscribed as well.

CMV: If I'm going the speed limit, it's acceptable for me to be in the left hand lane. Hi CMV, first time poster. If I'm going the speed limit on a highway or freeway, technically no other cars can pass me unless they were to exceed the speed limit. Because that is against the law, it should be socially acceptable for me to stay in 'the passing lane'. It is also lawfully acceptable, since there is no law that penalizes drivers for being in particular lanes, as long as he/she are going the speed limit. One situation would involve two drivers, where one driver wants to pass simply because he wants to be infront. I fail to see the need to shift over and disrupt traffic in order to let a vehicle pass where that vehicle would simply stay 10 yards ahead of me. If he was passing in order to be able to increase his speed above the speed limit, then that is illegal. I seem to clash whenever this topic comes up and I just don't understand why. Please change my view. EDIT: I'm not going to keep posting if people just downvote anything that they don't agree with. This will be the last time I'm posting on this sub. Unsubscribed as well.

t3_3y0ojc

CMV: The US is neither a developed country nor a developing country. It is merely the US.

What the US has in common with developed countries but not with developing countries: -A highly developed legal system and real estate market, rivaling or even exceeding most Western European countries. -A relatively tech-literate population and a moderate level of political corruption, closer to France or Spain than to Russia. -Great prestige, international influence. -One of the highest GDP per capita and unadjusted Human Development Indices in the world. -One of the highest median incomes in the world. -A lack of shantytowns or favelas. Poor neighborhoods are generally dilapidated rich ones. -Relatively clean air in urban areas. -Slow GDP growth and deindustrialization. A service economy. -[Most formalized, taxed economy in the world. Lowest levels of informal/black market economic activity / GDP in the world.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_sector#Estimated_size_of_countries.27_informal_economy) What the US has in common with developing countries: -No true universal healthcare. Tons of holes. -Significant problems with violence (both domestic and international). -Eye-popping levels of inequality and outright poverty. Adjusted for inequality, Human Development Index is lower than Hungary. -Lousy life expectancy. [Higher newborn mortality than Peru.](http://www.nbcnews.com/health/more-us-babies-die-their-first-day-68-other-countries-6C9700437) -Higher rates of teen pregnancy, murder, infant mortality than any other developed country. -Harsh work conditions. -Orwellian surveillance. Things the US has in common with neither: -No maternity leave. -Willingness to backstab other countries on climate change. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The US is neither a developed country nor a developing country. It is merely the US. What the US has in common with developed countries but not with developing countries: -A highly developed legal system and real estate market, rivaling or even exceeding most Western European countries. -A relatively tech-literate population and a moderate level of political corruption, closer to France or Spain than to Russia. -Great prestige, international influence. -One of the highest GDP per capita and unadjusted Human Development Indices in the world. -One of the highest median incomes in the world. -A lack of shantytowns or favelas. Poor neighborhoods are generally dilapidated rich ones. -Relatively clean air in urban areas. -Slow GDP growth and deindustrialization. A service economy. -[Most formalized, taxed economy in the world. Lowest levels of informal/black market economic activity / GDP in the world.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_sector#Estimated_size_of_countries.27_informal_economy) What the US has in common with developing countries: -No true universal healthcare. Tons of holes. -Significant problems with violence (both domestic and international). -Eye-popping levels of inequality and outright poverty. Adjusted for inequality, Human Development Index is lower than Hungary. -Lousy life expectancy. [Higher newborn mortality than Peru.](http://www.nbcnews.com/health/more-us-babies-die-their-first-day-68-other-countries-6C9700437) -Higher rates of teen pregnancy, murder, infant mortality than any other developed country. -Harsh work conditions. -Orwellian surveillance. Things the US has in common with neither: -No maternity leave. -Willingness to backstab other countries on climate change.

t3_3b4x7n

CMV: Apple banning the confederate flag is bad for business and for humanity.

This issue is very distinct from the removal of the confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol Building. I would also argue that it way more harmful than Walmart/Ebay/Amazon banning the flags themselves. Apple can ban whatever they want as a private entity. However, I believe they have made a huge mistake in banning apps that contained confederate imagery. The confederate flag was not the essence of the apps as far as I have seen. They actually **were** historical. While I believe the confederate flag to be rotten, I do not think it should be censored. I believe that when one considers whether or not to ban something, a symbol advocating an idea should be considered distinct from expression or documentation of that idea. I believe that this banning is a bad business decision. Not only are they losing the money for the apps themselves but they are alienating a demographic that supports the flag, and a demographic that do not support the flag but support free speech. I believe this is bad for humanity because the backlash against this banning will turn the confederate flag into a symbol for free-speech, which will muddy up the issue of racial tension even more. More importantly, I fear that it will set a precedent for large companies that provide information and access to culture to ban essential historical information. -TL;DR : **Context Matters!!** and Apple's execution of the censorship was harmful on many levels. _____ > *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 banning the confederate flag is bad for business and for humanity. This issue is very distinct from the removal of the confederate flag from the South Carolina Capitol Building. I would also argue that it way more harmful than Walmart/Ebay/Amazon banning the flags themselves. Apple can ban whatever they want as a private entity. However, I believe they have made a huge mistake in banning apps that contained confederate imagery. The confederate flag was not the essence of the apps as far as I have seen. They actually **were** historical. While I believe the confederate flag to be rotten, I do not think it should be censored. I believe that when one considers whether or not to ban something, a symbol advocating an idea should be considered distinct from expression or documentation of that idea. I believe that this banning is a bad business decision. Not only are they losing the money for the apps themselves but they are alienating a demographic that supports the flag, and a demographic that do not support the flag but support free speech. I believe this is bad for humanity because the backlash against this banning will turn the confederate flag into a symbol for free-speech, which will muddy up the issue of racial tension even more. More importantly, I fear that it will set a precedent for large companies that provide information and access to culture to ban essential historical information. -TL;DR : **Context Matters!!** and Apple's execution of the censorship was harmful on many levels.

t3_2y2gbu

CMV: I think the Uncharted video game series is very overrated

Honestly, I think the UC series is pretty overrated all things considered. Don't get me wrong, I've played them all, and I really liked them. They're beautiful games, and as far as linear TPS is concerned they're the best in the business, but there is nothing truly exceptional about them, and they should not be treated as groundbreaking, or even unique. They just don't take any risks. They don't push the envelope with the story like TLoU or GTAV. Instead, they tell a fun story that's a mixup of a million successful stories already told. They don't have any unique or unusual mechanics. Instead, they have built a really solid (but generic) TPS system. And while the gameplay is 10/10 enjoyable, it's linear and generally an 8-10 hour romp without a whole pile of reasons to go back after except for relatively lame collectibles. The multiplayer again is solid but not a real departure from what's out there. Again, what I'm saying is that it's a solid quality product, but it is not comparable to actual groundbreaking series, like Legend of Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, TLoU, GTA etc. _____ > *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 the Uncharted video game series is very overrated. Honestly, I think the UC series is pretty overrated all things considered. Don't get me wrong, I've played them all, and I really liked them. They're beautiful games, and as far as linear TPS is concerned they're the best in the business, but there is nothing truly exceptional about them, and they should not be treated as groundbreaking, or even unique. They just don't take any risks. They don't push the envelope with the story like TLoU or GTAV. Instead, they tell a fun story that's a mixup of a million successful stories already told. They don't have any unique or unusual mechanics. Instead, they have built a really solid (but generic) TPS system. And while the gameplay is 10/10 enjoyable, it's linear and generally an 8-10 hour romp without a whole pile of reasons to go back after except for relatively lame collectibles. The multiplayer again is solid but not a real departure from what's out there. Again, what I'm saying is that it's a solid quality product, but it is not comparable to actual groundbreaking series, like Legend of Zelda, Metal Gear Solid, TLoU, GTA etc.

t3_36o9ws

CMV: My public school's diversity education was actually racist.

I went to high school in the 1980's. In a small town in the Northwest, U.S., that was very white, (OK, all white), where basically everyone was Christian. I would like to think that the school curriculum was chosen with good intentions. Except looking back on it now, I really don't believe that. I would like to believe that, except I don't. So for English in tenth grade, we had novels assigned designed to promote diversity and an awareness of injustice against other races. To teach us about the problems that black people historically faced in America, we read a book called "Black Like Me". The book, "Black Like Me" is about a white man who colored his skin to appear black and went down South in the late 1950's. The book chronicles his (fairly awful) experiences. Except thinking about it now, there must have been hundreds of thousands of black men in the South during this time period. If we wanted to know what it was like, why didn't we just ask one of them? Did we really need to send a white man down pretending to be black? Was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion? It doesn't feel right. Then we have the holocaust, and our assigned reading was "The Hiding Place" by Corrie Ten Boom. Which is about two Christian sisters sent to a prison camp for attempting to save Jewish people. Now don't get me wrong, what they did was incredible, but is it really the best way to teach students about the holocaust with a book written about the suffering of Christians? Something very crucial seems to be missing here. It's not like there was some shortage of books written by Jewish people. So I would like to change my view. I would like to think that everyone had the best of intentions. In retrospect, it just doesn't feel right and doesn't seem right. Who the heck would choose these books and why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_Boom > *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: My public school's diversity education was actually racist. I went to high school in the 1980's. In a small town in the Northwest, U.S., that was very white, (OK, all white), where basically everyone was Christian. I would like to think that the school curriculum was chosen with good intentions. Except looking back on it now, I really don't believe that. I would like to believe that, except I don't. So for English in tenth grade, we had novels assigned designed to promote diversity and an awareness of injustice against other races. To teach us about the problems that black people historically faced in America, we read a book called "Black Like Me". The book, "Black Like Me" is about a white man who colored his skin to appear black and went down South in the late 1950's. The book chronicles his (fairly awful) experiences. Except thinking about it now, there must have been hundreds of thousands of black men in the South during this time period. If we wanted to know what it was like, why didn't we just ask one of them? Did we really need to send a white man down pretending to be black? Was that the only way to get a legitimate opinion? It doesn't feel right. Then we have the holocaust, and our assigned reading was "The Hiding Place" by Corrie Ten Boom. Which is about two Christian sisters sent to a prison camp for attempting to save Jewish people. Now don't get me wrong, what they did was incredible, but is it really the best way to teach students about the holocaust with a book written about the suffering of Christians? Something very crucial seems to be missing here. It's not like there was some shortage of books written by Jewish people. So I would like to change my view. I would like to think that everyone had the best of intentions. In retrospect, it just doesn't feel right and doesn't seem right. Who the heck would choose these books and why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrie_ten_Boom > *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_1hytpu

I think PRISM is a net positive for Americans. CMV

1) The NSA is targeting foreign nationals, not U.S. citizens, and not even individuals in the United States. And all of this collection is being done with a warrant, issued by a federal judge, under authorities approved by Congress. 2) Therefore, PRISM has zero effect on your life unless there are grounds for a warrant to look at your data. 3) Of the subset of people who have had warrants filed against them, PRISM still does not have a negative effect on your life unless you are arrested in connection with a terrorist plot. 4) No American has been falsely arrested due to PRISM. 5) Therefore, if PRISM has prevented a single terrorist attack, it has had a net positive effect on the lives of Americans. If it hasn't, then it's a net neutral aside from expenses. (I'm not interested in debating issues of constitutionality, legality, or possible precedent for programs down the road. I'm looking strictly at the PRISM program itself from a utilitarian perspective.)

I think PRISM is a net positive for Americans. CMV. 1) The NSA is targeting foreign nationals, not U.S. citizens, and not even individuals in the United States. And all of this collection is being done with a warrant, issued by a federal judge, under authorities approved by Congress. 2) Therefore, PRISM has zero effect on your life unless there are grounds for a warrant to look at your data. 3) Of the subset of people who have had warrants filed against them, PRISM still does not have a negative effect on your life unless you are arrested in connection with a terrorist plot. 4) No American has been falsely arrested due to PRISM. 5) Therefore, if PRISM has prevented a single terrorist attack, it has had a net positive effect on the lives of Americans. If it hasn't, then it's a net neutral aside from expenses. (I'm not interested in debating issues of constitutionality, legality, or possible precedent for programs down the road. I'm looking strictly at the PRISM program itself from a utilitarian perspective.)

t3_20l1c6

Its a mans world and always will be. CMV

I am not saying men are better than women, just different. And with our larger bodies and different brain we take the role of building, protecting, leading. Almost everything good or bad thing that has ever happened in the world has been done or caused by men. Everything around you houses, roads, cars, plumbing, food, the government, the economy, all created, conceived, designed and built by men. All this women's lib, feminist stuff is jealousy. No amount of complaints, gender studies, making up stuff like rape culture can change the fact that by virtue of biology men will always dominate because you are playing in our sandbox. We made this world.

Its a mans world and always will be. CMV. I am not saying men are better than women, just different. And with our larger bodies and different brain we take the role of building, protecting, leading. Almost everything good or bad thing that has ever happened in the world has been done or caused by men. Everything around you houses, roads, cars, plumbing, food, the government, the economy, all created, conceived, designed and built by men. All this women's lib, feminist stuff is jealousy. No amount of complaints, gender studies, making up stuff like rape culture can change the fact that by virtue of biology men will always dominate because you are playing in our sandbox. We made this world.

t3_1er689

I believe that Gorbachev was the main person who ended the cold war, and not Ronald Reagan CMV

I believe that the main person was Gorbachev, and that Ronald Reagan had little to no influence in ending the cold war. I believe this because Gorbachev was very lenient with groups like solidarity, and Reagan had a tiny amount to do with it.

I believe that Gorbachev was the main person who ended the cold war, and not Ronald Reagan CMV. I believe that the main person was Gorbachev, and that Ronald Reagan had little to no influence in ending the cold war. I believe this because Gorbachev was very lenient with groups like solidarity, and Reagan had a tiny amount to do with it.

t3_2cjv9j

CMV: Parents should be taxed for having children instead of getting deductions for it

\ I am shutting this down because I simply cannot reply to all of these posts and am sick of the hate mail. _____ > *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: Parents should be taxed for having children instead of getting deductions for it. \ I am shutting this down because I simply cannot reply to all of these posts and am sick of the hate mail.

t3_35vh4o

CMV: There is only one possible future worth considering, one with the existence of AGI, and not enough people are planning around it

I believe that when considering the near or far future, there are only one possibility that is worth considering, and would be so transformative that worrying about anything else pales in comparison. That is the creation of Artificial General Intelligence or Artificial Strong Intelligence, whatever you want to call it. First, you have to contend with the issue of whether or not you believe human or greater than level intelligence can even be created. Which I think most people would agree that it is possible, or at least there is nothing fundamental about intelligence that requires it to exist only in humans, or a biological substrate as opposed to some other. Now, if you do accept that AGI is possible, you must then consider when you think it may be created and whether you or your direct descendants will be affected, if it happens 10,000 years from now, no one alive today would (or really should) care in the slightest. The issue is that unless you are directly involved in the field itself, coming up with a realistic timetable is a difficult problem. Fortunately for us laypeople (myself included), a survey was conducted at a conference of AI experts a few years ago, and concluded that the median optimistic year (10% likelihood) for AGI was 2022, the median realistic year (50% likelihood) was 2040, and the median pessimistic year (100% likelihood) was 2075. Now you are free to disagree with their predictions, but you'd better have damn good cause to do so and be takes seriously by other people. All of this taken together has forced me to the realization that there can be no useful forecasting of the near or long term future without considering the impact AGI could have on it. But further to this, no one can even make a solid guess as to what might happen if one is created! There is speculation, some good and some bad, but ultimately this event, the singularity, has an apt name for a reason, we have no prior history or examples from which to learn from! And then, to top it all off, an AGI would likely quickly surpass human intelligence if given the resources, not to mention it may think in such a way that humans could not even follow its logic or reasoning. TL;DR: So all of this is to say, if you believe AGI is possible, and if you believe that it could come into existence in the nearish future, there is no way to make any easy generalizations about what the future might be like. We have no idea what's coming, and too many people are not factoring in the disruption an AGI could cause, whether for good or ill. Essentially, not enough people are taking this possibility seriously enough, and we're making plans about the future that are affecting people today without taking into account the most profound event in human history. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is only one possible future worth considering, one with the existence of AGI, and not enough people are planning around it. I believe that when considering the near or far future, there are only one possibility that is worth considering, and would be so transformative that worrying about anything else pales in comparison. That is the creation of Artificial General Intelligence or Artificial Strong Intelligence, whatever you want to call it. First, you have to contend with the issue of whether or not you believe human or greater than level intelligence can even be created. Which I think most people would agree that it is possible, or at least there is nothing fundamental about intelligence that requires it to exist only in humans, or a biological substrate as opposed to some other. Now, if you do accept that AGI is possible, you must then consider when you think it may be created and whether you or your direct descendants will be affected, if it happens 10,000 years from now, no one alive today would (or really should) care in the slightest. The issue is that unless you are directly involved in the field itself, coming up with a realistic timetable is a difficult problem. Fortunately for us laypeople (myself included), a survey was conducted at a conference of AI experts a few years ago, and concluded that the median optimistic year (10% likelihood) for AGI was 2022, the median realistic year (50% likelihood) was 2040, and the median pessimistic year (100% likelihood) was 2075. Now you are free to disagree with their predictions, but you'd better have damn good cause to do so and be takes seriously by other people. All of this taken together has forced me to the realization that there can be no useful forecasting of the near or long term future without considering the impact AGI could have on it. But further to this, no one can even make a solid guess as to what might happen if one is created! There is speculation, some good and some bad, but ultimately this event, the singularity, has an apt name for a reason, we have no prior history or examples from which to learn from! And then, to top it all off, an AGI would likely quickly surpass human intelligence if given the resources, not to mention it may think in such a way that humans could not even follow its logic or reasoning. TL;DR: So all of this is to say, if you believe AGI is possible, and if you believe that it could come into existence in the nearish future, there is no way to make any easy generalizations about what the future might be like. We have no idea what's coming, and too many people are not factoring in the disruption an AGI could cause, whether for good or ill. Essentially, not enough people are taking this possibility seriously enough, and we're making plans about the future that are affecting people today without taking into account the most profound event in human history.

t3_5c34jg

CMV:Hillary Clinton used her gender to her own advantage, so any argument that Trump won because of sexism is invalid.

Throughout the whole campaign Hillary Clinton was playing on the fact that she was a woman and using feminism to gain votes from women. I felt that there was an attitude of "if you don't vote for Clinton you aren't a feminist". Suddenly people are saying that Trump winning was because of sexism. When Hillary Clinton based so much of her campaign around purely gender then I do not think that anyone can complain about any apparent sexism in a Trump victory. In fact, I believe that that is creating walls and divisions in society that is counter-productive to any liberal ideology. The split of the women's vote was very similar to Obama-Romney four years ago. Hillary Clinton exploited her gender to gain support and therefore sexism cannot be used as a reason for a Trump win. _____ > *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:Hillary Clinton used her gender to her own advantage, so any argument that Trump won because of sexism is invalid. Throughout the whole campaign Hillary Clinton was playing on the fact that she was a woman and using feminism to gain votes from women. I felt that there was an attitude of "if you don't vote for Clinton you aren't a feminist". Suddenly people are saying that Trump winning was because of sexism. When Hillary Clinton based so much of her campaign around purely gender then I do not think that anyone can complain about any apparent sexism in a Trump victory. In fact, I believe that that is creating walls and divisions in society that is counter-productive to any liberal ideology. The split of the women's vote was very similar to Obama-Romney four years ago. Hillary Clinton exploited her gender to gain support and therefore sexism cannot be used as a reason for a Trump win.

t3_3iik0a

CMV: You should always have the right to remain silent. You shouldn't have to invoke it to have the right, as the the SCOTUS has ruled, twice.

For those who are not aware, the [Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), gives citzens the right to remain silent. What this means is, when the police arrest you, you can keep your mouth shut, as anything you say to them while being arrested such as "Hey, that's not mine, I was holding it for a friend, honest!" can be used against you in the court. It's recommended that you remain silent until you have a lawyer working for you, so you can tell your side of the story to them, along with the lawyer being with you to tell you what you should and should not say. The following court cases are related to my view: * On June 13, 1966, in Miranda v. Arizona, the SC ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. * On June 1, 2010, in Berghuis v. Thompkins, the SC ruled that A suspect's silence during interrogation does not invoke his right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona. The invocation of that right must be unambiguous, and silence is not enough to invoke it. Voluntarily and knowingly responding to police interrogation after remaining silent constitutes a waiver of the right to remain silent, provided that a Miranda warning was given and the suspect understood it. Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. * On June 17, 2013, in Salinas v. Texas, the SC ruled again that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination does not protect an individual's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he or she has been arrested or given the Miranda warning. A witness cannot invoke the privilege by simply standing mute; he or she must expressly invoke it. Now, my view point is that it should be a form of opt-out, not opt-in. If you are stupid enough to go "Hey man, that LSD wasn't even mine, it's just [blah blah blah]", your sayings can and will be used against you. You shouldn't have to go to the police during your arrest, after they read you your Miranda Rights "I would like to invoke my right to remain silent, as per the 5th Amendment. Please get me a lawyer." Just keep your trap shut, and you're covered. I think if this way is kept, it could lead to some free people getting into trouble with the courts. The rulings are going against what the 5th Am wanted in the first place, along with the SCOTUS' ruling back in 1966. Of course, the SCOTUS can go against previous rulings, but they seem to be keeping this one, as it's important for civil liberties. _____ > *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,* ***[downvote don't change views](http://www. downvotes.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 should always have the right to remain silent. You shouldn't have to invoke it to have the right, as the the SCOTUS has ruled, twice. For those who are not aware, the [Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution), gives citzens the right to remain silent. What this means is, when the police arrest you, you can keep your mouth shut, as anything you say to them while being arrested such as "Hey, that's not mine, I was holding it for a friend, honest!" can be used against you in the court. It's recommended that you remain silent until you have a lawyer working for you, so you can tell your side of the story to them, along with the lawyer being with you to tell you what you should and should not say. The following court cases are related to my view: * On June 13, 1966, in Miranda v. Arizona, the SC ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. * On June 1, 2010, in Berghuis v. Thompkins, the SC ruled that A suspect's silence during interrogation does not invoke his right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona. The invocation of that right must be unambiguous, and silence is not enough to invoke it. Voluntarily and knowingly responding to police interrogation after remaining silent constitutes a waiver of the right to remain silent, provided that a Miranda warning was given and the suspect understood it. Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. * On June 17, 2013, in Salinas v. Texas, the SC ruled again that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination does not protect an individual's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he or she has been arrested or given the Miranda warning. A witness cannot invoke the privilege by simply standing mute; he or she must expressly invoke it. Now, my view point is that it should be a form of opt-out, not opt-in. If you are stupid enough to go "Hey man, that LSD wasn't even mine, it's just [blah blah blah]", your sayings can and will be used against you. You shouldn't have to go to the police during your arrest, after they read you your Miranda Rights "I would like to invoke my right to remain silent, as per the 5th Amendment. Please get me a lawyer." Just keep your trap shut, and you're covered. I think if this way is kept, it could lead to some free people getting into trouble with the courts. The rulings are going against what the 5th Am wanted in the first place, along with the SCOTUS' ruling back in 1966. Of course, the SCOTUS can go against previous rulings, but they seem to be keeping this one, as it's important for civil liberties.

t3_6eel87

CMV: Farting should just be socially accepted as sneezing.

I understand that it smells and people don't like it but I think it's a natural symptom just like sneezing or coughing. Of course if I have the chance and motivation I would like to leave the room, go somewhere else and fart but sometimes you just can't leave where you are especially on a plane or in a meeting etc. Moreover, sometimes I may not feel like standing up and going to the bathroom to fart, I just wanna fart lying down and it should be okay. Also the fart may be lost and turned into more gas while going away(I donno if unfarted farts turn into more gas but anyways) which is a very unpleasant feeling. I don't think if everyone farted anytime they felt like all our social environments would smell horribly. Not all farts smell bad anyways. I think, if everyone were more accepting to bad fart smells a little bit more, life would be a lot more easier for everyone, especially me:). So yeah, in my daily life, I fart, and I don't hide it, and I feel like some people dislike me for that reason but fuck it I will fight for my freedom to fart anytime, anywhere unless my view is changed! I should also note that, okay, some farts smell like unwashed, rotten, deads and it can be quite impossible to stand them in a windowless room but these are exceptions and I am careful about those kind of situations. But we humans aren't even comfortable to fart around each other in the park, or walking on the street! At least farting in open air should be totally fine! And don't think I am normally a smelly, hobo kind of a dude. I am a PHD student who takes shower every morning.

CMV: Farting should just be socially accepted as sneezing. I understand that it smells and people don't like it but I think it's a natural symptom just like sneezing or coughing. Of course if I have the chance and motivation I would like to leave the room, go somewhere else and fart but sometimes you just can't leave where you are especially on a plane or in a meeting etc. Moreover, sometimes I may not feel like standing up and going to the bathroom to fart, I just wanna fart lying down and it should be okay. Also the fart may be lost and turned into more gas while going away(I donno if unfarted farts turn into more gas but anyways) which is a very unpleasant feeling. I don't think if everyone farted anytime they felt like all our social environments would smell horribly. Not all farts smell bad anyways. I think, if everyone were more accepting to bad fart smells a little bit more, life would be a lot more easier for everyone, especially me:). So yeah, in my daily life, I fart, and I don't hide it, and I feel like some people dislike me for that reason but fuck it I will fight for my freedom to fart anytime, anywhere unless my view is changed! I should also note that, okay, some farts smell like unwashed, rotten, deads and it can be quite impossible to stand them in a windowless room but these are exceptions and I am careful about those kind of situations. But we humans aren't even comfortable to fart around each other in the park, or walking on the street! At least farting in open air should be totally fine! And don't think I am normally a smelly, hobo kind of a dude. I am a PHD student who takes shower every morning.

t3_2jah15

CMV: Ignoring the more hot-button political aspect of what's happening, I think GamerGate's primary focus is a complete waste of time and utterly unimportant. "Ethics in games journalism" is barely worth mentioning, let alone whatever huge thing this has become.

This whole idea of "ethics in video game journalism" would not be nearly as interesting if not for all the severely negative actions and consequences that have come with it. Why, exactly, should I care if a game review was purchased in some way? Even extending that further to other forms of entertainment, I pay much more close attention to user-generated reviews or words from friends over review articles. I like video games quite a bit, but they are far from important to me, and I doubt that entertainment reviews being bought out is unique to video game journalism. Not to say that I think buying reviews is okay, but I don't see why a *movement* is necessary for this. Tell me why I'm wrong. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Ignoring the more hot-button political aspect of what's happening, I think GamerGate's primary focus is a complete waste of time and utterly unimportant. "Ethics in games journalism" is barely worth mentioning, let alone whatever huge thing this has become. This whole idea of "ethics in video game journalism" would not be nearly as interesting if not for all the severely negative actions and consequences that have come with it. Why, exactly, should I care if a game review was purchased in some way? Even extending that further to other forms of entertainment, I pay much more close attention to user-generated reviews or words from friends over review articles. I like video games quite a bit, but they are far from important to me, and I doubt that entertainment reviews being bought out is unique to video game journalism. Not to say that I think buying reviews is okay, but I don't see why a *movement* is necessary for this. Tell me why I'm wrong.

t3_4f2t42

CMV: If Hillary Clinton has a lead in pledged delegates and popular vote after the last day of primary voting, Bernie Sanders should drop out and not take his campaign to the convention.

In the last debate, Bernie said he would keep his campaign going until the convention if Hillary has not clinched the nomination in pledged delegates. I think that even if it isn't clinched, as long as she has more pledged delegates than he does and more popular vote than he does, he should suspend his campaign and support her. 1. The only way he could win at that point would be if enough superdelegates defect to him to give him the lead. This is entirely undemocratic and it overrides the will of the people. As someone who is running under the guise of being someone who is supported by the people, this would be undemocratic and hypocritical of Bernie. 2. If he does steal the nomination from her by using superdelegates, it would be terrible for party unity against whomever the GOP nominates. Instead of spending the time between the last primaries and the convention consolidating the base and reunifying the party, Bernie will be alienating a huge portion of democrats who are more moderate and don't support his views, as well as Clinton supporters who will feel the nomination was stolen. This is akin to the GOP "establishment" stealing the election from Trump in terms of backlash. 3. It's been tradition that despite the superdelegates supporting one candidate throughout primary season, they will end up unifying behind the person who gets the most pledged delegates. In 08, Hillary's superdelegates went to Obama when it was clear he was going to win. For Bernie to do the opposite and try to take superdelegates who support the person who was democratically chosen would be going against the precedent that's been established. I would also say the same thing about Hillary if Bernie gets the majority of pledged delegates and the popular vote and she used her superdelegates to win. It just seems like that probably won't be the case AND she didn't do that in the past with Obama.

CMV: If Hillary Clinton has a lead in pledged delegates and popular vote after the last day of primary voting, Bernie Sanders should drop out and not take his campaign to the convention. In the last debate, Bernie said he would keep his campaign going until the convention if Hillary has not clinched the nomination in pledged delegates. I think that even if it isn't clinched, as long as she has more pledged delegates than he does and more popular vote than he does, he should suspend his campaign and support her. 1. The only way he could win at that point would be if enough superdelegates defect to him to give him the lead. This is entirely undemocratic and it overrides the will of the people. As someone who is running under the guise of being someone who is supported by the people, this would be undemocratic and hypocritical of Bernie. 2. If he does steal the nomination from her by using superdelegates, it would be terrible for party unity against whomever the GOP nominates. Instead of spending the time between the last primaries and the convention consolidating the base and reunifying the party, Bernie will be alienating a huge portion of democrats who are more moderate and don't support his views, as well as Clinton supporters who will feel the nomination was stolen. This is akin to the GOP "establishment" stealing the election from Trump in terms of backlash. 3. It's been tradition that despite the superdelegates supporting one candidate throughout primary season, they will end up unifying behind the person who gets the most pledged delegates. In 08, Hillary's superdelegates went to Obama when it was clear he was going to win. For Bernie to do the opposite and try to take superdelegates who support the person who was democratically chosen would be going against the precedent that's been established. I would also say the same thing about Hillary if Bernie gets the majority of pledged delegates and the popular vote and she used her superdelegates to win. It just seems like that probably won't be the case AND she didn't do that in the past with Obama.

t3_1ymmxh

Since homosexuals cannot naturally pass on their genes, IF you want to argue homosexuality is genetic you must also concede that it is genetic defect. CMV

The purpose behind all organisms is to pass on their genetic code. I'd say we can accept this as a biological fact. As the only way homosexuals can produce offspring is by either having a heterosexual relationship which would negate the homosexual argument, or through artificial insemination which is not a naturally occurring phenomenon, we are left with two options: We concede that homosexuality is by and large behavioral, though it could be subliminal based on the child/adult environment. Or we concede that homosexuality is genetic, caused by a mutation that has no actual positive aspect to the species as a whole. In either case, I could care less who someone sleeps with. But I think people completely ignore this valid point because they become too invested and emotional over homosexuality.

Since homosexuals cannot naturally pass on their genes, IF you want to argue homosexuality is genetic you must also concede that it is genetic defect. CMV. The purpose behind all organisms is to pass on their genetic code. I'd say we can accept this as a biological fact. As the only way homosexuals can produce offspring is by either having a heterosexual relationship which would negate the homosexual argument, or through artificial insemination which is not a naturally occurring phenomenon, we are left with two options: We concede that homosexuality is by and large behavioral, though it could be subliminal based on the child/adult environment. Or we concede that homosexuality is genetic, caused by a mutation that has no actual positive aspect to the species as a whole. In either case, I could care less who someone sleeps with. But I think people completely ignore this valid point because they become too invested and emotional over homosexuality.

t3_5g6vx2

CMV: Daniel Holtzclaw (convicted rapist) did not get a fair trial

Edit: A more accurate title would be "Daniel Holtzclaw should have been acquitted". Sorry for the confusion. Most of the information can be found here: http://www.holtzclawtrial.com/ And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Holtzclaw Here's a summary of the arguments: 1. DNA evidence wasn't conclusive. "Holtzclaw's attorney did get the analyst to admit that it was possible that DNA could have come from secondary contact with Daniel Holtzclaw's hands just touching the teenager's arm during the course of his duties as a police officer." 2. There were no video evidence of alleged sexual assaults. 3. GPS evidence is not sufficient to prove alleged sexual assaults. In addition, the detective for this case, Kim Davis, seemed to have assumed Holtzclaw's guilt even before reviewing any evidence. == Video 1 == http://okcfox.com/news/local/holtzclaw-investigation-detective-speaks-out 1:02 - "When I interviewed Jenny, I knew something happened. I just didn't know who did it." - == Video 2 == https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xzm13gOat8& 8:08 - "... It was infuriating. It was my main focus. I ... I was gonna put him in prison" 11:25 - Here, Davis mentioned making a list of black females from the list of every person Holtzclaw has "ran". I am not sure what to make of this but I don't get why they decided to narrow the list down by race. Why did they assume that Holtzclaw only targeted black females when there are also white females with criminal records that could be abused? - == Video 3 == https://youtu.be/9OdR1lp_GOs? 4:14 - Davis: "It was like interview a robot. There was no emotion from him at all" Reporter: "Your gut told you what then?" Davis: "He did it." 6:36 - Here, she confidently said that it was not about sex but about "power and control". It's kind of odd for her to speak about his intentions with such certainty. It seems equally plausible that he has fetish for older black women and that would be consistent with what is alleged to have happened. - == Video 4 == https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDGFKq8qcC4 3:00 - "There was no motive for her to make this up." I think there are plenty of reasons for people to make false accusations. In fact, 7 victims later filed a civil lawsuit which I assume can result in a : http://okcfox.com/news/local/civil-lawsuit-filed-against-daniel-holtzclaw-city-of-okc == Conclusion== Of course, I am not claiming that Daniel Holtzclaw is innocent. Only he himself knows. However, based on the information above, it seems like there wasn't really enough evidence to determine his guilt. Thanks for reading! _____ > *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: Daniel Holtzclaw (convicted rapist) did not get a fair trial. Edit: A more accurate title would be "Daniel Holtzclaw should have been acquitted". Sorry for the confusion. Most of the information can be found here: http://www.holtzclawtrial.com/ And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Holtzclaw Here's a summary of the arguments: 1. DNA evidence wasn't conclusive. "Holtzclaw's attorney did get the analyst to admit that it was possible that DNA could have come from secondary contact with Daniel Holtzclaw's hands just touching the teenager's arm during the course of his duties as a police officer." 2. There were no video evidence of alleged sexual assaults. 3. GPS evidence is not sufficient to prove alleged sexual assaults. In addition, the detective for this case, Kim Davis, seemed to have assumed Holtzclaw's guilt even before reviewing any evidence. == Video 1 == http://okcfox.com/news/local/holtzclaw-investigation-detective-speaks-out 1:02 - "When I interviewed Jenny, I knew something happened. I just didn't know who did it." - == Video 2 == https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xzm13gOat8& 8:08 - "... It was infuriating. It was my main focus. I ... I was gonna put him in prison" 11:25 - Here, Davis mentioned making a list of black females from the list of every person Holtzclaw has "ran". I am not sure what to make of this but I don't get why they decided to narrow the list down by race. Why did they assume that Holtzclaw only targeted black females when there are also white females with criminal records that could be abused? - == Video 3 == https://youtu.be/9OdR1lp_GOs? 4:14 - Davis: "It was like interview a robot. There was no emotion from him at all" Reporter: "Your gut told you what then?" Davis: "He did it." 6:36 - Here, she confidently said that it was not about sex but about "power and control". It's kind of odd for her to speak about his intentions with such certainty. It seems equally plausible that he has fetish for older black women and that would be consistent with what is alleged to have happened. - == Video 4 == https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDGFKq8qcC4 3:00 - "There was no motive for her to make this up." I think there are plenty of reasons for people to make false accusations. In fact, 7 victims later filed a civil lawsuit which I assume can result in a : http://okcfox.com/news/local/civil-lawsuit-filed-against-daniel-holtzclaw-city-of-okc == Conclusion== Of course, I am not claiming that Daniel Holtzclaw is innocent. Only he himself knows. However, based on the information above, it seems like there wasn't really enough evidence to determine his guilt. Thanks for reading!

t3_6m9mlm

CMV: College and University is a huge societal detriment in its current popularity, due to lessening the working population and requiring tax payer money. The practices encouraging it (i.e. irrelevant degree requirements) should be made illegal.

Keep in mind im only 21, have limited work experience, and the classes are fresh on my mind. I really only have my experience to form my opinion, and a few other peoples stories. Perhaps the very basic ideas are critical to my profession and I just dont understand it, like when we have to take basic math as a kid and think "how will this help me in life?" **1st issue:** For a large number of jobs, the degrees are basically 20,000 dollar pieces of paper that confirm your not incompetent. The employer benefits from this grossly inefficient training because they are not out of pocket any money for it. **2nd issue:** The subjects taught are way too broad. I dont mind basic classes in all honesty, I believe things like very basic algebra and history and a couple other classes make us better citizens. But many are overkill, especially certain core classes of the selected major. **3rd issue:** Classes in themselves are way too broad and shallow. For example, in my Business Statistics class, I had over a 100% as my final grade. Not only will I probably never use 75% of it again, but I will probably forget it within a year. And thats assuming I even actually "know it", when in reality i can probably only perform the basic functions under very controlled and obvious circumstances. I suspect these points arent relevant for things like STEM, Medicine, etc. But i feel this way for business classes especially. Provided my points are true, I think the government should take active roles in preventing employers from promoting degrees. My opinion can be swayed by meeting the criteria: * these "unrelated" classes have significant impact on our productiveness as an employee (thats assuming you even go into work in the same field as your degree) * these classes are best taught at a university rather than job training

CMV: College and University is a huge societal detriment in its current popularity, due to lessening the working population and requiring tax payer money. The practices encouraging it (i.e. irrelevant degree requirements) should be made illegal. Keep in mind im only 21, have limited work experience, and the classes are fresh on my mind. I really only have my experience to form my opinion, and a few other peoples stories. Perhaps the very basic ideas are critical to my profession and I just dont understand it, like when we have to take basic math as a kid and think "how will this help me in life?" **1st issue:** For a large number of jobs, the degrees are basically 20,000 dollar pieces of paper that confirm your not incompetent. The employer benefits from this grossly inefficient training because they are not out of pocket any money for it. **2nd issue:** The subjects taught are way too broad. I dont mind basic classes in all honesty, I believe things like very basic algebra and history and a couple other classes make us better citizens. But many are overkill, especially certain core classes of the selected major. **3rd issue:** Classes in themselves are way too broad and shallow. For example, in my Business Statistics class, I had over a 100% as my final grade. Not only will I probably never use 75% of it again, but I will probably forget it within a year. And thats assuming I even actually "know it", when in reality i can probably only perform the basic functions under very controlled and obvious circumstances. I suspect these points arent relevant for things like STEM, Medicine, etc. But i feel this way for business classes especially. Provided my points are true, I think the government should take active roles in preventing employers from promoting degrees. My opinion can be swayed by meeting the criteria: * these "unrelated" classes have significant impact on our productiveness as an employee (thats assuming you even go into work in the same field as your degree) * these classes are best taught at a university rather than job training

t3_4hj6wy

CMV: College and university presidents should be elected into office by students and faculty.

I believe that students and faculty should have the right to partake in choosing the next president within the administration of their respective universities. Implementing a democratic structure within higher education will benefit the campus culture in multiple ways. Students and faculty will have mutual respect for the elected administration. Secondly, the administration would be obliged to consider the well being of students at the utmost level, and lastly, it will teach students the essence of democracy. Voting in administration within universities will likely encourage more students to engage in the democratic life that is the United States of America. I believe that students and faculty would be more satisfied with the decisions the administration would make for the greater good of the university. My university has undergone a shift within administration and its unfortunate how these changes are negatively affecting student affairs. Not only did we not get to be apart of the process in choosing the next president, we were not allowed to know the candidates during the search. This can cause a rough patch for students and faculty because we are the ones that are affected by the choices they make without consulting us. For instance, the Student Hunger Committee has been urging for a centralized food pantry. Student affairs came up with a resolution that was initially approved by the old administration but due to the change they had to appeal again to the new president. It’s sad to say that not many students know who our new president is let alone our former president. If we could vote for the next administration then more students would be engaged and educated on who is running the show. Lastly, allowing a democratic process in the choice of administration will encourage students to become participating citizens in our democratic government. Students will be more comfortable in choosing to vote because they would be accustomed to it. I feel as if most people who do not vote in our government are either just lazy or not educated on how to vote. We must make sure that we take advantage of our right to vote. If we don’t then we are living in another man’s world.

CMV: College and university presidents should be elected into office by students and faculty. I believe that students and faculty should have the right to partake in choosing the next president within the administration of their respective universities. Implementing a democratic structure within higher education will benefit the campus culture in multiple ways. Students and faculty will have mutual respect for the elected administration. Secondly, the administration would be obliged to consider the well being of students at the utmost level, and lastly, it will teach students the essence of democracy. Voting in administration within universities will likely encourage more students to engage in the democratic life that is the United States of America. I believe that students and faculty would be more satisfied with the decisions the administration would make for the greater good of the university. My university has undergone a shift within administration and its unfortunate how these changes are negatively affecting student affairs. Not only did we not get to be apart of the process in choosing the next president, we were not allowed to know the candidates during the search. This can cause a rough patch for students and faculty because we are the ones that are affected by the choices they make without consulting us. For instance, the Student Hunger Committee has been urging for a centralized food pantry. Student affairs came up with a resolution that was initially approved by the old administration but due to the change they had to appeal again to the new president. It’s sad to say that not many students know who our new president is let alone our former president. If we could vote for the next administration then more students would be engaged and educated on who is running the show. Lastly, allowing a democratic process in the choice of administration will encourage students to become participating citizens in our democratic government. Students will be more comfortable in choosing to vote because they would be accustomed to it. I feel as if most people who do not vote in our government are either just lazy or not educated on how to vote. We must make sure that we take advantage of our right to vote. If we don’t then we are living in another man’s world.

t3_3r327h

CMV: American Football is the greatest strategy game of all time, and playing QB successfully in the NFL is one of the hardest combination of skills in the world.

From this point on since we established that I'm talking about American football I will simply refer to it as football. Football is a tremendously balanced game; each of its many rules ensures that no matter what one side does the other has a viable defense. The game just plays so beautifully because of the multitude of ways an offense can move the ball and how the defense must adapt to prevent that. Their are so many distinct styles of offense from a power run, to spread, to spread option, air raid... And most NFL offenses combine most if not all of them through the season and sometimes even thought the game. Defense even more so; you have a 3-4, a 4-3, the Tampa 2, and some even run a multiple d. Inside of each of these different general styles on both side of the ball are countless "packages." I could go on and on but to wrap it I'll go more specific on the QB part. All this I just mentioned, about the countless different ways an offense moves the ball and defense can try to stop them, must be analyzed and acted on by a QB. A good QB reads these complex defenses and has to make what changes the rules allow and anticipate what he will do when the play starts. On top of that already monstrous mental task a good QB has physical assets/intangibles unmatched by anyone else on earth. Typical they are tall, strong, with freakish abilities to throw a football, take hits, make snap decisions, and control their footwork under immense pressure(most impressive/important imo). Honestly I really could go on about this forever but I'll save it for the comments _____ > *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: American Football is the greatest strategy game of all time, and playing QB successfully in the NFL is one of the hardest combination of skills in the world. From this point on since we established that I'm talking about American football I will simply refer to it as football. Football is a tremendously balanced game; each of its many rules ensures that no matter what one side does the other has a viable defense. The game just plays so beautifully because of the multitude of ways an offense can move the ball and how the defense must adapt to prevent that. Their are so many distinct styles of offense from a power run, to spread, to spread option, air raid... And most NFL offenses combine most if not all of them through the season and sometimes even thought the game. Defense even more so; you have a 3-4, a 4-3, the Tampa 2, and some even run a multiple d. Inside of each of these different general styles on both side of the ball are countless "packages." I could go on and on but to wrap it I'll go more specific on the QB part. All this I just mentioned, about the countless different ways an offense moves the ball and defense can try to stop them, must be analyzed and acted on by a QB. A good QB reads these complex defenses and has to make what changes the rules allow and anticipate what he will do when the play starts. On top of that already monstrous mental task a good QB has physical assets/intangibles unmatched by anyone else on earth. Typical they are tall, strong, with freakish abilities to throw a football, take hits, make snap decisions, and control their footwork under immense pressure(most impressive/important imo). Honestly I really could go on about this forever but I'll save it for the comments

t3_1ra9u4

I believe that the Extensible Markup Language (XML) serves no genuinely useful or beneficial purpose. CMV.

I've been using Linux since 1997, and first used FreeBSD in 1995. In that time, I've gradually been teaching myself the POSIX shell utilities for data manipulation, and I've also done some database driven Web programming with PHP and My/PostgreSQL. Maybe I just haven't been working on sufficiently complex projects, but I've honestly never seen a legitimate reason for XML to exist. There honestly doesn't seem to be anything that can be done with it, that can't be done much more simply and easily with something else. If I want non-relational data, I can use read or cut with a shell script, and if I need relational data, I can use Postgres with PHP, or possibly even a spreadsheet. http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/XML_vs_CSV__0x3a__The_Choice_is_Obvious.aspx - Articles like this, while admittedly snarky and sarcastic, only seem to offer reinforcement for my opinion. I think there are two real reasons why this bothers me so much. It's because whenever I've read any attempt at XML advocacy, it has always had the following two problems. a} There will either be an appeal made to corporate buzzwords, or some other appeal to unnecessary complexity, which can always (literally; ***always***) be proven false by practical demonstration. b} There will be an appeal to arrogance and elitism. "XML is awesome, but the reason why I can appreciate its' awesomeness and you can't, is because I'm more intelligent than you, and can therefore understand said complexity." I do not, however, want to be a bigot; if it was not for the above two points, XML would not bother me. I wouldn't even think about it. If someone here can provide me with a genuine demonstration, of a situation in which XML can solve a problem, which cannot be solved more easily with any other method, then I will change my view. I am, however, fairly confident that nobody will be able to do so. If this thread does not receive sufficient responses here, I will repost it in /r/learnprogramming, if that would be more appropriate. EDIT: I'm wishing I could edit the headline now, as I realise that it was a little harsh. Still, it's probably good for controversy, at least!

I believe that the Extensible Markup Language (XML) serves no genuinely useful or beneficial purpose. CMV. I've been using Linux since 1997, and first used FreeBSD in 1995. In that time, I've gradually been teaching myself the POSIX shell utilities for data manipulation, and I've also done some database driven Web programming with PHP and My/PostgreSQL. Maybe I just haven't been working on sufficiently complex projects, but I've honestly never seen a legitimate reason for XML to exist. There honestly doesn't seem to be anything that can be done with it, that can't be done much more simply and easily with something else. If I want non-relational data, I can use read or cut with a shell script, and if I need relational data, I can use Postgres with PHP, or possibly even a spreadsheet. http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/XML_vs_CSV__0x3a__The_Choice_is_Obvious.aspx - Articles like this, while admittedly snarky and sarcastic, only seem to offer reinforcement for my opinion. I think there are two real reasons why this bothers me so much. It's because whenever I've read any attempt at XML advocacy, it has always had the following two problems. a} There will either be an appeal made to corporate buzzwords, or some other appeal to unnecessary complexity, which can always (literally; ***always***) be proven false by practical demonstration. b} There will be an appeal to arrogance and elitism. "XML is awesome, but the reason why I can appreciate its' awesomeness and you can't, is because I'm more intelligent than you, and can therefore understand said complexity." I do not, however, want to be a bigot; if it was not for the above two points, XML would not bother me. I wouldn't even think about it. If someone here can provide me with a genuine demonstration, of a situation in which XML can solve a problem, which cannot be solved more easily with any other method, then I will change my view. I am, however, fairly confident that nobody will be able to do so. If this thread does not receive sufficient responses here, I will repost it in /r/learnprogramming, if that would be more appropriate. EDIT: I'm wishing I could edit the headline now, as I realise that it was a little harsh. Still, it's probably good for controversy, at least!

t3_26wgvp

CMV:I do not think Google sells user data to the NSA or other government agencies.

I see in a lot of conversations around reddit and other places where people seem to take it for granted that Google just hands over user data to the government. I do not believe this happens, at least not in general. I'm aware that there are cases where Google is compelled to hand over data through warrants and what not, but I've never seen any evidence that there is some kind of relationship between the government and Google where the government can get at Google user data at will. I've also heard that Google employs ex-government employees, but that's not evidence of anything. Google employs tens of thousands of people with all kinds of work histories. Statistically speaking, a few are going to have backgrounds in the government. That doesn't mean there's secret projects to funnel Google data to government agencies. _____ > *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 do not think Google sells user data to the NSA or other government agencies. I see in a lot of conversations around reddit and other places where people seem to take it for granted that Google just hands over user data to the government. I do not believe this happens, at least not in general. I'm aware that there are cases where Google is compelled to hand over data through warrants and what not, but I've never seen any evidence that there is some kind of relationship between the government and Google where the government can get at Google user data at will. I've also heard that Google employs ex-government employees, but that's not evidence of anything. Google employs tens of thousands of people with all kinds of work histories. Statistically speaking, a few are going to have backgrounds in the government. That doesn't mean there's secret projects to funnel Google data to government agencies.

t3_4jkt4m

CMV: The photo /r/The_Donald keeps re-posting isn't actually a big deal

If you've visited /r/The_Donald or /r/all recently, you couldn't have avoided a certain photo or spin-off memes of Hillary Clinton greeting a KKK-member. Now I am not a huge fan of Clinton, but I don't see the big deal here: She, like any other politician or other public figure, posed with hundreds of thousands people for photos. Can you do a background check on all of them? Does posing for a photo with someone mean that you fully endorse every single one of their ideas? Has she ever proclaimed sympathies for the KKK? The answer to all of these is 'no' and this whole shtick is eyeroll-inducing. P.S.: I am aware that /r/The_Donald is a satire sub that thrives on memes and circle-jerking. That's not the point I am addressing, my contention is that a picture like that isn't a big deal. _____ > *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 photo /r/The_Donald keeps re-posting isn't actually a big deal. If you've visited /r/The_Donald or /r/all recently, you couldn't have avoided a certain photo or spin-off memes of Hillary Clinton greeting a KKK-member. Now I am not a huge fan of Clinton, but I don't see the big deal here: She, like any other politician or other public figure, posed with hundreds of thousands people for photos. Can you do a background check on all of them? Does posing for a photo with someone mean that you fully endorse every single one of their ideas? Has she ever proclaimed sympathies for the KKK? The answer to all of these is 'no' and this whole shtick is eyeroll-inducing. P.S.: I am aware that /r/The_Donald is a satire sub that thrives on memes and circle-jerking. That's not the point I am addressing, my contention is that a picture like that isn't a big deal.

t3_277y4m

CMV: I think churches should pay taxes.

> "And Jesus said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's..."- Mark 12:17 I was ordained as a minister in the [Universal Life Church](http://www.themonastery.org/) maybe 15 years ago. I registered online and it took 5 minutes. With a little creativity and some paperwork, I could apply for [tax exemption](http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches-&-Religious-Organizations), perhaps by starting a commune? My commune would use the same public resources as everyone else. As a private citizen, away from my organization, I could send my children to public schools, claim welfare benefits, and enjoy the relative protections and upkeep of the state. Pending how charismatic that I might be, I could have a relatively large compound with surface parking, attracting thousands of visitors, perhaps straining the roads and sewers of the small county that I reside in. It might not be easy to incorporate as a church, and I may be less than sincere, but it is possible. My special authority on the universe will be difficult to challenge and I might tap into thousands of years of western religious traditions to cement my point. Ultimately, the value that I provide as a church is only moderately questionable as the pretense is difficult to rule upon without infringing on my religion. If I paid taxes on my church's earnings, then I would contribute to the quality of services provided by my state. I would be free to lobby legislative bodies and more fully engage my government as a paying participant. I could still incorporate as a nonprofit on the clearly defined activities that I participate in which do qualify with measurable purpose, but the effort that I spend reaping souls would be my own enterprise. Is there reason why church's shouldn't be treated as any other organization? I heard this view years ago, "Churches should pay taxes", and it has always stuck with me. I can't seem to view them as anything more than a personal endeavor that I subsidize as a citizen tax payer. _____ **Edit:** Users cold08 & miyakohouou have changed my mind. Without considering the power dynamic, I would feel that the tax exemption of religious organizations is antiquated gratis to indulge something rather unnecessary, but in reality it's a leash that keeps those influences guarded. A taxable entity can participate and fully lobby for their causes with all coercion, influence, and wealth afforded to them, factors of which that are mitigated by the controls of an exempt status. Further a profitable tax entity will find policy protections from dependent governments. The potential for abuse is concerning. I no longer think churches should be taxed. The analogy would be grabbing a wolf by the ears. _____ > *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 churches should pay taxes. > "And Jesus said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's..."- Mark 12:17 I was ordained as a minister in the [Universal Life Church](http://www.themonastery.org/) maybe 15 years ago. I registered online and it took 5 minutes. With a little creativity and some paperwork, I could apply for [tax exemption](http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches-&-Religious-Organizations), perhaps by starting a commune? My commune would use the same public resources as everyone else. As a private citizen, away from my organization, I could send my children to public schools, claim welfare benefits, and enjoy the relative protections and upkeep of the state. Pending how charismatic that I might be, I could have a relatively large compound with surface parking, attracting thousands of visitors, perhaps straining the roads and sewers of the small county that I reside in. It might not be easy to incorporate as a church, and I may be less than sincere, but it is possible. My special authority on the universe will be difficult to challenge and I might tap into thousands of years of western religious traditions to cement my point. Ultimately, the value that I provide as a church is only moderately questionable as the pretense is difficult to rule upon without infringing on my religion. If I paid taxes on my church's earnings, then I would contribute to the quality of services provided by my state. I would be free to lobby legislative bodies and more fully engage my government as a paying participant. I could still incorporate as a nonprofit on the clearly defined activities that I participate in which do qualify with measurable purpose, but the effort that I spend reaping souls would be my own enterprise. Is there reason why church's shouldn't be treated as any other organization? I heard this view years ago, "Churches should pay taxes", and it has always stuck with me. I can't seem to view them as anything more than a personal endeavor that I subsidize as a citizen tax payer. > *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_1dwhg9

I believe America is a plutocracy. CMV.

It may be a federal republic by name. But by virtue of the stranglehold on the media, political maneuvering/control and other insidious other methods (e.g. stagnant wages for the middle class, lackluster education system for underprivileged), I think it is a de facto plutocracy

I believe America is a plutocracy. CMV. It may be a federal republic by name. But by virtue of the stranglehold on the media, political maneuvering/control and other insidious other methods (e.g. stagnant wages for the middle class, lackluster education system for underprivileged), I think it is a de facto plutocracy

t3_6h3e4k

CMV: The existence of prosperous Asian communities in the US doesn't prove that our nation is a racial meritocracy.

Conservatives enjoy contrasting the favorable statistics of Asian immigrant populations with the rather dismal performance of blacks in America. After all, if the average Indian or Chinese American outearns native whites by a significant margin, then institutional racism must be an illusory concept, right? Unfortunately, this argument is no more accurate than the [myth of Irish enslavement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth). Just like the aforementioned crackpot theory, it can only be accepted through willful ignorance of the available evidence. All Asians in America aren't equally successful. Laotians, Hmong, and Cambodians have significantly higher poverty rates and limited educational attainment. The Vietnamese exhibit relatively high levels of in-group social stratification (mostly due to economic differences between the descendants of first-wave and later generation migrants). A clear pattern begins to emerge from this analysis - the *vast* majority of Asian subgroups that are struggling are either refugees or descendants of refugees. Unlike the framework existing in many European countries, legal immigration here in the US is especially stringent and favors applicants of a certain background. [Indian Americans](http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/chazen-global-insights/singular-population-indian-immigrants-america) are nine times more educated than average residents of their country and tend to be from upper-caste families. Only 10% of Filipinos in the Philipines have [college degrees](https://psa.gov.ph/content/educational-attainment-household-population-results-2010-census) compared to roughly 47% of [Filipino Americans](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/asianamericans-graphics/filipinos/). Some populations of Chinese Americans have existed in the US since the 19th century - however, the largest expansion for their group occurred after 1965. 50% of Chinese immigrants over age 25 from 1965 to 1979 were [college graduates](http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/S25%20-%20Model%20Minority%20Myth.htm), and I'm sure that the percentage of first-generation Chinese immigrants with education has increased *substantially* since then. It is true that Asian Americans faced their fair share of discrimination in past eras (the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese internment immediately come to mind). However, white racial hostility towards Asians gradually diminished with the passage of time due to a changing sociocultural [environment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-real-reason-americans-stopped-spitting-on-asian-americans-and-started-praising-them/?utm_term=.20c3764cadb8). They obviously continue to encounter discrimination in American society, but their populations are racialized in a manner *distinct* from other *non-white* ethnic groups. As a final note, most proponents of the model minority myth blame disparities in black/white life outcomes entirely upon rampant anti-intellectualism, single parenthood, and criminal activity amongst blacks. Unfortunately, the available data indicates that blacks with education/stable families are more likely to struggle financially than their white [counterparts](http://www.demos.org/publication/asset-value-whiteness-understanding-racial-wealth-gap). College-educated blacks (even those with STEM degrees) have significantly higher underemployment rates, and blacks with no criminal records find it more difficult to secure a job than [white felons.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/) Finally, upper-middle class blacks still dwell in segregated [neighborhoods](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/upshot/middle-class-black-families-in-low-income-neighborhoods.html) in spite of their position on the economic ladder. tl;dr 1. Non-refugee Asian immigrants are *favorably* self-selected since they tend to be more educated and ambitious than the *average* person from their home countries. 2. Thanks to the development of the model minority myth, Asians are viewed differently from other POC in the cultural landscape. (Note - I am not suggesting that Asians face "less" racism than other groups in contemporary America. That isn't quantifiable, and there is no value to be gained in playing the Oppression Olympics.) 3. Blacks are still beset with more difficulties than whites or Asians with similar backgrounds even after eliminating the variables of education, criminal conduct, and family structure. _________ > *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 existence of prosperous Asian communities in the US doesn't prove that our nation is a racial meritocracy. Conservatives enjoy contrasting the favorable statistics of Asian immigrant populations with the rather dismal performance of blacks in America. After all, if the average Indian or Chinese American outearns native whites by a significant margin, then institutional racism must be an illusory concept, right? Unfortunately, this argument is no more accurate than the [myth of Irish enslavement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth). Just like the aforementioned crackpot theory, it can only be accepted through willful ignorance of the available evidence. All Asians in America aren't equally successful. Laotians, Hmong, and Cambodians have significantly higher poverty rates and limited educational attainment. The Vietnamese exhibit relatively high levels of in-group social stratification (mostly due to economic differences between the descendants of first-wave and later generation migrants). A clear pattern begins to emerge from this analysis - the *vast* majority of Asian subgroups that are struggling are either refugees or descendants of refugees. Unlike the framework existing in many European countries, legal immigration here in the US is especially stringent and favors applicants of a certain background. [Indian Americans](http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/chazen-global-insights/singular-population-indian-immigrants-america) are nine times more educated than average residents of their country and tend to be from upper-caste families. Only 10% of Filipinos in the Philipines have [college degrees](https://psa.gov.ph/content/educational-attainment-household-population-results-2010-census) compared to roughly 47% of [Filipino Americans](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/asianamericans-graphics/filipinos/). Some populations of Chinese Americans have existed in the US since the 19th century - however, the largest expansion for their group occurred after 1965. 50% of Chinese immigrants over age 25 from 1965 to 1979 were [college graduates](http://www.dartmouth.edu/~hist32/History/S25%20-%20Model%20Minority%20Myth.htm), and I'm sure that the percentage of first-generation Chinese immigrants with education has increased *substantially* since then. It is true that Asian Americans faced their fair share of discrimination in past eras (the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese internment immediately come to mind). However, white racial hostility towards Asians gradually diminished with the passage of time due to a changing sociocultural [environment](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/the-real-reason-americans-stopped-spitting-on-asian-americans-and-started-praising-them/?utm_term=.20c3764cadb8). They obviously continue to encounter discrimination in American society, but their populations are racialized in a manner *distinct* from other *non-white* ethnic groups. As a final note, most proponents of the model minority myth blame disparities in black/white life outcomes entirely upon rampant anti-intellectualism, single parenthood, and criminal activity amongst blacks. Unfortunately, the available data indicates that blacks with education/stable families are more likely to struggle financially than their white [counterparts](http://www.demos.org/publication/asset-value-whiteness-understanding-racial-wealth-gap). College-educated blacks (even those with STEM degrees) have significantly higher underemployment rates, and blacks with no criminal records find it more difficult to secure a job than [white felons.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/) Finally, upper-middle class blacks still dwell in segregated [neighborhoods](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/upshot/middle-class-black-families-in-low-income-neighborhoods.html) in spite of their position on the economic ladder. tl;dr 1. Non-refugee Asian immigrants are *favorably* self-selected since they tend to be more educated and ambitious than the *average* person from their home countries. 2. Thanks to the development of the model minority myth, Asians are viewed differently from other POC in the cultural landscape. (Note - I am not suggesting that Asians face "less" racism than other groups in contemporary America. That isn't quantifiable, and there is no value to be gained in playing the Oppression Olympics.) 3. Blacks are still beset with more difficulties than whites or Asians with similar backgrounds even after eliminating the variables of education, criminal conduct, and family structure. _________ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_1c5s2j

I believe the obese aren't entitled to the same accommodations we make for the disabled.

Last night I went to a show at a venue with ~500 person capacity. It's a mix of tables with chairs for people who want to eat, bar tables, and standing room. People line up really early (an hour+ before doors open), because there are no ins and outs, and if you go in at doors open, and don't get a seat, you will be standing for a while. I arrived right at doors open, and thus wasn't expecting a seat, and didn't find one. However, the obese couple directly behind us in line asked management upon coming in that they set up some extra seats, because they couldn't stand for the show. Management obliged, and the couple ended up partially blocking an aisle-way, with seats right next to people how had been in line for over an hour. On the one hand, there's really nothing that separates their ability to stand for a show from a disabled person's. They were big enough that there's no way they could do it. So in that respect I understand why management accommodated them. I suppose the reason I feel the way I do, is because the vast majority of obese people got that way by choice, but that doesn't really hold up. I definitely wouldn't feel the same way about a chainsaw juggler who had only one leg. I'd be OK with him getting a seat. I suppose you could extend it even further to a disabled soldier. They chose to go to war, yet I don't begrudge them their accommodations. In this particular situation, I'd tend to say it's the responsibility of the person that needs to sit to show up early, regardless if they were born disabled, disabled in an accident, or if they disabled themselves. However, this goes beyond shows. I remember [there was a thread a few weeks ago](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1b3tio/airline_fat_tax_should_heavy_passengers_pay_more/) about whether obese people should be forced to pay for an extra seat in an airplane instead of making that decision themselves, and I recently heard [an NPR story](http://www.npr.org/2013/02/20/172470371/being-obese-can-weigh-on-employees-insurance) about wellness programs at work, and whether it's fair for employers to provide benefits and levy penalties based on how healthy employees are. I don't have a problem with either the "fat tax" for airline tickets, or mandatory wellness programs, but I don't think I'd feel the same if airlines charged a fee for passengers in wheelchairs, or if employers raised premium contributions for every quarter that went by without one of their employees beating their crones diagnosis. Is this just prejudice?

I believe the obese aren't entitled to the same accommodations we make for the disabled. Last night I went to a show at a venue with ~500 person capacity. It's a mix of tables with chairs for people who want to eat, bar tables, and standing room. People line up really early (an hour+ before doors open), because there are no ins and outs, and if you go in at doors open, and don't get a seat, you will be standing for a while. I arrived right at doors open, and thus wasn't expecting a seat, and didn't find one. However, the obese couple directly behind us in line asked management upon coming in that they set up some extra seats, because they couldn't stand for the show. Management obliged, and the couple ended up partially blocking an aisle-way, with seats right next to people how had been in line for over an hour. On the one hand, there's really nothing that separates their ability to stand for a show from a disabled person's. They were big enough that there's no way they could do it. So in that respect I understand why management accommodated them. I suppose the reason I feel the way I do, is because the vast majority of obese people got that way by choice, but that doesn't really hold up. I definitely wouldn't feel the same way about a chainsaw juggler who had only one leg. I'd be OK with him getting a seat. I suppose you could extend it even further to a disabled soldier. They chose to go to war, yet I don't begrudge them their accommodations. In this particular situation, I'd tend to say it's the responsibility of the person that needs to sit to show up early, regardless if they were born disabled, disabled in an accident, or if they disabled themselves. However, this goes beyond shows. I remember [there was a thread a few weeks ago](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1b3tio/airline_fat_tax_should_heavy_passengers_pay_more/) about whether obese people should be forced to pay for an extra seat in an airplane instead of making that decision themselves, and I recently heard [an NPR story](http://www.npr.org/2013/02/20/172470371/being-obese-can-weigh-on-employees-insurance) about wellness programs at work, and whether it's fair for employers to provide benefits and levy penalties based on how healthy employees are. I don't have a problem with either the "fat tax" for airline tickets, or mandatory wellness programs, but I don't think I'd feel the same if airlines charged a fee for passengers in wheelchairs, or if employers raised premium contributions for every quarter that went by without one of their employees beating their crones diagnosis. Is this just prejudice?

t3_3hzg3y

CMV: Hunting is an antiquated sport that should be banned.

First, what I refer to as "hunting" is the killing or trapping of any animal, with the purpose of doing so, as sport, whether it be to eat them as food or keep them as trophies. I am not talking about the regulated hunting of threatening species or the killing of animals in situations where they pose significant danger. Recently, we've seen the story of Cecil the lion become big news across the country and in the world at large. The fact that we as humans hold dominion over all other earthly creatures necessitates the notion of a responsibility we have in keeping balance and order to the food chain, considering that humans are the top of it. Killing for sport is something--one could argue--not inherent only in humans, but we've taken it beyond what it means if an animal were to kill another animal for sport just by sheer organization. I'm speaking of our current gaming rules and regulations in place, meant to keep this balance--one would want to believe--but a system well beyond anything an animal killing another animal for sport could come up with, for obvious reasons. And, as the story of Cecil the lion illustrates, the system governing wildlife from being hunted and killed is flawed, to say the least. In regards to the act of hunting, and then using prey as food, I would argue that in our modern society, this is completely unnecesary, given the obvious institutions in place all ready, i.e., the supermarket. The bottom line may be that hunting exists because we as humans enjoy it, it is thrilling to us, but should that condone its existence? We condemn the murder of humans. Why view other animals any different in that regard? Admittedly, the quandary I have with my argument is that I feel it should be banned all over the world. However, due to the problems and beliefs of other societies around the world, some of which being so underdeveloped that hunting game is a valuable source of income, I have to limit my banning to the United States alone. By doing this, I'm brought back to the senseless killing of Cecil the lion, which was done in a different country. I argue, though, that it was carried out by an American, one who believed in the sport of hunting, who willingly paid tens of thousands of dollars to do it, and that, had he come from a society that looked down on the sport, he might not have had such determination to carry out what he did. Lastly, I say it is *antiquated*, but that is a reflection of my opinion based on the notion that hunting was a means of surviving which is no longer necessary in our current society. This definition recognizes that at one point, there was a reason at some point in history for its existence, however. _____ > *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: Hunting is an antiquated sport that should be banned. First, what I refer to as "hunting" is the killing or trapping of any animal, with the purpose of doing so, as sport, whether it be to eat them as food or keep them as trophies. I am not talking about the regulated hunting of threatening species or the killing of animals in situations where they pose significant danger. Recently, we've seen the story of Cecil the lion become big news across the country and in the world at large. The fact that we as humans hold dominion over all other earthly creatures necessitates the notion of a responsibility we have in keeping balance and order to the food chain, considering that humans are the top of it. Killing for sport is something--one could argue--not inherent only in humans, but we've taken it beyond what it means if an animal were to kill another animal for sport just by sheer organization. I'm speaking of our current gaming rules and regulations in place, meant to keep this balance--one would want to believe--but a system well beyond anything an animal killing another animal for sport could come up with, for obvious reasons. And, as the story of Cecil the lion illustrates, the system governing wildlife from being hunted and killed is flawed, to say the least. In regards to the act of hunting, and then using prey as food, I would argue that in our modern society, this is completely unnecesary, given the obvious institutions in place all ready, i.e., the supermarket. The bottom line may be that hunting exists because we as humans enjoy it, it is thrilling to us, but should that condone its existence? We condemn the murder of humans. Why view other animals any different in that regard? Admittedly, the quandary I have with my argument is that I feel it should be banned all over the world. However, due to the problems and beliefs of other societies around the world, some of which being so underdeveloped that hunting game is a valuable source of income, I have to limit my banning to the United States alone. By doing this, I'm brought back to the senseless killing of Cecil the lion, which was done in a different country. I argue, though, that it was carried out by an American, one who believed in the sport of hunting, who willingly paid tens of thousands of dollars to do it, and that, had he come from a society that looked down on the sport, he might not have had such determination to carry out what he did. Lastly, I say it is *antiquated*, but that is a reflection of my opinion based on the notion that hunting was a means of surviving which is no longer necessary in our current society. This definition recognizes that at one point, there was a reason at some point in history for its existence, however.

t3_3803wy

CMV: Driving is terrifying, and serves no purpose to me.

A little bit of background: I am 17 years old. I live in a small town where pretty much everything is in walking distance(given I have enough time). My friends all live on the same street as me, my school is only a couple of blocks away. I really have no purpose to drive, at least that's what I think. My parents think other wise. They are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless I'm driving. I see driving as a pretty terrifying activity. You are in full control of a 2 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour. Around you are strangers, also controlling 2 ton metal hunks. You have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again. But you have to trust them. Just a small accident could end the life of you, your passengers, and other people on the road. I can't live with that burden. For the record, I have driven before. I got my permit when I was 16, and have only used it a few times. Each time I've used it, I've been stricken with fear. I feel like driving is essential to life nowadays, but I just can't get my head around. 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: Driving is terrifying, and serves no purpose to me. A little bit of background: I am 17 years old. I live in a small town where pretty much everything is in walking distance(given I have enough time). My friends all live on the same street as me, my school is only a couple of blocks away. I really have no purpose to drive, at least that's what I think. My parents think other wise. They are indirectly forcing me to drive by not allowing me to get rides from them anymore, unless I'm driving. I see driving as a pretty terrifying activity. You are in full control of a 2 ton hunk of metal, which can reach speeds up to a hundred miles an hour. Around you are strangers, also controlling 2 ton metal hunks. You have no clue who these people are, and probably will never see them again. But you have to trust them. Just a small accident could end the life of you, your passengers, and other people on the road. I can't live with that burden. For the record, I have driven before. I got my permit when I was 16, and have only used it a few times. Each time I've used it, I've been stricken with fear. I feel like driving is essential to life nowadays, but I just can't get my head around. Please CMV!

t3_1xibgn

I think publicely funded universities should only allow people under the age of 25. CMV.

I believe that anybody over the age of 25 is progressively losing the ability to learn new stuff and thus public ressources shouldn't be wasted on people whose ship has already sailed when it comes to higher education. With every year more ressources will be required to lift them on the same intellectual level of their fellow younger students. Also, their chances of successfully joining the job market are dimishing with every year, so in addition to their poorer mental skills their chances of getting a job and generating value are also diminished. My country offers free education to anyone and those people are draining public ressources. If one over the age of 25 wants to get a higher education, he should pay it for himself. There is no famous scientist or other person who accomplished something who started their career in their "later life".

I think publicely funded universities should only allow people under the age of 25. CMV. I believe that anybody over the age of 25 is progressively losing the ability to learn new stuff and thus public ressources shouldn't be wasted on people whose ship has already sailed when it comes to higher education. With every year more ressources will be required to lift them on the same intellectual level of their fellow younger students. Also, their chances of successfully joining the job market are dimishing with every year, so in addition to their poorer mental skills their chances of getting a job and generating value are also diminished. My country offers free education to anyone and those people are draining public ressources. If one over the age of 25 wants to get a higher education, he should pay it for himself. There is no famous scientist or other person who accomplished something who started their career in their "later life".

t3_5rhzp2

CMV: The money I spend on insurance would be better spent on a savings account.

Literally all insurance is just bought as risk avoidance (or because it's legally required in the case of car insurance). You buy health insurance in case you encounter a terrible health complication, you buy life insurance in case you die, all of these can help to make a bad and very costly situation much easier. The point of my argument though is that insurance costs would be better spent going into a savings account in case something happens. Not only does this reduce the stress of paying 3 different insurance bills, but you're also guaranteed to have the money you put in should your roof collapse due to rot instead of "act of god" or whatever other niche situations are actually covered. To elaborate on my point a bit, most people get less out of insurance than they put in, just by definition. Select few people get lucky enough (or unlucky depending on your perspective) to actually profit from their insurance policies. But I'm not interested in getting lucky, I'm interested in financially responsible and intelligent decisions. In addition, a savings account is versatile in its use and the money I spend on insurance would fairly quickly create a substantial sum in the account, and regardless of what problems arise, it can be used for anything, rather than only the thing it's set aside for. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good idea to just cancel all of my insurance right now, I would need a substantial amount in my savings account right now to feel comfortable doing so. But if I had a large sum in my bank account, it would be a financially sound decision. To change my opinion, anecdotes will be entirely ineffective. If there was a reliable statistic showing that most insurance pays out positively for the majority of people, I could be swayed. Otherwise, I'm not sure what could convince me. Thanks in advance for any answers :D Edit: /u/wekulm brought up the excellent point that there's a point where your savings would be better spent on earning more money via investment in non-liquid assets rather than as an emergency fund, as they would earn more than would be spent on insurance premiums. While insurance companies are still troublesome to deal with, it makes avoiding them altogether a less appealing option, and so I've changed my opinion.

CMV: The money I spend on insurance would be better spent on a savings account. Literally all insurance is just bought as risk avoidance (or because it's legally required in the case of car insurance). You buy health insurance in case you encounter a terrible health complication, you buy life insurance in case you die, all of these can help to make a bad and very costly situation much easier. The point of my argument though is that insurance costs would be better spent going into a savings account in case something happens. Not only does this reduce the stress of paying 3 different insurance bills, but you're also guaranteed to have the money you put in should your roof collapse due to rot instead of "act of god" or whatever other niche situations are actually covered. To elaborate on my point a bit, most people get less out of insurance than they put in, just by definition. Select few people get lucky enough (or unlucky depending on your perspective) to actually profit from their insurance policies. But I'm not interested in getting lucky, I'm interested in financially responsible and intelligent decisions. In addition, a savings account is versatile in its use and the money I spend on insurance would fairly quickly create a substantial sum in the account, and regardless of what problems arise, it can be used for anything, rather than only the thing it's set aside for. To be clear, I'm not saying it's a good idea to just cancel all of my insurance right now, I would need a substantial amount in my savings account right now to feel comfortable doing so. But if I had a large sum in my bank account, it would be a financially sound decision. To change my opinion, anecdotes will be entirely ineffective. If there was a reliable statistic showing that most insurance pays out positively for the majority of people, I could be swayed. Otherwise, I'm not sure what could convince me. Thanks in advance for any answers :D Edit: /u/wekulm brought up the excellent point that there's a point where your savings would be better spent on earning more money via investment in non-liquid assets rather than as an emergency fund, as they would earn more than would be spent on insurance premiums. While insurance companies are still troublesome to deal with, it makes avoiding them altogether a less appealing option, and so I've changed my opinion.

t3_2atl1m

CMV: Men shouldn't have to pay child support if the women doesn't want an abortion and women should be the only decider if she wants an abortion or not.

I know this is a touchy topic, however that's why I'm asking here. I'd like to hear any actual argument against my views. Basically, I believe two things regarding abortion: 1. A man should NEVER have to pay child support if the women in question refuses abortion. 2. A women decides on an abortion, not the father. The reasons behind reason #1 is because I'm using the idea off reason #2. If the women decides against it, that's her problem then. A lot of feminists argue something along the lines of "If you didn't want to pay child support, you shouldn't have had sex." but I cringe at this because it's NOT just the man having sex, it's the women. And unless it's rape (which is another topic), both consented and knew the possible consequences. I understand a women may be upset that the burden is on her part, however this is a biological issue we cannot change. The solution to this is to either not have sex, or take the chance (also, ever heard of birth control? I'd figure the women would know what happens without it, but a lot of them don't care and think child support is the answer to their mistake). The reason behind reason #2 is that I'd figure a women shouldn't be force into an abortion, nor forced to conceive a child without her consent. I know men may get upset about their child, but may I remind you again I do believe we should give rights where do. Even if the father wanted to take care of it, a mother shouldn't be forced into it at all. It's her body, she should not only control how (or if) she'll have sex, but also what to do with being pregnant. I do also believe, that if a father or mother leaves the other with a divorce or breakup, that child support should be used. However, this is AFTER both have consented to have a child. Also that if a father decides he doesn't want the child and it's too late for an abortion, then he should then pay child support. Hope I got my point across. Anyways, I look forward to hearing your thoughts against my arguments. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Men shouldn't have to pay child support if the women doesn't want an abortion and women should be the only decider if she wants an abortion or not. I know this is a touchy topic, however that's why I'm asking here. I'd like to hear any actual argument against my views. Basically, I believe two things regarding abortion: 1. A man should NEVER have to pay child support if the women in question refuses abortion. 2. A women decides on an abortion, not the father. The reasons behind reason #1 is because I'm using the idea off reason #2. If the women decides against it, that's her problem then. A lot of feminists argue something along the lines of "If you didn't want to pay child support, you shouldn't have had sex." but I cringe at this because it's NOT just the man having sex, it's the women. And unless it's rape (which is another topic), both consented and knew the possible consequences. I understand a women may be upset that the burden is on her part, however this is a biological issue we cannot change. The solution to this is to either not have sex, or take the chance (also, ever heard of birth control? I'd figure the women would know what happens without it, but a lot of them don't care and think child support is the answer to their mistake). The reason behind reason #2 is that I'd figure a women shouldn't be force into an abortion, nor forced to conceive a child without her consent. I know men may get upset about their child, but may I remind you again I do believe we should give rights where do. Even if the father wanted to take care of it, a mother shouldn't be forced into it at all. It's her body, she should not only control how (or if) she'll have sex, but also what to do with being pregnant. I do also believe, that if a father or mother leaves the other with a divorce or breakup, that child support should be used. However, this is AFTER both have consented to have a child. Also that if a father decides he doesn't want the child and it's too late for an abortion, then he should then pay child support. Hope I got my point across. Anyways, I look forward to hearing your thoughts against my arguments.

t3_22d7g2

CMV: Public funding of education harms the economy

Public funding of education, either public schools or vouchers, is a [subsidy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy) which results in an inefficient allocation of resources. > Deadweight loss from a subsidy is the amount by which the cost of the subsidy exceeds the gains of the subsidy.[8] The magnitude of the deadweight loss is dependent on the size of the subsidy. This is considered a market failure, or inefficiency. Education is a major portion of the cost of raising children. The public subsidy of education lowers the cost of raising children resulting in a higher birth rate. While in general education increases the earning capabilities of students, the benefits of education are not uniform. Public schools must invest equally in all students even though the benefits of this investment are not the same due to varying abilities of students. In the case of disabled students, public schools are forced to invest even when the benefit is low. _____ > *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: Public funding of education harms the economy. Public funding of education, either public schools or vouchers, is a [subsidy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy) which results in an inefficient allocation of resources. > Deadweight loss from a subsidy is the amount by which the cost of the subsidy exceeds the gains of the subsidy.[8] The magnitude of the deadweight loss is dependent on the size of the subsidy. This is considered a market failure, or inefficiency. Education is a major portion of the cost of raising children. The public subsidy of education lowers the cost of raising children resulting in a higher birth rate. While in general education increases the earning capabilities of students, the benefits of education are not uniform. Public schools must invest equally in all students even though the benefits of this investment are not the same due to varying abilities of students. In the case of disabled students, public schools are forced to invest even when the benefit is low.

t3_3h02rs

CMV: I have little to no sympathy for the victims of the heroin and meth epidemics.

The individual stories of these people are indeed tragedies, but as a population, I view it as karmic backlash. These are the same people, or the children of the same people (that is to say, middle class or semi-affluent rural and suburban white people), who turned a blind eye to the anguish of inner-city people of color suffering under last century's crack epidemic and associated social and health crises, and who often voted for the draconian "remedy" of extended incarceration. They ignored the voices that told them, repeatedly, that addiction and drug abuse were not the result of personal failings, nor a gateway to violent criminality, but instead a symptom of dysfunctional and unsupportive social and economic systems. Of course, only now that these people can see things up close - that neither money nor race can protect them - do we see the acknowledgment that abusers are most often victims, and not predators, as well as the health and social policy reform that reflects this knowledge. This is a good thing. But it's yet another example of death and suffering that could have been avoided if the experience and thoughts of people of color had been valued - if hubris had been replaced with compassion, critical judgment with trust and unity. Unless we see the situation for what it is, it will repeat itself again, and I'm not so sure that we can have such clear sight if we write this off as unforeseeable tragedy. _____ > *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 have little to no sympathy for the victims of the heroin and meth epidemics. The individual stories of these people are indeed tragedies, but as a population, I view it as karmic backlash. These are the same people, or the children of the same people (that is to say, middle class or semi-affluent rural and suburban white people), who turned a blind eye to the anguish of inner-city people of color suffering under last century's crack epidemic and associated social and health crises, and who often voted for the draconian "remedy" of extended incarceration. They ignored the voices that told them, repeatedly, that addiction and drug abuse were not the result of personal failings, nor a gateway to violent criminality, but instead a symptom of dysfunctional and unsupportive social and economic systems. Of course, only now that these people can see things up close - that neither money nor race can protect them - do we see the acknowledgment that abusers are most often victims, and not predators, as well as the health and social policy reform that reflects this knowledge. This is a good thing. But it's yet another example of death and suffering that could have been avoided if the experience and thoughts of people of color had been valued - if hubris had been replaced with compassion, critical judgment with trust and unity. Unless we see the situation for what it is, it will repeat itself again, and I'm not so sure that we can have such clear sight if we write this off as unforeseeable tragedy.

t3_295oqv

CMV: "Culinary Art" is not art.

Chefs and cooks referring to themselves as "Culinary Artists" is incorrect, particularly because what they are doing is not art. Art is any human production for which there is no expected function or use. Thus, there is no sensible way in which one could speak of a piece of art as "malfunctioning," "failing to do the job" or as being "out of service." Art exists indifferent to its audience's demands and expectations. It doesn't have to "deliver the goods," so to speak. To put it technically, art has no *telos*. This stands in stark contrast to so-called "culinary art." With cooking food, you're bound to two *massively* overriding expectations: 1) that the food is edible and 2) that the food tastes good. Of course, there is more to it than that. There are, indeed, little personal flares you can put into the dish, what with garnishes and various plating styles, but nevertheless if these criteria 1) and 2) are missing, you have failed at cooking. For example, you can't serve raw chicken, even if you do enjoy the way it glistens on the plate or how it symbolizes the "rawness" of your relationship with your father. The chicken will neither be edible nor will it taste good in it's raw state. I will say that there are artistic *elements* involved with cooking food. A chef gets to choose how he'll cut his carrots or in what pattern he'll administer his sauce on the plate just like a chair maker gets to choose what kind of bevel he'll use on the chair legs, or a glassblower gets to choose what shape the base of his glass will be. However, at the end of the day, that glass had better be able to hold water and that chair had better be able to hold the weight of someone sitting just like that food had better be edible and tasty. Furthermore, all these people had better be humble and not overestimate the depth and profundity of their work. You're cooking food for someone to eat; you're not painting the Mona Lisa or writing Crime and Punishment. If you truly wanted to make art, why would you choose a field of art that arbitrarily limits you to materials that are both edible and tasty? It must rather be the case that cooking is, in fact, not art but something else. Perhaps something closer to artisanship. Finally, I theorize that “cooking” only became “Culinary Art” because more men entered the field and, like douchebags, were insecure about doing a traditionally woman’s job. Thus, they changed the name, and a once thankless and mundane job became the terrain of "trained professionals." I mean just look at Gordon Ramsey’s smug ass. CMV

CMV: "Culinary Art" is not art. Chefs and cooks referring to themselves as "Culinary Artists" is incorrect, particularly because what they are doing is not art. Art is any human production for which there is no expected function or use. Thus, there is no sensible way in which one could speak of a piece of art as "malfunctioning," "failing to do the job" or as being "out of service." Art exists indifferent to its audience's demands and expectations. It doesn't have to "deliver the goods," so to speak. To put it technically, art has no *telos*. This stands in stark contrast to so-called "culinary art." With cooking food, you're bound to two *massively* overriding expectations: 1) that the food is edible and 2) that the food tastes good. Of course, there is more to it than that. There are, indeed, little personal flares you can put into the dish, what with garnishes and various plating styles, but nevertheless if these criteria 1) and 2) are missing, you have failed at cooking. For example, you can't serve raw chicken, even if you do enjoy the way it glistens on the plate or how it symbolizes the "rawness" of your relationship with your father. The chicken will neither be edible nor will it taste good in it's raw state. I will say that there are artistic *elements* involved with cooking food. A chef gets to choose how he'll cut his carrots or in what pattern he'll administer his sauce on the plate just like a chair maker gets to choose what kind of bevel he'll use on the chair legs, or a glassblower gets to choose what shape the base of his glass will be. However, at the end of the day, that glass had better be able to hold water and that chair had better be able to hold the weight of someone sitting just like that food had better be edible and tasty. Furthermore, all these people had better be humble and not overestimate the depth and profundity of their work. You're cooking food for someone to eat; you're not painting the Mona Lisa or writing Crime and Punishment. If you truly wanted to make art, why would you choose a field of art that arbitrarily limits you to materials that are both edible and tasty? It must rather be the case that cooking is, in fact, not art but something else. Perhaps something closer to artisanship. Finally, I theorize that “cooking” only became “Culinary Art” because more men entered the field and, like douchebags, were insecure about doing a traditionally woman’s job. Thus, they changed the name, and a once thankless and mundane job became the terrain of "trained professionals." I mean just look at Gordon Ramsey’s smug ass. CMV

t3_6svwn6

CMV:If either of the political parties in the US make election reform their primary issue, that topic alone will carry them to victory in an election.

I believe that the average American voter--even if they don't realize it yet--would place government corruption as the number one issue capable of influencing their vote. I dont think there is any other issue that comes close. But because neither party will make a universal push for fixing the process--and therefore endangering their jobs--most people have learned to see it as "just the way things are." My experience during the last election was that the "drain the swamp" slogan was critical to the Trump victory. Whether it is true or not, Clinton was viewed as essentially the current political system/essence of government anthropomorphized. It does not gain traction as an issue because voters on both sides agree that it needs reform. There is no push back and forth to create the conflict that the political system thrives on. But if a majority of either party (but it makes much more sense for Democrats) makes it their number one issue with a distinct plan to reform elections, they will get incredible voter turnout, win over any ttue independents, and in the end get a mandate to make any other legislative push that they want while the focus is shifted as well. I dont think there are any other issues which can come close to the potential power of the idea. Its not been properly tapped (Trump's constant scandalmill let him ditch the slogan and somehow put the genie back in the bottle) and whoever taps the issue first wins the next election, barring another event of 9/11 level disruption. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:If either of the political parties in the US make election reform their primary issue, that topic alone will carry them to victory in an election. I believe that the average American voter--even if they don't realize it yet--would place government corruption as the number one issue capable of influencing their vote. I dont think there is any other issue that comes close. But because neither party will make a universal push for fixing the process--and therefore endangering their jobs--most people have learned to see it as "just the way things are." My experience during the last election was that the "drain the swamp" slogan was critical to the Trump victory. Whether it is true or not, Clinton was viewed as essentially the current political system/essence of government anthropomorphized. It does not gain traction as an issue because voters on both sides agree that it needs reform. There is no push back and forth to create the conflict that the political system thrives on. But if a majority of either party (but it makes much more sense for Democrats) makes it their number one issue with a distinct plan to reform elections, they will get incredible voter turnout, win over any ttue independents, and in the end get a mandate to make any other legislative push that they want while the focus is shifted as well. I dont think there are any other issues which can come close to the potential power of the idea. Its not been properly tapped (Trump's constant scandalmill let him ditch the slogan and somehow put the genie back in the bottle) and whoever taps the issue first wins the next election, barring another event of 9/11 level disruption.

t3_4bk3yv

CMV: Dismissing and defaming those with concerns about Islam being the common factor of recent major terrorist attacks is regressive.

In fact those who are currently discussing the topic should take a leaf out of CMV's book on how to approach these conversations. I have come here after reading some of the backlash on facebook after the Brussels attacks. Much to my surprise, perhaps naively, this backlash was not centred around the terrorists and their motives. But instead around those questioning those motives. It seems like nobody can think "Hmm seems like a common factor of these attacks is Islam, I wonder if there's anything worrying here?" without the fear of being instantly branded a racist or bigot. Wow, since when was that the way to have an adult conversation? I've gone from being someone who thought no ill of islam to someone who wants to see it publicly criticised just so I know it's not immune. Just to be clear - I'm not here to be convinced that silencing people is progressive. I'm just here to have my eyes opened to some perspectives I may be missing. _____ > *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: Dismissing and defaming those with concerns about Islam being the common factor of recent major terrorist attacks is regressive. In fact those who are currently discussing the topic should take a leaf out of CMV's book on how to approach these conversations. I have come here after reading some of the backlash on facebook after the Brussels attacks. Much to my surprise, perhaps naively, this backlash was not centred around the terrorists and their motives. But instead around those questioning those motives. It seems like nobody can think "Hmm seems like a common factor of these attacks is Islam, I wonder if there's anything worrying here?" without the fear of being instantly branded a racist or bigot. Wow, since when was that the way to have an adult conversation? I've gone from being someone who thought no ill of islam to someone who wants to see it publicly criticised just so I know it's not immune. Just to be clear - I'm not here to be convinced that silencing people is progressive. I'm just here to have my eyes opened to some perspectives I may be missing.

t3_1khkd8

Equal treatment for gender/race should not include giving minorities things just for being minorities.CMV

I am all for equal rights for gender/race But the way we are going about it now is really wrong. Instead of trying to just accept that minorities got the raw end of the deal in the past and trying to move forward treating everyone equally. We went to the opposite extreme in that we give minorities things/money just for being minorities, even if they don't need them. 1. Gender: Men and women should be held to the same standards. Gender should not be an issue when hiring someone, only that they can do what the job entails. Example: to become a firefighter you have to pass a certain standard of physical fitness. (makes sense, you have to go into a building that is on fire and carry people out). However, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-service-strength-fitness-tests-relaxed-allow-women-firefighters.html this is just bullshit. In my opinion there should be a standard across the board. If you are a women and can meet that standard, fantastic. If you are a man and can, swell. If you are a women and can't too bad and the same goes for men. Seriously they lower the standard for women to the point where they can drag a body out of the building.... no that is so wrong. Not to mention the vast population of women who want all the GOOD parts of equal treatment while not getting all the bad parts of it. you can't cherrypick. this type of thing only hurts their "women can do anything a man can do" statement. TLDR: equal qualifications for men and women. If you pass you pass, if you don't you don't. 2. Race: I am all for racial equality. But we do it wrong. Instead of just moving forward we decided to swing to the opposite extreme by rewarding people for being a minority. This creates a larger racial gap, namely because minorities are reminded constantly how shitty they had it in the past because of all the free shit they get. Non minorities are reminded of this because sometimes when they actually need help they are refused because of their race. Example: I am a White Male. I am going to university for architecture. I am paying for my schooling myself, and have gotten a total of $0 in scholarships or grants etc etc. The reason being I am a white male. this puts me way into debt. A friend is a minority, His/her family is very wealthy and are paying for his college, or they would. Except He has his entire tuition paid for because he is a minority. TLDR: instead of handing out free shit to minorities for being a minority... why not just help anyone who actually needs help? The minorities who need help will still get help. The only difference is that instead of minorities being treated better everyone will be treated exactly the same. yayyy. To be clear. Not racist and not sexist, a lot of my friends are "non white" and I think women are capable of just as much as men. EDIT: to be very clear. I am not saying whites are being discriminated against. And i am not bitching that I don't personally get scholarships. As one user said, there is a limited budget for aid. So why not be sure that the aid is going to people who NEED it.

Equal treatment for gender/race should not include giving minorities things just for being minorities.CMV. I am all for equal rights for gender/race But the way we are going about it now is really wrong. Instead of trying to just accept that minorities got the raw end of the deal in the past and trying to move forward treating everyone equally. We went to the opposite extreme in that we give minorities things/money just for being minorities, even if they don't need them. 1. Gender: Men and women should be held to the same standards. Gender should not be an issue when hiring someone, only that they can do what the job entails. Example: to become a firefighter you have to pass a certain standard of physical fitness. (makes sense, you have to go into a building that is on fire and carry people out). However, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-service-strength-fitness-tests-relaxed-allow-women-firefighters.html this is just bullshit. In my opinion there should be a standard across the board. If you are a women and can meet that standard, fantastic. If you are a man and can, swell. If you are a women and can't too bad and the same goes for men. Seriously they lower the standard for women to the point where they can drag a body out of the building.... no that is so wrong. Not to mention the vast population of women who want all the GOOD parts of equal treatment while not getting all the bad parts of it. you can't cherrypick. this type of thing only hurts their "women can do anything a man can do" statement. TLDR: equal qualifications for men and women. If you pass you pass, if you don't you don't. 2. Race: I am all for racial equality. But we do it wrong. Instead of just moving forward we decided to swing to the opposite extreme by rewarding people for being a minority. This creates a larger racial gap, namely because minorities are reminded constantly how shitty they had it in the past because of all the free shit they get. Non minorities are reminded of this because sometimes when they actually need help they are refused because of their race. Example: I am a White Male. I am going to university for architecture. I am paying for my schooling myself, and have gotten a total of $0 in scholarships or grants etc etc. The reason being I am a white male. this puts me way into debt. A friend is a minority, His/her family is very wealthy and are paying for his college, or they would. Except He has his entire tuition paid for because he is a minority. TLDR: instead of handing out free shit to minorities for being a minority... why not just help anyone who actually needs help? The minorities who need help will still get help. The only difference is that instead of minorities being treated better everyone will be treated exactly the same. yayyy. To be clear. Not racist and not sexist, a lot of my friends are "non white" and I think women are capable of just as much as men. EDIT: to be very clear. I am not saying whites are being discriminated against. And i am not bitching that I don't personally get scholarships. As one user said, there is a limited budget for aid. So why not be sure that the aid is going to people who NEED it.

t3_4l4dh9

CMV: I don't think Switzerland should force Muslim boys to shake their female teachers hands with a threat of a large fine.

Referring to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4l1jkj/switzerland_muslim_students_must_shake_teachers/ I don't care if it's the culture. How would you feel if I forced you to shake my hand? Can somebody for the love of all, explain the rationality behind this? Since when are we forcing people to partake in culture? Would it be right if we force foreigners to wear a sombrero? Could we force foreigners to play bagpipes in Scotland? No, of course not. If I don't want to shake anyone's hand, for any reason at all, I should be well within my right not to shake someones stupid hand. Why must we force people and kids to conform to social norms, when these social norms aren't even useful in any concrete way? It saves nobodys life. It's not a loss to anybody that someone doesn't shake a hand. It shouldn't even offend anybody and even if it should, it shouldn't be made illegal. And yet the muslim kids are gona pay fines of over 4,500 Euros if they still continue to not shake their teachers hands. This will not help muslims integrate and even if it did it's not right to force someone to do some vapid and braindead gesture. This will persecute them and make the radicals feel even less welcome and persecuted. I think it is utterly pathetic that people use the law to force others to conform socially just because "It's normal to do x, so we should force everyone to do it". It speaks magnitude of the persons mental individuality and immature psyche that he/she takes great offense when somebody doesn't fucking shake a hand, because others do. Reminds me of old people bullying young teenagers for smoking cigarettes because they are too bored with their own lives. Now, tell me, why am I "wrong"? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think Switzerland should force Muslim boys to shake their female teachers hands with a threat of a large fine. Referring to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4l1jkj/switzerland_muslim_students_must_shake_teachers/ I don't care if it's the culture. How would you feel if I forced you to shake my hand? Can somebody for the love of all, explain the rationality behind this? Since when are we forcing people to partake in culture? Would it be right if we force foreigners to wear a sombrero? Could we force foreigners to play bagpipes in Scotland? No, of course not. If I don't want to shake anyone's hand, for any reason at all, I should be well within my right not to shake someones stupid hand. Why must we force people and kids to conform to social norms, when these social norms aren't even useful in any concrete way? It saves nobodys life. It's not a loss to anybody that someone doesn't shake a hand. It shouldn't even offend anybody and even if it should, it shouldn't be made illegal. And yet the muslim kids are gona pay fines of over 4,500 Euros if they still continue to not shake their teachers hands. This will not help muslims integrate and even if it did it's not right to force someone to do some vapid and braindead gesture. This will persecute them and make the radicals feel even less welcome and persecuted. I think it is utterly pathetic that people use the law to force others to conform socially just because "It's normal to do x, so we should force everyone to do it". It speaks magnitude of the persons mental individuality and immature psyche that he/she takes great offense when somebody doesn't fucking shake a hand, because others do. Reminds me of old people bullying young teenagers for smoking cigarettes because they are too bored with their own lives. Now, tell me, why am I "wrong"?

t3_1w9h3t

I think that the ace should be able to the be middle card in a straight in the game of poker. CMV

So in the game of poker, the only way to get a straight while holding an ace would be an A, 2, 3, 4, 5, or a 10, J, Q, K, A. This provides a little bit of frustration in the gameplay because the ace is the only card that does not allow for an open ended straight. For instance, a straight could not be achieved by having a Q, K, A, 2, 3. The argument I could foresee coming up would be that since the ace is the highest card in poker, making it the it the lowest card in a straight does even it out a bit. For instance, if the flop shows a 2, 3, 4, 5, then a 6 would be more beneficial than an A whereas 6 is not as valuable of a card otherwise. That may be the reason for this rule, but I doubt it. Anyone want to shed some information and CMV? edit: Two users have given great counter-arguments that have indeed changed my view. I have awarded deltas to both.

I think that the ace should be able to the be middle card in a straight in the game of poker. CMV. So in the game of poker, the only way to get a straight while holding an ace would be an A, 2, 3, 4, 5, or a 10, J, Q, K, A. This provides a little bit of frustration in the gameplay because the ace is the only card that does not allow for an open ended straight. For instance, a straight could not be achieved by having a Q, K, A, 2, 3. The argument I could foresee coming up would be that since the ace is the highest card in poker, making it the it the lowest card in a straight does even it out a bit. For instance, if the flop shows a 2, 3, 4, 5, then a 6 would be more beneficial than an A whereas 6 is not as valuable of a card otherwise. That may be the reason for this rule, but I doubt it. Anyone want to shed some information and CMV? edit: Two users have given great counter-arguments that have indeed changed my view. I have awarded deltas to both.

t3_5n1bmd

CMV: The argument that overseas '3rd world' manufacturing is immoral because "workers are getting paid 20c per day" is inherently flawed.

The reason this logic is flawed is because it ignores a number of important factors. First, the arbitrary '20c' figure is not reflective of currency or the value of money in the country in question. It ignores the fact that although the amount may be small by standard of the country we live in, it is reflective of a working wage in the other country. Second it ignores the fact that the country has it's own economy with it's own job market, meaning that if the factory was really hiring people with such immoral payment then the workers would simply work elsewhere. The factory (or workplace) would have to conduct itself in a way that is comparable to the workplaces around it, otherwise people simply wouldn't work there. We shouldn't base the workplaces of other countries on standards set by the modern lifestyles that we are accustomed to. We must allow the workplaces of those countries to evolve naturally and with the same dignity that we did.

CMV: The argument that overseas '3rd world' manufacturing is immoral because "workers are getting paid 20c per day" is inherently flawed. The reason this logic is flawed is because it ignores a number of important factors. First, the arbitrary '20c' figure is not reflective of currency or the value of money in the country in question. It ignores the fact that although the amount may be small by standard of the country we live in, it is reflective of a working wage in the other country. Second it ignores the fact that the country has it's own economy with it's own job market, meaning that if the factory was really hiring people with such immoral payment then the workers would simply work elsewhere. The factory (or workplace) would have to conduct itself in a way that is comparable to the workplaces around it, otherwise people simply wouldn't work there. We shouldn't base the workplaces of other countries on standards set by the modern lifestyles that we are accustomed to. We must allow the workplaces of those countries to evolve naturally and with the same dignity that we did.

t3_2gjw4d

CMV: The USA's renewed military action in Iraq shows they are protecting their oil interests in the region as no action has been taken in similar circumstances in Syria

I know this topic has been covered in the past with regards to Iraq. However, in recent weeks, in the context of ISIS forces in both countries, it begs the question why the US has deployed troops in Iraq when the same forces also occupy Syria and are committing similar war crimes. The most obvious difference being the need to establish a stable government in Iraq to ensure oil production, though are there other reasons. Would the US really wage a war based on morality in Iraq, given the lack of action seen in Syria and Palestine that both have well documented cases of war crimes?

CMV: The USA's renewed military action in Iraq shows they are protecting their oil interests in the region as no action has been taken in similar circumstances in Syria. I know this topic has been covered in the past with regards to Iraq. However, in recent weeks, in the context of ISIS forces in both countries, it begs the question why the US has deployed troops in Iraq when the same forces also occupy Syria and are committing similar war crimes. The most obvious difference being the need to establish a stable government in Iraq to ensure oil production, though are there other reasons. Would the US really wage a war based on morality in Iraq, given the lack of action seen in Syria and Palestine that both have well documented cases of war crimes?

t3_3n09l8

CMV: Socialism is superior to capitalism.

In my opinion, socialism is superior to capitalism in many regards: **1. Democratic control of the means of production is necessary in a fair and free society.** In a capitalist system, the ruling class decides what is produced, and they usually do so (because they're only human) to benefit themselves and not the people as a whole. Additionally, in capitalism, being rich is advantageous and will give you more say in what is produced. Therefore, not only do a handful of people have the power to make selfish decisions at the cost of the people, they are encouraged to do so. In a socialist system, this problem would be solved by giving everyone an equal say in what is produced. People would still make decisions in their own self-interest, of course, but since *everybody* has the same amount of say, nobody would be able to make decisions at the expense of others. In addition, because everyone would be able to vote in their own self-interests and be fairly represented, there would be no reason for ills like poverty to exist. **2. More innovation would occur under socialism.** Despite capitalist claims to the contrary, it is my view that in a socialist system more innovation occur. Why? Because if one individual or corporation has a monopoly, or large amounts of influence in an economic sphere, it is his or her self interest to prevent competition in that sphere, because people buying from a different company hurts sales. Therefore it is advantageous to stomp our new ideas. In socialism, this would not occur because everyone would have an equal amount of control of the economy, and there would be no reason for anyone to have the desire to prevent innovation. Those are my main, and best, reasons I have for supporting socialism. If I think of any more, I will edit the text and add them. I look forward to a healthy and challenging discussion.

CMV: Socialism is superior to capitalism. In my opinion, socialism is superior to capitalism in many regards: **1. Democratic control of the means of production is necessary in a fair and free society.** In a capitalist system, the ruling class decides what is produced, and they usually do so (because they're only human) to benefit themselves and not the people as a whole. Additionally, in capitalism, being rich is advantageous and will give you more say in what is produced. Therefore, not only do a handful of people have the power to make selfish decisions at the cost of the people, they are encouraged to do so. In a socialist system, this problem would be solved by giving everyone an equal say in what is produced. People would still make decisions in their own self-interest, of course, but since *everybody* has the same amount of say, nobody would be able to make decisions at the expense of others. In addition, because everyone would be able to vote in their own self-interests and be fairly represented, there would be no reason for ills like poverty to exist. **2. More innovation would occur under socialism.** Despite capitalist claims to the contrary, it is my view that in a socialist system more innovation occur. Why? Because if one individual or corporation has a monopoly, or large amounts of influence in an economic sphere, it is his or her self interest to prevent competition in that sphere, because people buying from a different company hurts sales. Therefore it is advantageous to stomp our new ideas. In socialism, this would not occur because everyone would have an equal amount of control of the economy, and there would be no reason for anyone to have the desire to prevent innovation. Those are my main, and best, reasons I have for supporting socialism. If I think of any more, I will edit the text and add them. I look forward to a healthy and challenging discussion.

t3_1qccqo

I think civilization will eventually collapse without an embryo selection program. CMV.

Evolution works through natural selection on random mutations. Most mutations in an organism are detrimental, and so have to be weeded out of the gene pool. [Every human being is born with an average of about 60 new mutations.](http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/06/hyper-human-mutations-60-new-mutations-in-each-genome.html) Important to note is that the earlier a defect is spotted the better, as it ensures that the kin of an organism do not waste their limited resources on the organism. This is why about a quarter of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion. Infant mortality rates until recent times used to be around 25%. If we look at under five mortality, we're looking at about a third. Selection happens through termination of a life, and thus infant mortality until recent times has been one of nature's main weapons in preserving the genetic integrity of our species. A variety of interventions (nutrition, hygiene, vaccination) have made it possible for us to reduce infant mortality from 25% to about 0.4%. The result of this is that spontaneous mutations can now endlessly stack up, because one of the most important selective events no longer exists. So, what type of mutations are we talking about? Logic tells us that we should be looking for mutations that are subacute, that is, mutations with subtly detrimental effects to our wellbeing. After all, most embryos with highly damaging mutations are already eliminated much earlier, during the first trimester of pregnancy. Many of our mental disorders may be traced back to a reduction in infant mortality. As an example, [depression is often caused by mutations in serotonin producing genes](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2004/mutant-gene-linked-to-treatment-resistant-depression.shtml). Thus, if such mutations were once selected against in infancy but are now passed onto the next generation, we can expect to see a progressive increase in depression occur. For this to happen, the mutation would need to have some sort of effect that made it more likely for an infant to die. For a serotonin linked mutation such an effect on infant mortality is not hard to come up with. [In rats it is found that cytokine expression is much higher if the rats produce very little serotonin.](http://www.jneuroinflammation.com/content/10/1/116) In the case of infant mortality, infectious disease often causes death through a phenomenon known as a [cytokine storm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm#Role_in_pandemic_deaths). Thus, it is quite possible for a rise in depressive disorders in modern society to be caused by a lack of deaths of infants whose bodies produce very little serotonin. To illustrate the severity of the problem, consider the following mathematical example. We assume a syndrome currently occurs in 0.1% of a primitive population. Spontaneous mutations cause the disease to occur in 1% of newborns. However vulnerability to infectious disease causes 90% of infants with mutations associated with the syndrome to die. People affected by the disease do not reproduce. Now along comes the civilized man, who brings the primitives hygiene, nutrition and vaccination, leading to an elimination of infant mortality. What happens now? Infant mortality declines to zero. However, the infants born with the syndrome now grow up to be adults. Thus, prevalence of the syndrome increases by 900%, from 0.1% of the population to 1% of the population. I therefore believe that the result of a 0% infant mortality rate will be a steadily increasing rate of various disorders, such as diabetes, mental illness, subfertility and various other ailments. This ongoing disaster can only be stopped through a very rigorous genetic selection programs, whereby we screen every embryo to ensure that it carries no mutations in genes that are vital for our wellbeing, before we implant the embryo into a mother. It may therefore be necessary to screen ten embryos, and select the healthiest of the ten. Without such a program we will witness the decline of our civilization. Most of the people born until then will spend their lives in torturous circumstances, as their bodies and brains will be riddled with various defects.

I think civilization will eventually collapse without an embryo selection program. CMV. Evolution works through natural selection on random mutations. Most mutations in an organism are detrimental, and so have to be weeded out of the gene pool. [Every human being is born with an average of about 60 new mutations.](http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/06/hyper-human-mutations-60-new-mutations-in-each-genome.html) Important to note is that the earlier a defect is spotted the better, as it ensures that the kin of an organism do not waste their limited resources on the organism. This is why about a quarter of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion. Infant mortality rates until recent times used to be around 25%. If we look at under five mortality, we're looking at about a third. Selection happens through termination of a life, and thus infant mortality until recent times has been one of nature's main weapons in preserving the genetic integrity of our species. A variety of interventions (nutrition, hygiene, vaccination) have made it possible for us to reduce infant mortality from 25% to about 0.4%. The result of this is that spontaneous mutations can now endlessly stack up, because one of the most important selective events no longer exists. So, what type of mutations are we talking about? Logic tells us that we should be looking for mutations that are subacute, that is, mutations with subtly detrimental effects to our wellbeing. After all, most embryos with highly damaging mutations are already eliminated much earlier, during the first trimester of pregnancy. Many of our mental disorders may be traced back to a reduction in infant mortality. As an example, [depression is often caused by mutations in serotonin producing genes](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2004/mutant-gene-linked-to-treatment-resistant-depression.shtml). Thus, if such mutations were once selected against in infancy but are now passed onto the next generation, we can expect to see a progressive increase in depression occur. For this to happen, the mutation would need to have some sort of effect that made it more likely for an infant to die. For a serotonin linked mutation such an effect on infant mortality is not hard to come up with. [In rats it is found that cytokine expression is much higher if the rats produce very little serotonin.](http://www.jneuroinflammation.com/content/10/1/116) In the case of infant mortality, infectious disease often causes death through a phenomenon known as a [cytokine storm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytokine_storm#Role_in_pandemic_deaths). Thus, it is quite possible for a rise in depressive disorders in modern society to be caused by a lack of deaths of infants whose bodies produce very little serotonin. To illustrate the severity of the problem, consider the following mathematical example. We assume a syndrome currently occurs in 0.1% of a primitive population. Spontaneous mutations cause the disease to occur in 1% of newborns. However vulnerability to infectious disease causes 90% of infants with mutations associated with the syndrome to die. People affected by the disease do not reproduce. Now along comes the civilized man, who brings the primitives hygiene, nutrition and vaccination, leading to an elimination of infant mortality. What happens now? Infant mortality declines to zero. However, the infants born with the syndrome now grow up to be adults. Thus, prevalence of the syndrome increases by 900%, from 0.1% of the population to 1% of the population. I therefore believe that the result of a 0% infant mortality rate will be a steadily increasing rate of various disorders, such as diabetes, mental illness, subfertility and various other ailments. This ongoing disaster can only be stopped through a very rigorous genetic selection programs, whereby we screen every embryo to ensure that it carries no mutations in genes that are vital for our wellbeing, before we implant the embryo into a mother. It may therefore be necessary to screen ten embryos, and select the healthiest of the ten. Without such a program we will witness the decline of our civilization. Most of the people born until then will spend their lives in torturous circumstances, as their bodies and brains will be riddled with various defects.

t3_59twl3

CMV: It is unwise for the rich to not let their children inherit their wealth

Inspired by articles like these: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopmusic/10917900/Sting-my-children-wont-inherit-my-wealth.html http://www.businessinsider.com/tycoons-not-leaving-money-to-their-kids-2013-8 I think that it is unwise for the rich to not let their children inherit their wealth. Obviously everyone wants the best for their kids, so they should just let their kids inherit their money. I understand that having a lot of money will lead to problems such as becoming lazy as you don't want to work, but the point is if you are that rich, you don't need to work. I guess these rich parents want their kids to understand that money cannot buy everything but the truth is it can buy you a lot of things. What is wrong with letting your kids using your money to live a vacation lifestyle every day? Obviously it is a problem if you need to earn money to survive, but these kids don't. The point is if you can afford it, there is no harm in doing that. I personally think it is a waste for these rich people to not let their kids inherit their money when poor people wish that they have more money for their kids to have. They are just wasting their hard work by not giving their money to their children. I know that there is inheritance taxes in some countries, but still, when you are so rich, the amount you need to pay for those taxes is a small amount in comparison. All in all, rich people letting their kids inherit their money does more good than bad. _____ > *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 unwise for the rich to not let their children inherit their wealth. Inspired by articles like these: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopmusic/10917900/Sting-my-children-wont-inherit-my-wealth.html http://www.businessinsider.com/tycoons-not-leaving-money-to-their-kids-2013-8 I think that it is unwise for the rich to not let their children inherit their wealth. Obviously everyone wants the best for their kids, so they should just let their kids inherit their money. I understand that having a lot of money will lead to problems such as becoming lazy as you don't want to work, but the point is if you are that rich, you don't need to work. I guess these rich parents want their kids to understand that money cannot buy everything but the truth is it can buy you a lot of things. What is wrong with letting your kids using your money to live a vacation lifestyle every day? Obviously it is a problem if you need to earn money to survive, but these kids don't. The point is if you can afford it, there is no harm in doing that. I personally think it is a waste for these rich people to not let their kids inherit their money when poor people wish that they have more money for their kids to have. They are just wasting their hard work by not giving their money to their children. I know that there is inheritance taxes in some countries, but still, when you are so rich, the amount you need to pay for those taxes is a small amount in comparison. All in all, rich people letting their kids inherit their money does more good than bad.

t3_1fzn65

I believe that global emission regulation, doesn't need to reshape resource consumption control. That it doesn't hinder the ability of growth and flourishing in poorer nations. CMV

I believe that the individual is not more vital then the global scale. That there are some emissions that are vital to the growth of any single community or group regardless of their society placement. That there isn't that much damage caused by carbon emissions, and any damage there is can be undone through a relatively simple process. CMV EDIT: These are my grandparents views. Anyways what I am trying to get is some help to defend my view, which conflict these views.

I believe that global emission regulation, doesn't need to reshape resource consumption control. That it doesn't hinder the ability of growth and flourishing in poorer nations. CMV. I believe that the individual is not more vital then the global scale. That there are some emissions that are vital to the growth of any single community or group regardless of their society placement. That there isn't that much damage caused by carbon emissions, and any damage there is can be undone through a relatively simple process. CMV EDIT: These are my grandparents views. Anyways what I am trying to get is some help to defend my view, which conflict these views.