Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1l94qi

CMV: Altruism is only a different form of selfishness

To qualify: I believe people are completely, and utterly selfish. On most occasions, people do what they think will benefit themselves the most. Almost every "selfless" or "good" action taken by a person is simply a facade. Generally, those acts fulfill the person in some way. For instance, you might say that someone who gives money to a homeless guy is simply kind, but they are only doing this act because they are fulfilled by it. It makes them feel good. It makes their friends view them as kind, which makes them happy. I would articulate more but I'm sure you all get the point. :)

CMV: Altruism is only a different form of selfishness. To qualify: I believe people are completely, and utterly selfish. On most occasions, people do what they think will benefit themselves the most. Almost every "selfless" or "good" action taken by a person is simply a facade. Generally, those acts fulfill the person in some way. For instance, you might say that someone who gives money to a homeless guy is simply kind, but they are only doing this act because they are fulfilled by it. It makes them feel good. It makes their friends view them as kind, which makes them happy. I would articulate more but I'm sure you all get the point. :)

t3_4aehnd

CMV: What people think of you is more important than what you think of yourself.

I would really like to believe the opposite (and not be so self-deprecating), but I'm having such a hard time wrapping my head around it. It seems like almost everything in your life is greatly influenced, if not determined, by what people think of you. How people interact with you, how you're treated, where you get in life, and even your family/romantic life. Doesn't your reputation or image build your entire life? Who wants to be your friend, who wants to invite you to things, who wants to date you, who asks you for help, the service you get at malls and restaurants, the likelihood of being promoted or hired, your relationship with your children or SO, etc. I'm sure many of you have heard of the book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" written by Dale Carnegie. Aren't many of these self-help books, that teach you how to be successful or liked, really teaching you how to change people's perception of you? Even if I am happy with myself, if others are not happy with me, then where does that put me? Many people have different thoughts on our purpose in life. Some say love, some say reproduction, and some say to change the world. Isn't that all dependent on what people think of you? If you found the cure for cancer, but no one wants to listen to you, how can you share it with the world? Please change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: What people think of you is more important than what you think of yourself. I would really like to believe the opposite (and not be so self-deprecating), but I'm having such a hard time wrapping my head around it. It seems like almost everything in your life is greatly influenced, if not determined, by what people think of you. How people interact with you, how you're treated, where you get in life, and even your family/romantic life. Doesn't your reputation or image build your entire life? Who wants to be your friend, who wants to invite you to things, who wants to date you, who asks you for help, the service you get at malls and restaurants, the likelihood of being promoted or hired, your relationship with your children or SO, etc. I'm sure many of you have heard of the book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" written by Dale Carnegie. Aren't many of these self-help books, that teach you how to be successful or liked, really teaching you how to change people's perception of you? Even if I am happy with myself, if others are not happy with me, then where does that put me? Many people have different thoughts on our purpose in life. Some say love, some say reproduction, and some say to change the world. Isn't that all dependent on what people think of you? If you found the cure for cancer, but no one wants to listen to you, how can you share it with the world? Please change my view.

t3_1s9mfh

I think that presenting gay marriage as a human rights issue is disingenuous. CMV

Ok, first I want to state that I am in no way against gay marriage or homosexuality in anyway. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business what two (or however many) people want to do with each other. If two people (or however many) decide to get married, then let them. I want to make it clear, I'm not saying it should be illegal, I think it should be legal. I do not, however, think it is a human rights issue. It's not like gay people are being round up and shot or are forced into ghettos. I mean, it's only marriage. As far as I'm aware, there is no universal declaration of the right to marry. To put it another way, polygamy is also illegal in America. I've yet to hear someone say that this is a violation of human rights and yet what's so fundamentally different between this and gay marriage?(morally, not technically) I personally don't care if polygamy were legal, but I certainly don't consider it a rights issue. TL:DR Basically my view is this: gay marriage is just as much of a humans rights issue as polygamy is and think the current rhetoric surrounding the issue is way too hyperbolic. Also, I don't see the difference between the two from a moral perspective. (I'm not saying either is immoral.) Edit: a word

I think that presenting gay marriage as a human rights issue is disingenuous. CMV. Ok, first I want to state that I am in no way against gay marriage or homosexuality in anyway. As far as I'm concerned, it's none of my business what two (or however many) people want to do with each other. If two people (or however many) decide to get married, then let them. I want to make it clear, I'm not saying it should be illegal, I think it should be legal. I do not, however, think it is a human rights issue. It's not like gay people are being round up and shot or are forced into ghettos. I mean, it's only marriage. As far as I'm aware, there is no universal declaration of the right to marry. To put it another way, polygamy is also illegal in America. I've yet to hear someone say that this is a violation of human rights and yet what's so fundamentally different between this and gay marriage?(morally, not technically) I personally don't care if polygamy were legal, but I certainly don't consider it a rights issue. TL:DR Basically my view is this: gay marriage is just as much of a humans rights issue as polygamy is and think the current rhetoric surrounding the issue is way too hyperbolic. Also, I don't see the difference between the two from a moral perspective. (I'm not saying either is immoral.) Edit: a word

t3_1fygl1

I don't see anything wrong with what the NSA has been doing. CMV.

I understand people get all defensive about their privacy. But I don't see the actual harm in the government having access to my Facebook, Youtube, or Gmail information. I don't care if the NSA knows that I'm going out Saturday night or I'm getting a new cat. I just feel like if you have nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about. I know that might sound awfully dystopian or 1984ish, but people are writing horrible stuff about Obama and America right now on Facebook and it's not like they're being imprisoned for it. But maybe there's something I'm not getting. Change my view Reddit.

I don't see anything wrong with what the NSA has been doing. CMV. I understand people get all defensive about their privacy. But I don't see the actual harm in the government having access to my Facebook, Youtube, or Gmail information. I don't care if the NSA knows that I'm going out Saturday night or I'm getting a new cat. I just feel like if you have nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about. I know that might sound awfully dystopian or 1984ish, but people are writing horrible stuff about Obama and America right now on Facebook and it's not like they're being imprisoned for it. But maybe there's something I'm not getting. Change my view Reddit.

t3_6fzoe7

CMV: a nation's apparently legitimate claim of sovereignty is not sufficient reason to give it up conquered land, how the people who live there are being treated is the relevant factor

firstly all land claims ultimately come down to someone having claimed uninhabited territory they just stumbled across then them deciding that meant it was there's. that or they took it from someone already living there. That being the case I don't think claims of sovereignty have any kind of ultimate legitimacy that outsiders are morally bound to respect. That being the case I think trying to work out who has the right to any bit of land is a fool's errand because no one really has a inalienable right to it. That being the case I think that the only way to decide who should govern a piece of land is to look at how the people who live there are treated. If the people who live somewhere are treated well by their government, that government should remain in power even if they only became the government as a result of a war some time in the past. > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: a nation's apparently legitimate claim of sovereignty is not sufficient reason to give it up conquered land, how the people who live there are being treated is the relevant factor. firstly all land claims ultimately come down to someone having claimed uninhabited territory they just stumbled across then them deciding that meant it was there's. that or they took it from someone already living there. That being the case I don't think claims of sovereignty have any kind of ultimate legitimacy that outsiders are morally bound to respect. That being the case I think trying to work out who has the right to any bit of land is a fool's errand because no one really has a inalienable right to it. That being the case I think that the only way to decide who should govern a piece of land is to look at how the people who live there are treated. If the people who live somewhere are treated well by their government, that government should remain in power even if they only became the government as a result of a war some time in the past. > *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_292lpw

CMV: Brining up children and making them adhere to a religious faith is child abuse and should be dealt with by the law.

As an atheist who believes in that the science is the only way to explain the questions regarding the origins of everything from the universe and all it contains, teaching children 'stories' written and edited only 2000 years ago (as most major religions have their origins) can explain everything with no empirical evidence at all and that if they do not believe these stories they shall be punished is bordering child abuse. In my eyes its the same as bringing up a child teaching them that Harry Potter is a historical text and not fiction. That child's view of the real world and everything it contains is being severely warped from an early age unfairly. To give no choice to a child or even present any other alternative to the parent own beliefs, imo, should be a crime as it deprives them of both choice and, again imo, the truth. I see it as intentionally emparting life rules which were made up and disadvantage the child for life. I don't have a problem with religion in general, it does a lot of good for a lot of people and can help people through life, especially when things are going badly for them. Plus I very much believe in 'each to their own' but that should not effect young children. It's just the issue of raising children in that environment and giving them no other option believe is wrong and in borderline criminal. My apologies for any grammatical or spelling errors, im dyslexic so probably missed a few ha. _____ > *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: Brining up children and making them adhere to a religious faith is child abuse and should be dealt with by the law. As an atheist who believes in that the science is the only way to explain the questions regarding the origins of everything from the universe and all it contains, teaching children 'stories' written and edited only 2000 years ago (as most major religions have their origins) can explain everything with no empirical evidence at all and that if they do not believe these stories they shall be punished is bordering child abuse. In my eyes its the same as bringing up a child teaching them that Harry Potter is a historical text and not fiction. That child's view of the real world and everything it contains is being severely warped from an early age unfairly. To give no choice to a child or even present any other alternative to the parent own beliefs, imo, should be a crime as it deprives them of both choice and, again imo, the truth. I see it as intentionally emparting life rules which were made up and disadvantage the child for life. I don't have a problem with religion in general, it does a lot of good for a lot of people and can help people through life, especially when things are going badly for them. Plus I very much believe in 'each to their own' but that should not effect young children. It's just the issue of raising children in that environment and giving them no other option believe is wrong and in borderline criminal. My apologies for any grammatical or spelling errors, im dyslexic so probably missed a few ha.

t3_6cgnuq

CMV: in the future, people will treat AI as conscious

I believe that sufficiently advanced AI will be indistinguishable from a conscious being. People often debate the "hard problem" of consciousness, but if we accept that machines will eventually be able to simulate the brain, and more, and that people will even be uploading their brains to machines, then humanity will eventually accept that a highly advanced computer deserves the same treatment as a sentient being. We already accept that we can never know for sure that other people have the same consciousness ("I think therefore I am") so it is not a huge leap to trust that truly advanced AI is has developed consciousness in the same way you trust other people have.

CMV: in the future, people will treat AI as conscious. I believe that sufficiently advanced AI will be indistinguishable from a conscious being. People often debate the "hard problem" of consciousness, but if we accept that machines will eventually be able to simulate the brain, and more, and that people will even be uploading their brains to machines, then humanity will eventually accept that a highly advanced computer deserves the same treatment as a sentient being. We already accept that we can never know for sure that other people have the same consciousness ("I think therefore I am") so it is not a huge leap to trust that truly advanced AI is has developed consciousness in the same way you trust other people have.

t3_6x76p6

CMV: Market-based economies are flawed because they lack any mechanisms to address negative externalities. Government regulations only act as a bandage solution and do not efficiently prevent long-term negative externalities (such as global warming and vast economic inequality).

Anyone who has taken basic econ 101 knows that a negative externality is the consequence of economic activity that is experienced by an unrelated third party. The textbook example is pollution --- An oil company only factors in their internal financial cost of operation, basing their prices solely on supply and demand. If pollution occurs, the costs associated with that problem, such as cleanup, are usually not factored in. They are external costs that are usually imposed on the public without their consent. Even worse, is that sometimes these externalities are so grave that they cannot be solved by imposing the cost on the public, as the externality exceeds any conceivable price. In many cases damage is irreversible, posing serious threats to entire ecosystems and to public health. And while certain industries or even specific companies can be sourced to certain problems, with legal actions taken to get them to change their behaviour or cover costs, the deeper problems are those that cannot be easily linked to any single company or industry. They are system-level problems that are generated by inherent principles of market-based economies. When we consider overall pollution, inequality, poverty, resource depletion, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, reductions in public health, civil conflict, behavioural violence, overall structural violence, and other pervasive social and ecological problems, we are looking at consequences not of one person, one institution, or one industry. We are looking at problems literally produced by market behaviour itself. These problems are really categories of problems, with one externality triggering many others. For example, imagine a company that over the courser of years pollutes a water source to save money on proper disposal. That polluted water is linked to a towns water supply, leading some people to get cancer, not knowing why. In one family, this pollution leads to the sickness and death of a father. Since the father was the breadwinner, the window is now trying to afford to take care of the two kids. This financial strain increases their debt, with the oldest child unable to attend college, as he needs to help support the family, ect. You can see how chain reactions spread in complexity and are difficult to track due to unforeseen consequences linked to negative externalities. So i guess my question is that why do we constantly try to reform and regulate market-economies given their inherent predispositions to create life-threatening negative externalities? Would it not be more prudent to distribute resources based on scientific, ecological and public-health related principles instead of distributing resources solely based on supply and demand? I am wrong to worry about this? Are negative externalities that problematic? If you think they aren't then explain why and CMV!

CMV: Market-based economies are flawed because they lack any mechanisms to address negative externalities. Government regulations only act as a bandage solution and do not efficiently prevent long-term negative externalities (such as global warming and vast economic inequality). Anyone who has taken basic econ 101 knows that a negative externality is the consequence of economic activity that is experienced by an unrelated third party. The textbook example is pollution --- An oil company only factors in their internal financial cost of operation, basing their prices solely on supply and demand. If pollution occurs, the costs associated with that problem, such as cleanup, are usually not factored in. They are external costs that are usually imposed on the public without their consent. Even worse, is that sometimes these externalities are so grave that they cannot be solved by imposing the cost on the public, as the externality exceeds any conceivable price. In many cases damage is irreversible, posing serious threats to entire ecosystems and to public health. And while certain industries or even specific companies can be sourced to certain problems, with legal actions taken to get them to change their behaviour or cover costs, the deeper problems are those that cannot be easily linked to any single company or industry. They are system-level problems that are generated by inherent principles of market-based economies. When we consider overall pollution, inequality, poverty, resource depletion, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, reductions in public health, civil conflict, behavioural violence, overall structural violence, and other pervasive social and ecological problems, we are looking at consequences not of one person, one institution, or one industry. We are looking at problems literally produced by market behaviour itself. These problems are really categories of problems, with one externality triggering many others. For example, imagine a company that over the courser of years pollutes a water source to save money on proper disposal. That polluted water is linked to a towns water supply, leading some people to get cancer, not knowing why. In one family, this pollution leads to the sickness and death of a father. Since the father was the breadwinner, the window is now trying to afford to take care of the two kids. This financial strain increases their debt, with the oldest child unable to attend college, as he needs to help support the family, ect. You can see how chain reactions spread in complexity and are difficult to track due to unforeseen consequences linked to negative externalities. So i guess my question is that why do we constantly try to reform and regulate market-economies given their inherent predispositions to create life-threatening negative externalities? Would it not be more prudent to distribute resources based on scientific, ecological and public-health related principles instead of distributing resources solely based on supply and demand? I am wrong to worry about this? Are negative externalities that problematic? If you think they aren't then explain why and CMV!

t3_4wqfiw

CMV: Sports should only be in the Olympics if winning Olympic gold is the pinnacle of that sport

For most of the sports in the Olympic program, the pinnacle of every player's (and team's) dream is to win the Olympics - but for some of the sports it is most definitely not the pinnacle of the sport, and the top players feel no reason to compete in the Olympics (or sometimes aren't even allowed to). *(Football [U23 besides 3, not in international window - so almost all top players not playing], rugby [only 7s, top XVs players not playing], basketball [some top NBA players sitting out, FIBA rules - shorter games], baseball [when it comes back in 2020 - MLB players not playing], tennis [no ranking points, lots of top players sitting out], golf [no ranking points, most top players sitting out], boxing [played with amateur rules, almost all pros not playing].)* Considering that the raison d'etre of the Olympics is to be the pinnacle of all sports events, and that individual sports need the IOC more than the IOC needs them (the Olympics are big enough with athletics, swimming and gymnastics alone) - it makes no sense that the IOC should continue to have sports in the program where the best players in that sport aren't playing. Basically, the IOC should inform each of the sports that if the Olympics isn't the pinnacle of that sport, and the top players don't attend - that sport will be removed from the Olympic program, and replaced with one of the many sports that want to be part of the Olympics and are willing to make the Olympic event the peak of their sport. (The only sport on that list that could be considered "necessary" by the IOC is football, and FIFA isn't willing to have any event compete with the World Cup - but even in football, they could at least make the Olympics an official international tournament, so players wouldn't need their clubs' permission to attend - *if all top players attended, even with the "U23 besides 3" rule, we could still have Messi, Higuain, Di Maria, Ronaldo, Pepe, James Rodriguez, Marcelo, Zlatan, Muller, Neuer, and Riyad Mahrez playing!*) _____ > *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: Sports should only be in the Olympics if winning Olympic gold is the pinnacle of that sport. For most of the sports in the Olympic program, the pinnacle of every player's (and team's) dream is to win the Olympics - but for some of the sports it is most definitely not the pinnacle of the sport, and the top players feel no reason to compete in the Olympics (or sometimes aren't even allowed to). *(Football [U23 besides 3, not in international window - so almost all top players not playing], rugby [only 7s, top XVs players not playing], basketball [some top NBA players sitting out, FIBA rules - shorter games], baseball [when it comes back in 2020 - MLB players not playing], tennis [no ranking points, lots of top players sitting out], golf [no ranking points, most top players sitting out], boxing [played with amateur rules, almost all pros not playing].)* Considering that the raison d'etre of the Olympics is to be the pinnacle of all sports events, and that individual sports need the IOC more than the IOC needs them (the Olympics are big enough with athletics, swimming and gymnastics alone) - it makes no sense that the IOC should continue to have sports in the program where the best players in that sport aren't playing. Basically, the IOC should inform each of the sports that if the Olympics isn't the pinnacle of that sport, and the top players don't attend - that sport will be removed from the Olympic program, and replaced with one of the many sports that want to be part of the Olympics and are willing to make the Olympic event the peak of their sport. (The only sport on that list that could be considered "necessary" by the IOC is football, and FIFA isn't willing to have any event compete with the World Cup - but even in football, they could at least make the Olympics an official international tournament, so players wouldn't need their clubs' permission to attend - *if all top players attended, even with the "U23 besides 3" rule, we could still have Messi, Higuain, Di Maria, Ronaldo, Pepe, James Rodriguez, Marcelo, Zlatan, Muller, Neuer, and Riyad Mahrez playing!*)

t3_1lbkio

CMV - Corporal Punishment should be reintroduced into school

I believe corporal punishment should be reintroduced into schools. The behaviour of students in class nowadays is appalling. They believe they can get away with anything such as not completing school tasks and disrespecting the teacher by talking back or being disruptive in class. Leaving a physical mark on the student such as the hand or arm including the pain that it comes should be enough to remind them of what they did wrong and if they are punished in front of their peers, the social embarrassment of being beaten in front of them will be enough to effectively change the behaviour of the student. They make be strong will in their attitude but in the end everyone breaks before their hand will. In today's society, they believe that corporal punishment is abusive and just wrong. I believe that to be stupid. Yes, I know teachers will abuse this kind of power, but it can be set up so that they are blacklisted and jailed. But listen, the student isn't going to die. They'll feel the pain, they'll realise the error of their way, and if they continue they'll continue to receive the ultimate punishment and leave school with nothing in their hands. And what's life without pain. Teenagers and children should be awaken to the light that life isn't all fun and games and do whatever you want. Its survival of the fittest and if you aren't strong enough to fit into today's society, how else will you contribute towards it. In the end, I'll be paying for your dole money, or you'll be cleaning up after me. But with the reintroduction of corporal punishment, this can be decreased and the country's future will be improved as the younger generation will learn the error of their ways and live life to their full potential or to something that won't amount to nothing. Granted this form of punishment won't work on all students and some may be diagnosed with ADHD so the impulsivty in the students is quite astounding and it can be dealt with but the most effective form would be ritalin. Now reddit Change My View

CMV - Corporal Punishment should be reintroduced into school. I believe corporal punishment should be reintroduced into schools. The behaviour of students in class nowadays is appalling. They believe they can get away with anything such as not completing school tasks and disrespecting the teacher by talking back or being disruptive in class. Leaving a physical mark on the student such as the hand or arm including the pain that it comes should be enough to remind them of what they did wrong and if they are punished in front of their peers, the social embarrassment of being beaten in front of them will be enough to effectively change the behaviour of the student. They make be strong will in their attitude but in the end everyone breaks before their hand will. In today's society, they believe that corporal punishment is abusive and just wrong. I believe that to be stupid. Yes, I know teachers will abuse this kind of power, but it can be set up so that they are blacklisted and jailed. But listen, the student isn't going to die. They'll feel the pain, they'll realise the error of their way, and if they continue they'll continue to receive the ultimate punishment and leave school with nothing in their hands. And what's life without pain. Teenagers and children should be awaken to the light that life isn't all fun and games and do whatever you want. Its survival of the fittest and if you aren't strong enough to fit into today's society, how else will you contribute towards it. In the end, I'll be paying for your dole money, or you'll be cleaning up after me. But with the reintroduction of corporal punishment, this can be decreased and the country's future will be improved as the younger generation will learn the error of their ways and live life to their full potential or to something that won't amount to nothing. Granted this form of punishment won't work on all students and some may be diagnosed with ADHD so the impulsivty in the students is quite astounding and it can be dealt with but the most effective form would be ritalin. Now reddit Change My View

t3_5c9kgq

CMV: The Trump administration will lead to a brain drain

Trump thinks climate change is a hoax and reportedly plans to load his cabinet with people who agree. He said he has heard “terrible” things about the US National Institutes of Health. He wanted to eliminate the Department of Education and will almost certainly reduce it. He wants the EPA gone, or at least drastically reduced. He wants tech companies to provide ways for the government to break their encryption. His VP, Mike Pence, is a young-earth creationist who wants creationism taught in schools and has criticized President Obama for supporting embryonic stem-cell research. To be fair, Trump has not released many specific plans, but based on his previous statements and the stated opinions of people being considered for his cabinet, plus the hostile environment for non-white Americans we're already seeing and stricter immigrations laws sure to come, I am fully expecting to see fewer people pursuing scientific fields and many scientists uninterested in working for the government or a corporation leaving or avoiding the country. I would love to be proven 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: The Trump administration will lead to a brain drain. Trump thinks climate change is a hoax and reportedly plans to load his cabinet with people who agree. He said he has heard “terrible” things about the US National Institutes of Health. He wanted to eliminate the Department of Education and will almost certainly reduce it. He wants the EPA gone, or at least drastically reduced. He wants tech companies to provide ways for the government to break their encryption. His VP, Mike Pence, is a young-earth creationist who wants creationism taught in schools and has criticized President Obama for supporting embryonic stem-cell research. To be fair, Trump has not released many specific plans, but based on his previous statements and the stated opinions of people being considered for his cabinet, plus the hostile environment for non-white Americans we're already seeing and stricter immigrations laws sure to come, I am fully expecting to see fewer people pursuing scientific fields and many scientists uninterested in working for the government or a corporation leaving or avoiding the country. I would love to be proven wrong.

t3_1gzgul

I believe that a majority of "Obesity Rights" groups are perpetuating an unhealthy and dangerous mindset CMV

I have no issue with people who are obese, and I used to be quite large so I understand some of the struggles that they suffer through, but I fail to see the positive in many of these groups which pass themselves off as real civil rights groups ( NAACP for example). I think in the recent pass they have often rushed to defend behavior and lifestyles as being "ok' when they are in fact incredibly unhealthy. I'm not asking for us to be model, in my opinion the majority of glamour models are too small anyway, but that is another topic. A recent example is some of the groups surrounding Christina Corrigan's death. Granted some of these support groups are acting with responsibility and asking only for a fair trial. EDIT: Sorry all of you who commented. I spent the past few weeks in a series of airports and have been unable to respond to your comments. Fear not, I will try to respond to your points, and I will try to keep an open mind in this debate.

I believe that a majority of "Obesity Rights" groups are perpetuating an unhealthy and dangerous mindset CMV. I have no issue with people who are obese, and I used to be quite large so I understand some of the struggles that they suffer through, but I fail to see the positive in many of these groups which pass themselves off as real civil rights groups ( NAACP for example). I think in the recent pass they have often rushed to defend behavior and lifestyles as being "ok' when they are in fact incredibly unhealthy. I'm not asking for us to be model, in my opinion the majority of glamour models are too small anyway, but that is another topic. A recent example is some of the groups surrounding Christina Corrigan's death. Granted some of these support groups are acting with responsibility and asking only for a fair trial. EDIT: Sorry all of you who commented. I spent the past few weeks in a series of airports and have been unable to respond to your comments. Fear not, I will try to respond to your points, and I will try to keep an open mind in this debate.

t3_1jpz4g

People should care what others think of them CMV

People who don't care about what others think are assholes and weirdos. If people did care about what others thought about them more then there would be more consideration in the way people live out their lives. Also people would be less likely to commit crimes because they didn't want to be embarrassed or perceived in a negative way. I'm not saying that people should make other people liking them their life's purpose, but people who just don't give a shit about what others think of them usually don't give a shit about others in general, not that people that don't care about others necessarily don't care what others think of them. We can see people who don't care about what others think of them throughout modern media, and their all disliked by most people: honey boo boo, the people from Jersey shore, and basically everybody from reality television.

People should care what others think of them CMV. People who don't care about what others think are assholes and weirdos. If people did care about what others thought about them more then there would be more consideration in the way people live out their lives. Also people would be less likely to commit crimes because they didn't want to be embarrassed or perceived in a negative way. I'm not saying that people should make other people liking them their life's purpose, but people who just don't give a shit about what others think of them usually don't give a shit about others in general, not that people that don't care about others necessarily don't care what others think of them. We can see people who don't care about what others think of them throughout modern media, and their all disliked by most people: honey boo boo, the people from Jersey shore, and basically everybody from reality television.

t3_56ecn9

CMV:this is how we should fight government corruption

Throughout history...the great challenge for fair government has been to find individuals to govern who are intelligent enough to make good decisions while being motivated by altruism. I think it has been clear for a while now..especially looking at the current US presidential candidates, that representative democracy utterly fails to produce politicians of good character. It may have looked good at first, but as the US culture of honor eroded, so did the character of the state. I think we could reverse this issue with a fairly trivial change to politics...something which honorable citizens should not be bothered by and genuine public servants who wish to do good should also not be bothered by. I believe that anyone who is involved in politics should lsoe their right to private property. All people with political power should be unable to use any sort of money for any reason..they will be provided with the resources they need to survive by a special council...and it should be about equal to a lower middle class standard of living. This would make bribes or selfish abuse of power from politicians rather impossible. I also would want to throw in...although I suppose it is negotiable...that we should enforce celibacy on the politicians...because sex could translate into another form of selfish abuse of power. I suppose that part is negotiable. I want politicians to basically be forced to live like monks and make genuine self sacrifice. That way there would be no motive for evil people to obtain political power.

CMV:this is how we should fight government corruption. Throughout history...the great challenge for fair government has been to find individuals to govern who are intelligent enough to make good decisions while being motivated by altruism. I think it has been clear for a while now..especially looking at the current US presidential candidates, that representative democracy utterly fails to produce politicians of good character. It may have looked good at first, but as the US culture of honor eroded, so did the character of the state. I think we could reverse this issue with a fairly trivial change to politics...something which honorable citizens should not be bothered by and genuine public servants who wish to do good should also not be bothered by. I believe that anyone who is involved in politics should lsoe their right to private property. All people with political power should be unable to use any sort of money for any reason..they will be provided with the resources they need to survive by a special council...and it should be about equal to a lower middle class standard of living. This would make bribes or selfish abuse of power from politicians rather impossible. I also would want to throw in...although I suppose it is negotiable...that we should enforce celibacy on the politicians...because sex could translate into another form of selfish abuse of power. I suppose that part is negotiable. I want politicians to basically be forced to live like monks and make genuine self sacrifice. That way there would be no motive for evil people to obtain political power.

t3_2srlp5

CMV: "They haven't prevented any terrorist attacks" is a poor argument against the TSA and its processes.

Whenever I hear/read a discussions about why people hate the TSA or why it's ineffective, there's always someone who says "They haven't prevented a single attack since 9/11". This strikes me as a poor argument. There's no way to prove either way the effectiveness of these measures, since it's entirely possible they have prevented *many* attacks or incidents due to them simply existing. Most security measures exist primarily as a passive preventative tool. You can't claim a fence is ineffective or unecessary just because you never see anyone physically stopped by it. People know that fence is there, so they don't even try. I do agree that the TSA in its current state is not acceptable when it comes to the concepts of personal privacy, unreasable search and siezure, etc. But these are issues that should be focused on; the effectiveness of the TSA is irrelevant, since there is no way to prove it either way.

CMV: "They haven't prevented any terrorist attacks" is a poor argument against the TSA and its processes. Whenever I hear/read a discussions about why people hate the TSA or why it's ineffective, there's always someone who says "They haven't prevented a single attack since 9/11". This strikes me as a poor argument. There's no way to prove either way the effectiveness of these measures, since it's entirely possible they have prevented *many* attacks or incidents due to them simply existing. Most security measures exist primarily as a passive preventative tool. You can't claim a fence is ineffective or unecessary just because you never see anyone physically stopped by it. People know that fence is there, so they don't even try. I do agree that the TSA in its current state is not acceptable when it comes to the concepts of personal privacy, unreasable search and siezure, etc. But these are issues that should be focused on; the effectiveness of the TSA is irrelevant, since there is no way to prove it either way.

t3_58yo0c

CMV: The tiger mom parenting method is the best

My reasoning: The tiger mom parenting method is the best. While people argue that kids should be given time to have fun, I think it is the best for parents to push their kids to excel academically. What matters in life is grades. Whether or not you get accepted into a college depends on your grades. They look at your CV and what extra curricular activities you take part in, so winning competitions will give you a head start. Yes, kids can have fun but all of them will grow up at some point. Tiger mom parenting them is just a way of preparing them for the real world. Out in the real world, things are competitive and stressful and this from of parenting will give them a head start in terms of dealing with stress. _____ > *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 tiger mom parenting method is the best. My reasoning: The tiger mom parenting method is the best. While people argue that kids should be given time to have fun, I think it is the best for parents to push their kids to excel academically. What matters in life is grades. Whether or not you get accepted into a college depends on your grades. They look at your CV and what extra curricular activities you take part in, so winning competitions will give you a head start. Yes, kids can have fun but all of them will grow up at some point. Tiger mom parenting them is just a way of preparing them for the real world. Out in the real world, things are competitive and stressful and this from of parenting will give them a head start in terms of dealing with stress.

t3_31ev11

Sexless Saturday - 04/04/15

You may have seen the recent discussions about the popularity of gender topics. We tried Genderless January as an attempt to deal with it, but the feedback was mixed. Sexless Saturday is an alternative option we're trying out. **During today, all gender related topics will be removed.** Any questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and give us your feedback.

Sexless Saturday - 04/04/15. You may have seen the recent discussions about the popularity of gender topics. We tried Genderless January as an attempt to deal with it, but the feedback was mixed. Sexless Saturday is an alternative option we're trying out. **During today, all gender related topics will be removed.** Any questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and give us your feedback.

t3_38yj9w

CMV: Camo clothing has become de facto gang colors

In recent years, camouflage clothing has moved from beyond the "hunting" and "casual" spheres as a general-purpose marker of a specific lifestyle. Camo has always been available for hunters and for people who like to show that they're the outdoorsy type, even if it's just a t shirt. Recently, camo has become available for all situations; a quick trip to Google will find you plenty of pictures of [Camo Prom pictures](https://www.google.com/search?q=camo+prom+dresses&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=965&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VcV0VZrpIIGJgwTX3YG4Cg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=camo+prom) and even [Camo Weddings](https://www.google.com/search?q=camo+proms&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=965&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VcV0VZrpIIGJgwTX3YG4Cg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=camo+wedding). I believe that this is the result of the rise of Duck Dynasty and specifically the political activism of Phil Robertson. Duck Dynasty has a large swathe of branded merchandise, almost all of it camo. Robertson's opinions are extremely conservative, even reactionary. Camo seems to be a signal for people who wish to align themselves to this identity. To whit, homophobic, anti-immigration, anti-Democratic (in the sense of the Democratic party, not against democracy itself), Islamophobic, and generally aligned with the Christian Evangelical movement. Explicit racism and antisemitism are not necessarily included, but are not frowned upon. All of this seems to serve the purpose of identifying oneself to other people of similar mind, which is exactly what gang colors do. So, what does reddit think? Am I correct on this, or should I change my view? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Camo clothing has become de facto gang colors. In recent years, camouflage clothing has moved from beyond the "hunting" and "casual" spheres as a general-purpose marker of a specific lifestyle. Camo has always been available for hunters and for people who like to show that they're the outdoorsy type, even if it's just a t shirt. Recently, camo has become available for all situations; a quick trip to Google will find you plenty of pictures of [Camo Prom pictures](https://www.google.com/search?q=camo+prom+dresses&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=965&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VcV0VZrpIIGJgwTX3YG4Cg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=camo+prom) and even [Camo Weddings](https://www.google.com/search?q=camo+proms&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=965&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VcV0VZrpIIGJgwTX3YG4Cg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=camo+wedding). I believe that this is the result of the rise of Duck Dynasty and specifically the political activism of Phil Robertson. Duck Dynasty has a large swathe of branded merchandise, almost all of it camo. Robertson's opinions are extremely conservative, even reactionary. Camo seems to be a signal for people who wish to align themselves to this identity. To whit, homophobic, anti-immigration, anti-Democratic (in the sense of the Democratic party, not against democracy itself), Islamophobic, and generally aligned with the Christian Evangelical movement. Explicit racism and antisemitism are not necessarily included, but are not frowned upon. All of this seems to serve the purpose of identifying oneself to other people of similar mind, which is exactly what gang colors do. So, what does reddit think? Am I correct on this, or should I change my view?

t3_1mnfjc

I believe secession from the US Government should be allowed. CMV.

First off, I am not trying to imply that slavery was in any way not evil. The Civil War was fought over slavery, and although the US Government was in no way obligated whatsoever to fight, it did so and we're all better off for it. Now, I don't believe the US Government behave completely moral in that war (forcing citizens to pay them money just to fight a war that was not necessarily for them while still being the best interest of the nation as a whole, suspending Habeas Corpus), but the Confederacy was emphatically the worse option so I'm glad the Union came ahead. With that said. The Civil War, besides ending slavery, seems to have set the precedent that secession is inherently evil. I disagree with that. Of course the Confederacy was in the wrong because they did not respect their people's rights to not be subjected to involuntary servitude, but I do not think that all questions that would bring to mind secession are necessarily as black and white as that. Take for instance, socialized medicine. I agree with it in concept, but it turns out a good portion of America does not. Although California and New York might think it the best idea possible, I don't see why Texas and Mississipi should be forced to go along with it. Geography does happen to have a good hold on political opinions; people on the west, north, and northeast tend to prefer certain policies, and people in the midwest and south tend to prefer others. Public opinion is often completely opposite depending on your area. And although consensus is generally a good guideline for such affairs, I wouldn't argue a law supported by 60% of people to kill the rest and take their possessions would be just. The minority does have a right to its say. Why not let the minority separate from the rest and follow its own opinions? I realize geography isn't the only factor deciding opinion, but it's at least one metric and those who aren't included/are included but don't want to be can move and it's better than zero. I realize secession would call in many, many legal issues on who gets to keep federal property in the nation that secedes. I don't, however, believe the existence of complications means that the notion shouldn't be considered.

I believe secession from the US Government should be allowed. CMV. First off, I am not trying to imply that slavery was in any way not evil. The Civil War was fought over slavery, and although the US Government was in no way obligated whatsoever to fight, it did so and we're all better off for it. Now, I don't believe the US Government behave completely moral in that war (forcing citizens to pay them money just to fight a war that was not necessarily for them while still being the best interest of the nation as a whole, suspending Habeas Corpus), but the Confederacy was emphatically the worse option so I'm glad the Union came ahead. With that said. The Civil War, besides ending slavery, seems to have set the precedent that secession is inherently evil. I disagree with that. Of course the Confederacy was in the wrong because they did not respect their people's rights to not be subjected to involuntary servitude, but I do not think that all questions that would bring to mind secession are necessarily as black and white as that. Take for instance, socialized medicine. I agree with it in concept, but it turns out a good portion of America does not. Although California and New York might think it the best idea possible, I don't see why Texas and Mississipi should be forced to go along with it. Geography does happen to have a good hold on political opinions; people on the west, north, and northeast tend to prefer certain policies, and people in the midwest and south tend to prefer others. Public opinion is often completely opposite depending on your area. And although consensus is generally a good guideline for such affairs, I wouldn't argue a law supported by 60% of people to kill the rest and take their possessions would be just. The minority does have a right to its say. Why not let the minority separate from the rest and follow its own opinions? I realize geography isn't the only factor deciding opinion, but it's at least one metric and those who aren't included/are included but don't want to be can move and it's better than zero. I realize secession would call in many, many legal issues on who gets to keep federal property in the nation that secedes. I don't, however, believe the existence of complications means that the notion shouldn't be considered.

t3_5t09oz

CMV: Feminism is bad for women.

OPINION Feminism causes women to victimize themselves which pushes them deeper into a hole of self made oppression where they can all cry about virtually nonexistent problems together. It doesn't empower women all it does is strip power from women so they have more to be unequal in. Its a self depreciating cycle that keeps those that conform to it trapped in its clutches by claiming they are victims and alienating anyone that doesn't agree with them with the "if you aren't one of us you are against us mentality." By indoctrinating people to think that there are no moderates on this issue they effectively turn the world on themselves and then cry out for help. That system is not fair to women because with that in place they will always feel oppressed. EDIT: i mean modern feminism in the USA

CMV: Feminism is bad for women. OPINION Feminism causes women to victimize themselves which pushes them deeper into a hole of self made oppression where they can all cry about virtually nonexistent problems together. It doesn't empower women all it does is strip power from women so they have more to be unequal in. Its a self depreciating cycle that keeps those that conform to it trapped in its clutches by claiming they are victims and alienating anyone that doesn't agree with them with the "if you aren't one of us you are against us mentality." By indoctrinating people to think that there are no moderates on this issue they effectively turn the world on themselves and then cry out for help. That system is not fair to women because with that in place they will always feel oppressed. EDIT: i mean modern feminism in the USA

t3_1xt04w

All politicians should be required to state what criteria would need to be met for them to change their position on a piece of legislation or policy CMV.

For example, Tony Blair or George Bush should have said "I want to bomb Iraq unless Hans Blix says there is no chance of finding WMD" or those right wing nuts should say "I want to make the test for claiming disability benefits harder unless 5% of claimants who are found fit to work go on to die 4 weeks later" that kind of thing. Politicians are a joke when it comes to confronting reality. Check out this joker http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/duncan-smith-rejects-evidence-based-policy-i-believe-be-true We could really benefit from our politicians having to say more meaningful things when it comes to talking about policy. in response to hikikomori911 to flesh the idea out how about we require all MPs or Lords to declare in writing publicly why they have decided to vote in a certain way citing a specific piece of research either published in a peer reviewed journal (I guess drawing up this list could be a little contentious) or published by the ONS or similar organization. If next time the vote came up further research came to light that arguably discredited their position they could still vote how they want, but it would be much easier to expose useless politicians voting ideologically / ignorantly / corruptly. I guess we'd still be dependent on journalists taking them to task, but openly publishing this (as shockingly they do with all the transcripts from the commons already) would mean that citizen journos or bloggers might take them to task on this more readily than our current crop of celeb obsessed daily mail writers. I guess international policy might be a bit tricky, maybe this would only be possible for domestic, for example it might be hard to link your vote to go to war or not in Syria to something solid in a peer reviewed journal or piece of research. Then again maybe I'm wrong and it would be beneficial if we didn't go to war quite so readily.

All politicians should be required to state what criteria would need to be met for them to change their position on a piece of legislation or policy CMV. For example, Tony Blair or George Bush should have said "I want to bomb Iraq unless Hans Blix says there is no chance of finding WMD" or those right wing nuts should say "I want to make the test for claiming disability benefits harder unless 5% of claimants who are found fit to work go on to die 4 weeks later" that kind of thing. Politicians are a joke when it comes to confronting reality. Check out this joker http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/duncan-smith-rejects-evidence-based-policy-i-believe-be-true We could really benefit from our politicians having to say more meaningful things when it comes to talking about policy. in response to hikikomori911 to flesh the idea out how about we require all MPs or Lords to declare in writing publicly why they have decided to vote in a certain way citing a specific piece of research either published in a peer reviewed journal (I guess drawing up this list could be a little contentious) or published by the ONS or similar organization. If next time the vote came up further research came to light that arguably discredited their position they could still vote how they want, but it would be much easier to expose useless politicians voting ideologically / ignorantly / corruptly. I guess we'd still be dependent on journalists taking them to task, but openly publishing this (as shockingly they do with all the transcripts from the commons already) would mean that citizen journos or bloggers might take them to task on this more readily than our current crop of celeb obsessed daily mail writers. I guess international policy might be a bit tricky, maybe this would only be possible for domestic, for example it might be hard to link your vote to go to war or not in Syria to something solid in a peer reviewed journal or piece of research. Then again maybe I'm wrong and it would be beneficial if we didn't go to war quite so readily.

t3_5fsqzb

CMV: North Korea should be allowed and free to conduct nuclear tests.

I realize that Kim Jong-un is a terrible dictator who (reportedly) kills dissenters, runs huge labor camps and is basically a shitty person. That said, in terms of national sovereignty, do they not still have to right to the deterrent that nuclear weapons provide? The USA conducted thousands of nuclear tests during the cold war when we felt threatened by the Soviet Union. North Korea no doubt feels a similar threat from South Korea and the United States. North Korea also has not been part of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty since 2003 so they are in no way obligated to comply. Perhaps I am short sighted on this so help me change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: North Korea should be allowed and free to conduct nuclear tests. I realize that Kim Jong-un is a terrible dictator who (reportedly) kills dissenters, runs huge labor camps and is basically a shitty person. That said, in terms of national sovereignty, do they not still have to right to the deterrent that nuclear weapons provide? The USA conducted thousands of nuclear tests during the cold war when we felt threatened by the Soviet Union. North Korea no doubt feels a similar threat from South Korea and the United States. North Korea also has not been part of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty since 2003 so they are in no way obligated to comply. Perhaps I am short sighted on this so help me change my view.

t3_3auz70

CMV: Flying the Confederate Flag over a United States government building is a brazen insult to our Republic and the people who fought to preserve it from those who would tear it apart.

Confederate States of America vice-president Alexander Stephens stated in 1861 that: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Whatever it may mean to people on an individual level, it is a miscarriage of history to try and disassociate the Confederate flag from the legacy left by white supremacists who would prefer to tear our country asunder than to allow their indecent institutions to come under threat. The Civil War was fought over states' rights...to own slaves; it was the showdown between two separate economies...the slave system and the free-labor system. It was always about slavery, they even said it then. Why do we deny it today? The Secesh were traitors who turned their backs on a contract that every state agreed to (the Constitution) the minute that they felt it didn't suit them and their way of life anymore. It is a brazen insult to our republic, the men who fought to preserve it, and the descendants of slaves to fly that flag of treason over any government building. whew. _____ > *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: Flying the Confederate Flag over a United States government building is a brazen insult to our Republic and the people who fought to preserve it from those who would tear it apart. Confederate States of America vice-president Alexander Stephens stated in 1861 that: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." Whatever it may mean to people on an individual level, it is a miscarriage of history to try and disassociate the Confederate flag from the legacy left by white supremacists who would prefer to tear our country asunder than to allow their indecent institutions to come under threat. The Civil War was fought over states' rights...to own slaves; it was the showdown between two separate economies...the slave system and the free-labor system. It was always about slavery, they even said it then. Why do we deny it today? The Secesh were traitors who turned their backs on a contract that every state agreed to (the Constitution) the minute that they felt it didn't suit them and their way of life anymore. It is a brazen insult to our republic, the men who fought to preserve it, and the descendants of slaves to fly that flag of treason over any government building. whew.

t3_51fduk

CMV: Islamophobia warrants removal of hijab and Mohamed cap.

1-in islam the hijab is worn to prevent inciting men to lust, because of men's natural mental condition. 2-islamophobes are people with a natural mental condition, an illness like agoraphobia or dementia...or lust, that is triggered by conspicuous displays of islam in nonislamic contexts where the Islamophobe has experienced Islamic violence. 3-just as it is best and right to avoid public displays that tempt men's vulnerability into lust, so is it right and best to avoid the hijab and other conspicuous displays of islam in contexts likely to trigger sadness and anxiety in islamophobes.

CMV: Islamophobia warrants removal of hijab and Mohamed cap. 1-in islam the hijab is worn to prevent inciting men to lust, because of men's natural mental condition. 2-islamophobes are people with a natural mental condition, an illness like agoraphobia or dementia...or lust, that is triggered by conspicuous displays of islam in nonislamic contexts where the Islamophobe has experienced Islamic violence. 3-just as it is best and right to avoid public displays that tempt men's vulnerability into lust, so is it right and best to avoid the hijab and other conspicuous displays of islam in contexts likely to trigger sadness and anxiety in islamophobes.

t3_5c369l

CMV: President Trump should nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court

Last night, President-Elect Trump spoke about unity, about bringing the country together after an extraordinarily divisive election. The first stride he can make towards unity would be to nominate Merrick Garland to fill Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. Garland is a supremely qualified candidate. He has been the chief of the second most powerful court in the nation, he clerked for two famous justices, and he has worked in the corporate and criminal fields. As a justice, he is generally regarded as moderate and non-controversial. President Obama nominated Garland as a compromise candidate eight months ago, in the hope that the Senate would confirm him without partisan gridlock. Garland, after all, had been brought up by the Republicans themselves as an alternative to his earlier nomination of Kagan. That hope turned out to be false, as the extraordinary levels of partisan gridlock seen under Obama proved too strong. The stalling of Garland's nomination dragged the Supreme Court into petty party politics in a way that had never happened before. And the Republican senators who did it were vindicated last night; their gamble paid off. This sets a troubling precedent for Supreme Court nominations in the future. A Garland nomination from Trump would be a resounding rebuke to this level of partisanship, and would remove that precedent. It would reaffirm the "above petty politics" nature of the Supreme Court, while at the same time putting a well-qualified moderate on the bench. Trump was elected as an anti-establishment candidate ready to turn Washington upside down. He can cement his position as such by rebuking the establishment Republicans who engaged in "status quo" partisan gridlock to an unprecedented degree. At the same time, a Garland nomination would be an olive branch to the left, who currently fear and revile Trump. It would be a symbol that they should not believe all the horror stories they've been told - that President Trump is serious about creating a government that works. In summary, by nominating Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, President Trump can uphold his anti-establishment stance while at the same time acting to heal the nation's partisan divide. This is a win-win that he should not avoid. _____ > *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: President Trump should nominate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Last night, President-Elect Trump spoke about unity, about bringing the country together after an extraordinarily divisive election. The first stride he can make towards unity would be to nominate Merrick Garland to fill Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. Garland is a supremely qualified candidate. He has been the chief of the second most powerful court in the nation, he clerked for two famous justices, and he has worked in the corporate and criminal fields. As a justice, he is generally regarded as moderate and non-controversial. President Obama nominated Garland as a compromise candidate eight months ago, in the hope that the Senate would confirm him without partisan gridlock. Garland, after all, had been brought up by the Republicans themselves as an alternative to his earlier nomination of Kagan. That hope turned out to be false, as the extraordinary levels of partisan gridlock seen under Obama proved too strong. The stalling of Garland's nomination dragged the Supreme Court into petty party politics in a way that had never happened before. And the Republican senators who did it were vindicated last night; their gamble paid off. This sets a troubling precedent for Supreme Court nominations in the future. A Garland nomination from Trump would be a resounding rebuke to this level of partisanship, and would remove that precedent. It would reaffirm the "above petty politics" nature of the Supreme Court, while at the same time putting a well-qualified moderate on the bench. Trump was elected as an anti-establishment candidate ready to turn Washington upside down. He can cement his position as such by rebuking the establishment Republicans who engaged in "status quo" partisan gridlock to an unprecedented degree. At the same time, a Garland nomination would be an olive branch to the left, who currently fear and revile Trump. It would be a symbol that they should not believe all the horror stories they've been told - that President Trump is serious about creating a government that works. In summary, by nominating Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, President Trump can uphold his anti-establishment stance while at the same time acting to heal the nation's partisan divide. This is a win-win that he should not avoid.

t3_1se75v

I believe that people who complain about gaming DLC are just complaining for the sake of complaining. CMV

So, I've been a lurker long enough to see that the majority of posts are about much more serious topics, but this kind of came to mind when I read [a post in r/paydaytheheist](http://www.reddit.com/r/paydaytheheist/comments/1s5y6s/anyone_else_think_this_is_a_bit_ridiculous/) where the OP was complaining about the DLC essentially containing nothing. From my point of view, I kind of saw his post as just complaining for the sake of complaining, and I'm going to take the liberty of equating the Gage DLC for Payday 2 to pretty much every other gaming DLC. In this particular post, the OP was complaining about a few things of the DLC, mainly that it contained little content, two which 2/3 of my responses were as follows: 1) Developing games is a business, it will always be as such for the majority of game developers. And as such, DLC costing money will always exist to pay off both future development of paid DLC as well as future patches to the game. The idea that game devs supporting their game just out of sheer love for it is a nice idea, but without monetary incentive, the vast majority of companies will not further support their games through either of the means stated earlier. 2/3) If one deems the particular DLC not to be worth its price (assuming the DLC isn't priced exorbitantly high), I don't think there's any reason for the user to feel compelled to buy it in the first place, or even really complain about it, for that matter. And in that case where the user is compelled to purchase the DLC or to complain about it, the user has already evaluated the DLC to be important to their gaming experience for that particular game, which would seem to me, that they have evaluated it important enough to warrant the price that the devs have placed on it (again, assuming it's not priced exorbitantly high). Since buying DLC further supports the devs, and that the DLC isn't necessary for the enjoyment of the game, I don't see why people complain about the price of the DLC. It seems to me as if they are just complaining so that they have something to complain about. Enlighten me, CMV?

I believe that people who complain about gaming DLC are just complaining for the sake of complaining. CMV. So, I've been a lurker long enough to see that the majority of posts are about much more serious topics, but this kind of came to mind when I read [a post in r/paydaytheheist](http://www.reddit.com/r/paydaytheheist/comments/1s5y6s/anyone_else_think_this_is_a_bit_ridiculous/) where the OP was complaining about the DLC essentially containing nothing. From my point of view, I kind of saw his post as just complaining for the sake of complaining, and I'm going to take the liberty of equating the Gage DLC for Payday 2 to pretty much every other gaming DLC. In this particular post, the OP was complaining about a few things of the DLC, mainly that it contained little content, two which 2/3 of my responses were as follows: 1) Developing games is a business, it will always be as such for the majority of game developers. And as such, DLC costing money will always exist to pay off both future development of paid DLC as well as future patches to the game. The idea that game devs supporting their game just out of sheer love for it is a nice idea, but without monetary incentive, the vast majority of companies will not further support their games through either of the means stated earlier. 2/3) If one deems the particular DLC not to be worth its price (assuming the DLC isn't priced exorbitantly high), I don't think there's any reason for the user to feel compelled to buy it in the first place, or even really complain about it, for that matter. And in that case where the user is compelled to purchase the DLC or to complain about it, the user has already evaluated the DLC to be important to their gaming experience for that particular game, which would seem to me, that they have evaluated it important enough to warrant the price that the devs have placed on it (again, assuming it's not priced exorbitantly high). Since buying DLC further supports the devs, and that the DLC isn't necessary for the enjoyment of the game, I don't see why people complain about the price of the DLC. It seems to me as if they are just complaining so that they have something to complain about. Enlighten me, CMV?

t3_1xdike

The current generation of game consoles have 'improved' by too small of a margin to justify their expense. CMV.

For example, I think the jump from PS1 -> PS2 was substantial, in graphics and the ability to play DVDs. The jump from PS2 -> PS3 was also substantial in the same way (but with Blu-ray). I can't see myself purchasing a PS4, however, because it doesn't really seem to have many improvements. The graphics looks marginally better, but I think the limiting factor is more the developers at this point. I'm pretty content with the games available, and they are still releasing new ones. How are the new consoles breaking new ground? Why would I buy one?

The current generation of game consoles have 'improved' by too small of a margin to justify their expense. CMV. For example, I think the jump from PS1 -> PS2 was substantial, in graphics and the ability to play DVDs. The jump from PS2 -> PS3 was also substantial in the same way (but with Blu-ray). I can't see myself purchasing a PS4, however, because it doesn't really seem to have many improvements. The graphics looks marginally better, but I think the limiting factor is more the developers at this point. I'm pretty content with the games available, and they are still releasing new ones. How are the new consoles breaking new ground? Why would I buy one?

t3_2bqjgo

CMV: Quotas and incentives to get men into teaching, nursing, and other female dominated fields should be required to counterbalance female quotas and scholarships.

Men have been hit hardest by the recession, and have not bounced back well. Lots of men remain unemployed, and men are going to college at lower numbers than ever. Meanwhile, women are being given incentives to go into colleges and fields that men are not. There exist lots of secure jobs (teaching and nursing are the most readily available and accessible examples) that are 90% female, both in the field and in college majors. Considering the higher male unemployment, I think anyone offering a female-specific incentive such as a STEM scholarship should be required to promote a male-specific scholarship to a female-dominated field. Please CMV.

CMV: Quotas and incentives to get men into teaching, nursing, and other female dominated fields should be required to counterbalance female quotas and scholarships. Men have been hit hardest by the recession, and have not bounced back well. Lots of men remain unemployed, and men are going to college at lower numbers than ever. Meanwhile, women are being given incentives to go into colleges and fields that men are not. There exist lots of secure jobs (teaching and nursing are the most readily available and accessible examples) that are 90% female, both in the field and in college majors. Considering the higher male unemployment, I think anyone offering a female-specific incentive such as a STEM scholarship should be required to promote a male-specific scholarship to a female-dominated field. Please CMV.

t3_30iil9

CMV: People who think it's wrong to hit animals/pets but have no problem hitting children are completely illogical.

I saw a few quotes from singer/songwriter Pink and couldn't believe the absolute mental gymnastics she has to make when making the statements she's made. Here are a couple links for reference: http://www.circleofmoms.com/debating-mums/i-think-parents-need-to-beat-the-crap-outta-their-kids-pink-600354 http://hollywoodlife.com/2011/05/20/pink-twitter-selena-gomez-horse/ The fact that someone can think it's horrible to beat animals yet perfectly acceptable to beat on a child is beyond insane. This goes for everyone with this mindset. I couldn't care less about Pink or her music or what she does. I was just using her as an example.

CMV: People who think it's wrong to hit animals/pets but have no problem hitting children are completely illogical. I saw a few quotes from singer/songwriter Pink and couldn't believe the absolute mental gymnastics she has to make when making the statements she's made. Here are a couple links for reference: http://www.circleofmoms.com/debating-mums/i-think-parents-need-to-beat-the-crap-outta-their-kids-pink-600354 http://hollywoodlife.com/2011/05/20/pink-twitter-selena-gomez-horse/ The fact that someone can think it's horrible to beat animals yet perfectly acceptable to beat on a child is beyond insane. This goes for everyone with this mindset. I couldn't care less about Pink or her music or what she does. I was just using her as an example.

t3_1fli0o

I think all the 'tricks' done by illusionists like Derren Brown are genuine

Here's my logic: when Derren pulls off a trick there seems to only be two possibilities of how it was possible. Either what he's doing is what he explains it was that was happening (eg hypnotism) or the participant(s) are/were in on it. It doesn't seem possible that in a career as long as Derrens' that it would have been possible that not a single one of these people would have revealed what happened. It seems the only logical explanation is that he really is a remarkable person in that he can pull off these superhuman feats, CMV

I think all the 'tricks' done by illusionists like Derren Brown are genuine. Here's my logic: when Derren pulls off a trick there seems to only be two possibilities of how it was possible. Either what he's doing is what he explains it was that was happening (eg hypnotism) or the participant(s) are/were in on it. It doesn't seem possible that in a career as long as Derrens' that it would have been possible that not a single one of these people would have revealed what happened. It seems the only logical explanation is that he really is a remarkable person in that he can pull off these superhuman feats, CMV

t3_1cd6j0

I think it's in the spirit of the subreddit to post questions with no interest in having your view changed and only to generate a conversation. As long as you are not opposed to having your view changed. CMV.

I'm being a little whimsical, but also curious. I was thinking what the subreddit thinks. I mean - this is kind of AskReddit, but with a more pointed goal. As a corollary - questions could be rephrased as a CMV. So is the only difference the spirit of the asker? And since there isn't an /r/metachangemyview this is the best place I thought I could ask. I'm not sure where I stand on this. That's another issue - is there a place in this subreddit for people on the fence?

I think it's in the spirit of the subreddit to post questions with no interest in having your view changed and only to generate a conversation. As long as you are not opposed to having your view changed. CMV. I'm being a little whimsical, but also curious. I was thinking what the subreddit thinks. I mean - this is kind of AskReddit, but with a more pointed goal. As a corollary - questions could be rephrased as a CMV. So is the only difference the spirit of the asker? And since there isn't an /r/metachangemyview this is the best place I thought I could ask. I'm not sure where I stand on this. That's another issue - is there a place in this subreddit for people on the fence?

t3_2lsokk

CMV: Taxpayer funded research should be freely available to any citizen upon first publication.

edit: Thanks to some discussion with posters and links to recent changes in [NIH policy](http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm) and [U.S. policy](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/17/half-of-taxpayer-funded-research-will-soon-be-available-to-the-public/) I've conceded that my "upon first publication point" may be too dramatic. I think making the published research open access is still important, but have conceded that it should be done after a reasonable time frame. NIH says 1 year, the U.S. government says 6 months. edit: As /u/Maxzines (and others) pointed out [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2lsokk/cmv_taxpayer_funded_research_should_be_freely/clxtd8i) I didn't make it clear that I meant private projects and research done at universities or colleges. Defense departments should be able to do research in secret. I am speaking purely from an American perspective but I do genuinely feel that this issue should extend to all countries. My argument is as follows: 1. Acceptance of funds from any single person or group makes that entity an investor in that research. 2. An investor in research should have access to the end results of that research. 3. If a researcher accepts government grants to fund their research then that government, and by extension its citizens, have become an investor and should have free access to the published work. To clarify I am indeed saying that acceptance of any amount of government funding should lead to free access to the published work, regardless of if it is $1 or $100,000. Change my view, what is wrong about this line of thought? edit: To further clarify I am talking purely about publication of scientific research. I am in a sense arguing for the legislation of a requirement to publish government funded research in an [open access journal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal). _____ > *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: Taxpayer funded research should be freely available to any citizen upon first publication. edit: Thanks to some discussion with posters and links to recent changes in [NIH policy](http://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm) and [U.S. policy](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/17/half-of-taxpayer-funded-research-will-soon-be-available-to-the-public/) I've conceded that my "upon first publication point" may be too dramatic. I think making the published research open access is still important, but have conceded that it should be done after a reasonable time frame. NIH says 1 year, the U.S. government says 6 months. edit: As /u/Maxzines (and others) pointed out [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2lsokk/cmv_taxpayer_funded_research_should_be_freely/clxtd8i) I didn't make it clear that I meant private projects and research done at universities or colleges. Defense departments should be able to do research in secret. I am speaking purely from an American perspective but I do genuinely feel that this issue should extend to all countries. My argument is as follows: 1. Acceptance of funds from any single person or group makes that entity an investor in that research. 2. An investor in research should have access to the end results of that research. 3. If a researcher accepts government grants to fund their research then that government, and by extension its citizens, have become an investor and should have free access to the published work. To clarify I am indeed saying that acceptance of any amount of government funding should lead to free access to the published work, regardless of if it is $1 or $100,000. Change my view, what is wrong about this line of thought? edit: To further clarify I am talking purely about publication of scientific research. I am in a sense arguing for the legislation of a requirement to publish government funded research in an [open access journal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal).

t3_1nwsuf

I won't vote for a Republican again in my lifetime. CMV.

The American Republican Party has traded in all of their ideals, all of their beliefs for the sole purpose of getting into power. Once in power their only goal is to remain in power. What was once an anti-government platform has become anti-intellectual, anti-civil discourse. They fear the Tea Party, a Frankenstein's monster of their own creation, and feel they must drive further and further away from Democrats. Electing a Republican to any government position is like hiring a saboteur to run your factory. CMV.

I won't vote for a Republican again in my lifetime. CMV. The American Republican Party has traded in all of their ideals, all of their beliefs for the sole purpose of getting into power. Once in power their only goal is to remain in power. What was once an anti-government platform has become anti-intellectual, anti-civil discourse. They fear the Tea Party, a Frankenstein's monster of their own creation, and feel they must drive further and further away from Democrats. Electing a Republican to any government position is like hiring a saboteur to run your factory. CMV.

t3_1e9r63

I think most introverts are just children in adult bodies. CMV

Introverts tend to not show much sympathy or empathy toward other people. I assume this is due to selfishness. They seem to only care about themselves and what affects them. They tend to avoid socializing or social events. I assume this is due to a lack of social experience or coaching. They tend to be overly afraid of failure. I assume this is caused from a fear that troubled them when they were young children and they couldn't overcome that fear as they grew up. They seem to think of themselves to be "gifted" or very intelligent in some way. I assume this is a childish way of thinking, where people think because they are different that they're "better". Most of these traits tend to be those of children. This might be narrow-minded and too simple, but this has been my experience with introverts.

I think most introverts are just children in adult bodies. CMV. Introverts tend to not show much sympathy or empathy toward other people. I assume this is due to selfishness. They seem to only care about themselves and what affects them. They tend to avoid socializing or social events. I assume this is due to a lack of social experience or coaching. They tend to be overly afraid of failure. I assume this is caused from a fear that troubled them when they were young children and they couldn't overcome that fear as they grew up. They seem to think of themselves to be "gifted" or very intelligent in some way. I assume this is a childish way of thinking, where people think because they are different that they're "better". Most of these traits tend to be those of children. This might be narrow-minded and too simple, but this has been my experience with introverts.

t3_1o45ds

I think people who've been accused of serious crimes should have their names kept sealed until conviction. CMV

While it is rare, there are a few people that get falsely accused of heinous crimes such as rape, murder, etc. When someone gets charged of such heinous crimes, usually a huge stigma against that person that will never shake. Take a look at, for example, Casey Anthony. While she did get found not guilty (albiet, I personally think she was guilty, but that's a side-note and irrelevant), she was found not guilty in the court of law. Now everyone still looks at her as a child killer. Also, take a look at that one story a while back (I can't find it), where a compulsive liar accused a lot of people of rape. I am pretty sure a lot of their names did get put out there and they must have lost their friends and trust in other people. Those people might forever be looked at as rapist by their peers for the rest of their lives, even though they were innocent. So I believe that anyone charged/accused of a serious crime that could defame someone, their name should be kept sealed until they are found guilty in the court of law. CMV.

I think people who've been accused of serious crimes should have their names kept sealed until conviction. CMV. While it is rare, there are a few people that get falsely accused of heinous crimes such as rape, murder, etc. When someone gets charged of such heinous crimes, usually a huge stigma against that person that will never shake. Take a look at, for example, Casey Anthony. While she did get found not guilty (albiet, I personally think she was guilty, but that's a side-note and irrelevant), she was found not guilty in the court of law. Now everyone still looks at her as a child killer. Also, take a look at that one story a while back (I can't find it), where a compulsive liar accused a lot of people of rape. I am pretty sure a lot of their names did get put out there and they must have lost their friends and trust in other people. Those people might forever be looked at as rapist by their peers for the rest of their lives, even though they were innocent. So I believe that anyone charged/accused of a serious crime that could defame someone, their name should be kept sealed until they are found guilty in the court of law. CMV.

t3_1f6339

I believe the US should never switch to the metric system like the rest of the world. CMV

I think it would be too hard to switch the entire country to an entirely new format of units and there would be little to no benefit to doing so. Just because the whole world does it doesn't mean that the US should have to.

I believe the US should never switch to the metric system like the rest of the world. CMV. I think it would be too hard to switch the entire country to an entirely new format of units and there would be little to no benefit to doing so. Just because the whole world does it doesn't mean that the US should have to.

t3_5un5zj

CMV: Pro LGBT kids shows like Steven's Universe don't "challenge" kids because they don't really have a set worldview to challenge.

To me, for a piece of art to be "challenging," it has to contradict some deeply held, seemingly steadfast belief held by the audience. Shows from the 90's, when gay marriage was still a big debate, or not even a concept entertained, when they put on a pro LGBT episode for an adult audience, that was "challenging," that was going against the beliefs of the audience, and that is *not* the same as exposing children to the same ideas. Children are much more accepting than adults. We've all heard stories about kids not mentioning that their friend was a different race, or their blase attitude when they learn that guys can love other guys. But because children tend to be more accepting and open about differences in others, these shows don't so much "challenge" their thinking as much as sculpt it into something more progressive and accepting. So when these TV critics say that Stephen's Universe, or Korrasami "challenge kids to think what constitutes love, relationships, and people" or whatever, they are the one's being challenged, and are projecting that onto an audience for whom the show has a very different effect on. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Pro LGBT kids shows like Steven's Universe don't "challenge" kids because they don't really have a set worldview to challenge. To me, for a piece of art to be "challenging," it has to contradict some deeply held, seemingly steadfast belief held by the audience. Shows from the 90's, when gay marriage was still a big debate, or not even a concept entertained, when they put on a pro LGBT episode for an adult audience, that was "challenging," that was going against the beliefs of the audience, and that is *not* the same as exposing children to the same ideas. Children are much more accepting than adults. We've all heard stories about kids not mentioning that their friend was a different race, or their blase attitude when they learn that guys can love other guys. But because children tend to be more accepting and open about differences in others, these shows don't so much "challenge" their thinking as much as sculpt it into something more progressive and accepting. So when these TV critics say that Stephen's Universe, or Korrasami "challenge kids to think what constitutes love, relationships, and people" or whatever, they are the one's being challenged, and are projecting that onto an audience for whom the show has a very different effect on. CMV.

t3_1j26dv

I think the discrepancies between races are not caused by social bias, but the races themselves. Please CMV.

I feel awful for writing what I'm about to write... I've recently started hearing of people acknowledging the high crime rates, low test scores, higher poverty, and higher unemployment among certain minorities. However, it seems that everywhere I look blames society for somehow cultivating these problems. I understand there are stereotypes that may negatively affect a certain group of people, but it hardly seems that this can cause such a massive discrepancy between the crime rates of, say, Asians and African Americans. People point to long-standing biases against minorities. My history is pretty shoddy, but didn't Asians have to face these same hardships? They're now (statistically, at least) one of the most well off races there are. Other minorities complain about receiving negative stereotypes far more, yet don't seem to be as willing to do anything to overcome these stereotypes, which in turn reinforces those very stereotypes, creating a vicious circle. This is all in addition to the fact that these minorities are granted a massive boost when applying to colleges, and are aided by lots of exclusive scholarships, yet still have the lowest college attendance rate. Occam's razor would dictate that the problem is within the races themselves, not society as a whole. I can (thankfully, at the very least) say I don't believe any races are born inferior to others, but the culture within them may not be as conducive to success. This feels pretty bad. As much as I would like to believe I'm not racist, I need some convincing. Help me CMV, you're my only hope! EDIT: Thank you all for taking the time to comment. I'm trying to keep playing devil's advocate, even if every one of my comments kills me a little inside. For the record, though, I'm not looking to have my opinion changed to "It's all the WHITE PEOPLE'S fault!" People have been great about avoiding this so far, but I feel that that comment is inevitable. Regardless, keep them coming! EDIT2: I think it may have been done. I understand now how a nasty circle started centuries ago that continues reinforcing itself to this very day. I don't think that the massive black guy I saw curse out a judge and lawyer (the video that prompted me to post this) would have done so if his parents, teachers, bosses, and the like supported him as a kid a little more. Now this doesn't mean that I completely sympathize with people in LA rioting over someone who they never met or cared about before it gave them a chance to riot. However, I do recognize that the trouble has to be tackled as a social issue perpetuated across all races. Thanks for (mostly) changing my mind! A Delta will be assigned in a moment.

I think the discrepancies between races are not caused by social bias, but the races themselves. Please CMV. I feel awful for writing what I'm about to write... I've recently started hearing of people acknowledging the high crime rates, low test scores, higher poverty, and higher unemployment among certain minorities. However, it seems that everywhere I look blames society for somehow cultivating these problems. I understand there are stereotypes that may negatively affect a certain group of people, but it hardly seems that this can cause such a massive discrepancy between the crime rates of, say, Asians and African Americans. People point to long-standing biases against minorities. My history is pretty shoddy, but didn't Asians have to face these same hardships? They're now (statistically, at least) one of the most well off races there are. Other minorities complain about receiving negative stereotypes far more, yet don't seem to be as willing to do anything to overcome these stereotypes, which in turn reinforces those very stereotypes, creating a vicious circle. This is all in addition to the fact that these minorities are granted a massive boost when applying to colleges, and are aided by lots of exclusive scholarships, yet still have the lowest college attendance rate. Occam's razor would dictate that the problem is within the races themselves, not society as a whole. I can (thankfully, at the very least) say I don't believe any races are born inferior to others, but the culture within them may not be as conducive to success. This feels pretty bad. As much as I would like to believe I'm not racist, I need some convincing. Help me CMV, you're my only hope! EDIT: Thank you all for taking the time to comment. I'm trying to keep playing devil's advocate, even if every one of my comments kills me a little inside. For the record, though, I'm not looking to have my opinion changed to "It's all the WHITE PEOPLE'S fault!" People have been great about avoiding this so far, but I feel that that comment is inevitable. Regardless, keep them coming! EDIT2: I think it may have been done. I understand now how a nasty circle started centuries ago that continues reinforcing itself to this very day. I don't think that the massive black guy I saw curse out a judge and lawyer (the video that prompted me to post this) would have done so if his parents, teachers, bosses, and the like supported him as a kid a little more. Now this doesn't mean that I completely sympathize with people in LA rioting over someone who they never met or cared about before it gave them a chance to riot. However, I do recognize that the trouble has to be tackled as a social issue perpetuated across all races. Thanks for (mostly) changing my mind! A Delta will be assigned in a moment.

t3_4bcnr2

CMV: All states should be winner take all in the primaries

The primary elections are, essentially, pandering to the voters of the states. Candidates make promises and statements to convince voters of states to vote for them, and while they don't always completely follow through, sometimes they do. However, the incentive for candidates to campaign and make promises is far greater in winner take all states, as opposed to proportional states. This is because most candidates generally have a base of voters, and end up fighting for the swingy indecisive ones. This means that in proportional states, there is less incentive for the candidate to care about winning. For example, in North Carolina, a proportional state, Trump won with 40% of the vote, while Cruz got 36%. Trump got 29 delegates, and Cruz got 27. Sure, Cruz would have preferred to win the state, but if he had spent a lot of effort appeasing voters and ended up getting 40% to Trump's 36%, he would have barely gotten any votes out of it. On the other hand, in Ohio, Kasich got 46.8%, while Trump got 35.6%, but Kasich won all 66 delegates and Trump didn't get any. This meant that Ohio was a key state to the process and got a lot of attention from all candidates, because if they had been able to shift votes just a little they could have gotten a massive swing in vote count. We can see that states get more attention and interest by being winner takes all instead of proportional. Therefore, it is in every state's interest to become winner takes all, to encourage campaign spending and pandering in the state. I would also accept loopholey winner takes all such as Illinois, which is technically proportional but since each district is winner takes all Trump got most of the delegates with only 38.8% of the vote Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4bcnr2/cmv_all_states_should_be_winner_take_all_in_the/d17xlda Pointed out that proportional encourages candidates who can't all-out win the state to still campaign there a little bit, which changed my view.

CMV: All states should be winner take all in the primaries. The primary elections are, essentially, pandering to the voters of the states. Candidates make promises and statements to convince voters of states to vote for them, and while they don't always completely follow through, sometimes they do. However, the incentive for candidates to campaign and make promises is far greater in winner take all states, as opposed to proportional states. This is because most candidates generally have a base of voters, and end up fighting for the swingy indecisive ones. This means that in proportional states, there is less incentive for the candidate to care about winning. For example, in North Carolina, a proportional state, Trump won with 40% of the vote, while Cruz got 36%. Trump got 29 delegates, and Cruz got 27. Sure, Cruz would have preferred to win the state, but if he had spent a lot of effort appeasing voters and ended up getting 40% to Trump's 36%, he would have barely gotten any votes out of it. On the other hand, in Ohio, Kasich got 46.8%, while Trump got 35.6%, but Kasich won all 66 delegates and Trump didn't get any. This meant that Ohio was a key state to the process and got a lot of attention from all candidates, because if they had been able to shift votes just a little they could have gotten a massive swing in vote count. We can see that states get more attention and interest by being winner takes all instead of proportional. Therefore, it is in every state's interest to become winner takes all, to encourage campaign spending and pandering in the state. I would also accept loopholey winner takes all such as Illinois, which is technically proportional but since each district is winner takes all Trump got most of the delegates with only 38.8% of the vote Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4bcnr2/cmv_all_states_should_be_winner_take_all_in_the/d17xlda Pointed out that proportional encourages candidates who can't all-out win the state to still campaign there a little bit, which changed my view.

t3_1g88op

Xbox One's digital rights management system is not a step in the right direction. CMV.

I believe that the Xbox One's digital rights management system (i.e. the inability to sell used games or let a friend borrow your game) is not the way that the gaming industry should treat our consumer rights to the games.

Xbox One's digital rights management system is not a step in the right direction. CMV. I believe that the Xbox One's digital rights management system (i.e. the inability to sell used games or let a friend borrow your game) is not the way that the gaming industry should treat our consumer rights to the games.

t3_2h9276

CMV: ISIS is nothing more than another in a long line of bogeymen, used by the USA to further expand and justify their Imperial military efforts.

Not only this, but they -and most past and current bogeymen like Syria and Iran and North Korea and al-Qaeda and others- are a direct result of American foreign policy, and the only true way to prevent the new iteration, is to enact a policy of non-involvement. This isn't to say what ISIS is doing is acceptable or good or should be ignored, just that they aren't nearly the direct threat (to Americans) that the U.S. media portrays them to be. Yes, what they are doing in the Middle East is horrific, but I, as an American citizen have no reason to fear them. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: ISIS is nothing more than another in a long line of bogeymen, used by the USA to further expand and justify their Imperial military efforts. Not only this, but they -and most past and current bogeymen like Syria and Iran and North Korea and al-Qaeda and others- are a direct result of American foreign policy, and the only true way to prevent the new iteration, is to enact a policy of non-involvement. This isn't to say what ISIS is doing is acceptable or good or should be ignored, just that they aren't nearly the direct threat (to Americans) that the U.S. media portrays them to be. Yes, what they are doing in the Middle East is horrific, but I, as an American citizen have no reason to fear them.

t3_1v87jb

Banning assault rifles does little but take freedoms from law-abiders while making it easier for some future despot or criminal element to frighten the populace. CMV.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/crime-study-no-rise-in-mass-shootings-despite-media-hype/article/2542118 "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson Top 15 guns per capital/100 US 89.0 1 Serbia 58.2 2 Yemen 54.8 3 Switzerland45.7 4 Finland 45.3 5 Cyprus 36.1 6 Saudi 35 7 Iraq 34.2 8 Uruguay 31.8 9 Sweden 31.6 10 Norway 31.3 11 France 31.2 12 Canada 30.8 13 Austria 30.4 14 Germany 30.3 15 Bottom 15 guns per capita/100 Haiti .6 164 Japan .6 164 North Korea.6 164 Rwanda .6 164 SierraLeone.6 164 Bangladesh .5 169 Eritrea .5 169 Fiji .5 169 Indonesia .5 169 Singapore .5 169 Ethiopia .4 174 Ghana .4 174 Solomons .4 174 Timor .3 177 Tunisia .1 178

Banning assault rifles does little but take freedoms from law-abiders while making it easier for some future despot or criminal element to frighten the populace. CMV. http://washingtonexaminer.com/crime-study-no-rise-in-mass-shootings-despite-media-hype/article/2542118 "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson Top 15 guns per capital/100 US 89.0 1 Serbia 58.2 2 Yemen 54.8 3 Switzerland45.7 4 Finland 45.3 5 Cyprus 36.1 6 Saudi 35 7 Iraq 34.2 8 Uruguay 31.8 9 Sweden 31.6 10 Norway 31.3 11 France 31.2 12 Canada 30.8 13 Austria 30.4 14 Germany 30.3 15 Bottom 15 guns per capita/100 Haiti .6 164 Japan .6 164 North Korea.6 164 Rwanda .6 164 SierraLeone.6 164 Bangladesh .5 169 Eritrea .5 169 Fiji .5 169 Indonesia .5 169 Singapore .5 169 Ethiopia .4 174 Ghana .4 174 Solomons .4 174 Timor .3 177 Tunisia .1 178

t3_32tuwr

CMV: I don't think I should say something unless I feel its really worth saying

When I'm hanging out with people I don't know too well, I have a tendency to self-censor myself from the conversation unless I feel like I have something that's really worthwhile to contribute. Especially in a group of friends who are close with each other and are sharing intimate stories or inside jokes, it makes me even more hesitant to speak up since I'm afraid of people not acknowledging what I said or thinking it's stupid. Speaking 1-on-1 with someone or if I have a defined purpose (work or a project) I don't have this problem as much, but it gets worse in groups since I feel like everyone is judging what I'm saying. Logically speaking I know that if I said something dumb or socially unacceptable most people would probably forget it by the next day. But I just can't convince myself that it's better to try, fail, and get back up rather than never take the risk in the first place. Edit:Added some more info. _____ > *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 I should say something unless I feel its really worth saying. When I'm hanging out with people I don't know too well, I have a tendency to self-censor myself from the conversation unless I feel like I have something that's really worthwhile to contribute. Especially in a group of friends who are close with each other and are sharing intimate stories or inside jokes, it makes me even more hesitant to speak up since I'm afraid of people not acknowledging what I said or thinking it's stupid. Speaking 1-on-1 with someone or if I have a defined purpose (work or a project) I don't have this problem as much, but it gets worse in groups since I feel like everyone is judging what I'm saying. Logically speaking I know that if I said something dumb or socially unacceptable most people would probably forget it by the next day. But I just can't convince myself that it's better to try, fail, and get back up rather than never take the risk in the first place. Edit:Added some more info.

t3_38ij0o

CMV: A person with visible facial piercings or body mods will likely be viewed as less professional and turned down in favor of equally (or even less) qualified individuals.

I would really like to believe this isn't the case, but I feel it is. I love facial piercings. Nothing extreme, just an eyebrow piercing or a labret or, at the most extreme, snake bites. Throughout my life I've had these, I've had a scaffold/industrial piercing, and I've had my ears stretched to a 4g. (So, not big "discs" or anything but large enough that people noticed.) Everything (except the lobes) were one at a time, I never had more than one type of "abnormal" piercing at a given time in my life. I always removed my piercings and let them close before returning to my school or job or what have you. For a while I worked as a pizza driver with the labret, but after removing it found my tips improved. I think many people think piercings and similar stylistic modifications are phases teenagers go through and not appropriate for adults. I'm about to enter my last year of undergrad and move on to a Masters program with an internship component and I feel I cannot return to having a piercing (let alone multiple ones) beyond normal lobe piercings without being taken less seriously, seen as less professional, and possibly being passed over for positions and opportunities. TBH I'm about to turn 28 but still have this, like, inner-goth side that is constantly yearning to get a piercing or two and rock some black hair dye again, but I feel I can't because I feel I'm *supposed* to be beyond that and I'm "too old for that stuff." I would love it if someone could change my view. You are more than welcome to address tattoos in your response as well, though I am mostly referring to piercings and possibly dyed hair that is clearly not a natural hair color for the individual. (I am a female, if that is relevant. I know some people view piercings on different sexes differently.) Edited to add: I see many people mentioning it depends on the profession. I realize this and I'd thought just mentioning the Masters program would make it clear I'm not going to work at a tattoo parlor. lol But fair statements. I will be working in the healthcare field as a direct provider to patients, but not as a physician. There is also a high chance of working in research/academia after the internship phase. Furthermore, I'll clarify here that is is the intent of this CMV to find out if there are areas of the country where this is not the case. I am from a small farm town in Utah, I was hoping this reaction to piercings was a local thing, and so this CMV is an attempt to find out if it is true all over the country. Alas it sounds like my view won't be changed, due to being correct. :( But *please* change it if you can. I really want to be 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: A person with visible facial piercings or body mods will likely be viewed as less professional and turned down in favor of equally (or even less) qualified individuals. I would really like to believe this isn't the case, but I feel it is. I love facial piercings. Nothing extreme, just an eyebrow piercing or a labret or, at the most extreme, snake bites. Throughout my life I've had these, I've had a scaffold/industrial piercing, and I've had my ears stretched to a 4g. (So, not big "discs" or anything but large enough that people noticed.) Everything (except the lobes) were one at a time, I never had more than one type of "abnormal" piercing at a given time in my life. I always removed my piercings and let them close before returning to my school or job or what have you. For a while I worked as a pizza driver with the labret, but after removing it found my tips improved. I think many people think piercings and similar stylistic modifications are phases teenagers go through and not appropriate for adults. I'm about to enter my last year of undergrad and move on to a Masters program with an internship component and I feel I cannot return to having a piercing (let alone multiple ones) beyond normal lobe piercings without being taken less seriously, seen as less professional, and possibly being passed over for positions and opportunities. TBH I'm about to turn 28 but still have this, like, inner-goth side that is constantly yearning to get a piercing or two and rock some black hair dye again, but I feel I can't because I feel I'm *supposed* to be beyond that and I'm "too old for that stuff." I would love it if someone could change my view. You are more than welcome to address tattoos in your response as well, though I am mostly referring to piercings and possibly dyed hair that is clearly not a natural hair color for the individual. (I am a female, if that is relevant. I know some people view piercings on different sexes differently.) Edited to add: I see many people mentioning it depends on the profession. I realize this and I'd thought just mentioning the Masters program would make it clear I'm not going to work at a tattoo parlor. lol But fair statements. I will be working in the healthcare field as a direct provider to patients, but not as a physician. There is also a high chance of working in research/academia after the internship phase. Furthermore, I'll clarify here that is is the intent of this CMV to find out if there are areas of the country where this is not the case. I am from a small farm town in Utah, I was hoping this reaction to piercings was a local thing, and so this CMV is an attempt to find out if it is true all over the country. Alas it sounds like my view won't be changed, due to being correct. :( But *please* change it if you can. I really want to be wrong! > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_2vlk3e

CMV: Demisexuality is not a marginalized sexuality in the United States.

> Demisexuals are characterized by a lack of sexual attraction toward any person unless they become deeply emotionally or romantically connected with a specific person or persons. -Urban Dictionary I do not believe that demisexuality is an oppressed sexuality in modern America because historically, heterosexual demisexuality has been enforced as the default sexuality for women in much of the first world. Throughout most of modern history women have been required to at least *pretend* that they are demisexual at the risk of severe social consequences. There are many people who expect women (and men, but not as often) to enter into a monogamous, committed relationship before engaging in sexual activity. This attitude manifests in a multitde of ways, and slutshaming is an expression of this expectation. I believe that straight demisexuality is considered the "default" by popular society, and because women are often penalized for not being demisexual, it is not a marginalized sexuality even if it is not as prevalent as popular opinion expects it to be.

CMV: Demisexuality is not a marginalized sexuality in the United States. > Demisexuals are characterized by a lack of sexual attraction toward any person unless they become deeply emotionally or romantically connected with a specific person or persons. -Urban Dictionary I do not believe that demisexuality is an oppressed sexuality in modern America because historically, heterosexual demisexuality has been enforced as the default sexuality for women in much of the first world. Throughout most of modern history women have been required to at least *pretend* that they are demisexual at the risk of severe social consequences. There are many people who expect women (and men, but not as often) to enter into a monogamous, committed relationship before engaging in sexual activity. This attitude manifests in a multitde of ways, and slutshaming is an expression of this expectation. I believe that straight demisexuality is considered the "default" by popular society, and because women are often penalized for not being demisexual, it is not a marginalized sexuality even if it is not as prevalent as popular opinion expects it to be.

t3_35eo39

CMV: I believe in 3 genders, maybe.. Are there more?

Hi! A while ago I posted here that [I believed in a gender binary](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o65my/cmv_i_think_i_believe_in_a_gender_binary/) and was confused about [this thing](http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/1600-Genderbread-Person.jpg), you did somewhat change my view on a couple of points. [Here](https://i.imgur.com/eABYo7e.png) is what I believe now. As you can see I believe gender identity is not a scale just three possible values. I'm a little on the fence about agender. I'm thinking it might also be a mental condition.. I'm not completely sure. As a bonus you may call yourself trans if your biological sex does not equal your gender identity. Though trans is not a gender by itself, its just a way of describing your gender identity. Expression can be either male, female or androgynous and somewhat of a scale. And as a bonus you could also describe yourself as a transvestite if gender identity doesnt equal gender expression. However, transvestite isn't a gender expression by itself. I think that gender expression is a weird thing to bring to bring up among these other graphs 'cause it doesnt necessarily have much to do with anything. But ok. Offcourse it is a scale, but I dont see the point in having the scale to measure it, as if you would need or want to put your gender expression down on a chart. Unless you'd want to see how much that changed after time, then you could've used some regression and find how silly you will dress in the future, or use it to find out how much you'd need to spend on clothing in the future :P Biological Sex can't be a scale. The official definitions are pretty strict here. I'm on the fence on how much sexual orientation is a scale, but it seems that some straight people are more open to kissing men etc than others, so yeah it might be a scale. I dont think it is a choice though, and it can't change over time. What is called the gender binary however refers to the number of gender *identities*, right? So in all the expressions I just mentioned, there are just 3 genders. But I guess there is a reason why I havent heard of the gender trinity, so what more are there? Bonus question: If someone was born a woman, feels like a man, but dresses like a woman, is he a transvestite? :P _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe in 3 genders, maybe.. Are there more?. Hi! A while ago I posted here that [I believed in a gender binary](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o65my/cmv_i_think_i_believe_in_a_gender_binary/) and was confused about [this thing](http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/1600-Genderbread-Person.jpg), you did somewhat change my view on a couple of points. [Here](https://i.imgur.com/eABYo7e.png) is what I believe now. As you can see I believe gender identity is not a scale just three possible values. I'm a little on the fence about agender. I'm thinking it might also be a mental condition.. I'm not completely sure. As a bonus you may call yourself trans if your biological sex does not equal your gender identity. Though trans is not a gender by itself, its just a way of describing your gender identity. Expression can be either male, female or androgynous and somewhat of a scale. And as a bonus you could also describe yourself as a transvestite if gender identity doesnt equal gender expression. However, transvestite isn't a gender expression by itself. I think that gender expression is a weird thing to bring to bring up among these other graphs 'cause it doesnt necessarily have much to do with anything. But ok. Offcourse it is a scale, but I dont see the point in having the scale to measure it, as if you would need or want to put your gender expression down on a chart. Unless you'd want to see how much that changed after time, then you could've used some regression and find how silly you will dress in the future, or use it to find out how much you'd need to spend on clothing in the future :P Biological Sex can't be a scale. The official definitions are pretty strict here. I'm on the fence on how much sexual orientation is a scale, but it seems that some straight people are more open to kissing men etc than others, so yeah it might be a scale. I dont think it is a choice though, and it can't change over time. What is called the gender binary however refers to the number of gender *identities*, right? So in all the expressions I just mentioned, there are just 3 genders. But I guess there is a reason why I havent heard of the gender trinity, so what more are there? Bonus question: If someone was born a woman, feels like a man, but dresses like a woman, is he a transvestite? :P

t3_3i7w74

CMV: Renting property is immoral

I 'buy' an apartment for $240,000. In the agreement I set my mortgage at $1,000 per month. I then rent that apartment for $1,000 or more a month. Assuming I get a renter, I don't even have to work to pay mortage. Some other schmuck that is working a job just to have shelter instead is paying for the apartment that I 'bought'. A recent flash of insight made me realize not only how wrong this is but how much it encourages what is wrong in our society. A major portion of our economy is based upon the idea that others pay off our purposely encouraged debt. If anything, anything that deals with 'rent' must include a clause about rent rolling into 'purchase' and that that 'purchase' amount can be transferred to another. If you or some company wants to 'rent' something then that 'rent' must in turn count as a purchase price against whatever sell amount the owner sets in addition to being transferable.

CMV: Renting property is immoral. I 'buy' an apartment for $240,000. In the agreement I set my mortgage at $1,000 per month. I then rent that apartment for $1,000 or more a month. Assuming I get a renter, I don't even have to work to pay mortage. Some other schmuck that is working a job just to have shelter instead is paying for the apartment that I 'bought'. A recent flash of insight made me realize not only how wrong this is but how much it encourages what is wrong in our society. A major portion of our economy is based upon the idea that others pay off our purposely encouraged debt. If anything, anything that deals with 'rent' must include a clause about rent rolling into 'purchase' and that that 'purchase' amount can be transferred to another. If you or some company wants to 'rent' something then that 'rent' must in turn count as a purchase price against whatever sell amount the owner sets in addition to being transferable.

t3_1e2l8x

I believe people who are depressed should get more exercise and make travelling a priority before thinking about medication. CMV

I am making a sweeping statement here, but most of the people who I know are depressed don't get nearly enough exercise. Some of them don't even leave their house when they have free time. I understand this, but only to a certain extent. Fresh air and a little cardio can do wonders for your mood. Sitting inside feeling sad and sorry about things doesn't do much. As for the travelling, I believe that those who are able to save and produce the means for travelling should. I believe once you experience a different culture and meet new people (who potentially had/have it far worse off than you), it adds a different perspective to life, and maybe you'll realize that things really aren't that bad.

I believe people who are depressed should get more exercise and make travelling a priority before thinking about medication. CMV. I am making a sweeping statement here, but most of the people who I know are depressed don't get nearly enough exercise. Some of them don't even leave their house when they have free time. I understand this, but only to a certain extent. Fresh air and a little cardio can do wonders for your mood. Sitting inside feeling sad and sorry about things doesn't do much. As for the travelling, I believe that those who are able to save and produce the means for travelling should. I believe once you experience a different culture and meet new people (who potentially had/have it far worse off than you), it adds a different perspective to life, and maybe you'll realize that things really aren't that bad.

t3_1qu5ay

I believe that human needs are always more important than animal rights. CMV

Note that I used the word "needs" very broadly in this context. When I say needs. I meant anything that would give a human or humanity even the slightest amount of benefit or comfort. Now I hold mostly libertarian values, which means that I support the notion that anyone should do anything they want when it does not hurt or disturb another person. This, again can be interpreted in a manner of ways, but in the context of animal rights, it is pretty straight forward. Because no human being is being harmed, then the action although appalling, should not be illegal. Many of you may argue the "animal abuse leads to human abuse" argument, but its really a slippery slope fallacy, and even you were right most of the time, its still irrelevant because we have laws against harming another human being. We should arrest people who harm humans, not individual animals. Just because some action may lead to a crime, doesn't mean it warrants an arrest due to an generalized assumption. I do not however support killing animals to the point of extinction. I care about the collective existence of animals as a whole as it pertains to ecological stability and public ownership. I do not support the hunting of endangered species because I value their continued existence as a whole, not because I care about their rights. I believe that humans who kill endangered species are destroying public property and disrupting the ecological balance in some cases, and thus their actions are harming other people. This is why I believe that factory farming and sustainable whaling are perfectly fine, while poaching engendered animals is not. I mentioned factory farming in the last paragraph. Factory farming has, without a doubt, made meat a cheaper to the average consumer. I acknowledge that livestock is being tortured for meat, but because it benefits, or at least does not harm humanity, I still believe the practice is perfectly legitimate. Some of you may argue that factory farm meat may have certain health problems, and that is a reasonable argument, but it doesn't really address my main point. If you think factory farming shouldn't continue because it produces poisonous meat, then you may have a point, but if you oppose factory farming for the treatment of animals, then I would not consider your argument with any seriousness. Some of you may argue that treating animals with respect is a part of human empathy, and I agree with you. I would never torture an animal, and I find the act rather appalling, but I believe the state should not intervene and arrest a person which has done no harm to another person. If someone enjoys harming animals, then all we should do its criticize, but in the end, human needs should always trump animal rights.

I believe that human needs are always more important than animal rights. CMV. Note that I used the word "needs" very broadly in this context. When I say needs. I meant anything that would give a human or humanity even the slightest amount of benefit or comfort. Now I hold mostly libertarian values, which means that I support the notion that anyone should do anything they want when it does not hurt or disturb another person. This, again can be interpreted in a manner of ways, but in the context of animal rights, it is pretty straight forward. Because no human being is being harmed, then the action although appalling, should not be illegal. Many of you may argue the "animal abuse leads to human abuse" argument, but its really a slippery slope fallacy, and even you were right most of the time, its still irrelevant because we have laws against harming another human being. We should arrest people who harm humans, not individual animals. Just because some action may lead to a crime, doesn't mean it warrants an arrest due to an generalized assumption. I do not however support killing animals to the point of extinction. I care about the collective existence of animals as a whole as it pertains to ecological stability and public ownership. I do not support the hunting of endangered species because I value their continued existence as a whole, not because I care about their rights. I believe that humans who kill endangered species are destroying public property and disrupting the ecological balance in some cases, and thus their actions are harming other people. This is why I believe that factory farming and sustainable whaling are perfectly fine, while poaching engendered animals is not. I mentioned factory farming in the last paragraph. Factory farming has, without a doubt, made meat a cheaper to the average consumer. I acknowledge that livestock is being tortured for meat, but because it benefits, or at least does not harm humanity, I still believe the practice is perfectly legitimate. Some of you may argue that factory farm meat may have certain health problems, and that is a reasonable argument, but it doesn't really address my main point. If you think factory farming shouldn't continue because it produces poisonous meat, then you may have a point, but if you oppose factory farming for the treatment of animals, then I would not consider your argument with any seriousness. Some of you may argue that treating animals with respect is a part of human empathy, and I agree with you. I would never torture an animal, and I find the act rather appalling, but I believe the state should not intervene and arrest a person which has done no harm to another person. If someone enjoys harming animals, then all we should do its criticize, but in the end, human needs should always trump animal rights.

t3_1z16rh

I don't believe "an attractive redheaded man" is a thing that exists. CMV

My mom has light red hair and my dad has blond, so my hair has always been a nice mixture of the two. Unfortunately, my hair's been getting redder and redder as I get older and I hate it. People always says it looks good and tell me not to change it, and I usually retort by challenging them to find a single attractive ginger. They never can and to this day I haven't seen a picture of an attractive red haired guy. I'd love to have someone change my mind. The closest someone's gotten was Prince Harry, and even then it was "I mean, I'd probably hook up with him, he is a prince after all..."

I don't believe "an attractive redheaded man" is a thing that exists. CMV. My mom has light red hair and my dad has blond, so my hair has always been a nice mixture of the two. Unfortunately, my hair's been getting redder and redder as I get older and I hate it. People always says it looks good and tell me not to change it, and I usually retort by challenging them to find a single attractive ginger. They never can and to this day I haven't seen a picture of an attractive red haired guy. I'd love to have someone change my mind. The closest someone's gotten was Prince Harry, and even then it was "I mean, I'd probably hook up with him, he is a prince after all..."

t3_4rv1w8

CMV: As a non-black minority, I'm not sure if I have any place in going out and protesting. I would like to go, because I feel like it's proactive and good, but I don't face the same problems that blacks do. If any non-black minorities could chime in, that'd be great.

[removed]

CMV: As a non-black minority, I'm not sure if I have any place in going out and protesting. I would like to go, because I feel like it's proactive and good, but I don't face the same problems that blacks do. If any non-black minorities could chime in, that'd be great. [removed]

t3_1na1oj

Making children instead of adopting is selfish. CMV.

This is not directed to people who had unexpected pregnancies nor to people who both adopted and made children nor to people who don't want children at all, but to people who purposely decide to make children instead of adopting/doing both. Overpopulation is an overwhelming global issue. Although we haven't outgrown the planet yet, I have little hope that the population won't continue to expand at a dangerously rapid rate. Dozens of interstate billboards pop up every week advertising new neighborhoods. The trees and parks surrounding my city slowly disappear while the people who so badly seek solitude in the woods have to recede further and further from the outskirts of the U.S. And since the population includes criminals, crime will certainly increase just as quickly. But hey, we could all list a thousand problems that could arise from overpopulation. But whether or not overpopulation will become a problem in the future, what's really important here is that right now there are millions of suffering children in need of a home. It seems apparent to me that either adopting or not having children at all or doing both is the most logical solution to child poverty/homelessness and to potential overpopulation. Also, I am not attacking anyone. I genuinely want my view to be changed. It's actually pretty depressing to realize that if I would feel guilty if I ever made children, so I'm completely open to any good counterarguments.

Making children instead of adopting is selfish. CMV. This is not directed to people who had unexpected pregnancies nor to people who both adopted and made children nor to people who don't want children at all, but to people who purposely decide to make children instead of adopting/doing both. Overpopulation is an overwhelming global issue. Although we haven't outgrown the planet yet, I have little hope that the population won't continue to expand at a dangerously rapid rate. Dozens of interstate billboards pop up every week advertising new neighborhoods. The trees and parks surrounding my city slowly disappear while the people who so badly seek solitude in the woods have to recede further and further from the outskirts of the U.S. And since the population includes criminals, crime will certainly increase just as quickly. But hey, we could all list a thousand problems that could arise from overpopulation. But whether or not overpopulation will become a problem in the future, what's really important here is that right now there are millions of suffering children in need of a home. It seems apparent to me that either adopting or not having children at all or doing both is the most logical solution to child poverty/homelessness and to potential overpopulation. Also, I am not attacking anyone. I genuinely want my view to be changed. It's actually pretty depressing to realize that if I would feel guilty if I ever made children, so I'm completely open to any good counterarguments.

t3_2124uw

Religion is completely unnecessary and non-vital for human existence. CMV

It is a natural human tendency to try and look for a higher, stronger being to turn to in times of need and despair. I think that this is why religion was created, to fill up this one tiny spot in our minds to reassure us of a constant presence of a higher being. However, I think that religion, or simply the belief in any higher power or supreme being is completely unnecessary for our existence, i.e. we can live without being subject to a defined set of beliefs stemming from an age old practice. CMV.

Religion is completely unnecessary and non-vital for human existence. CMV. It is a natural human tendency to try and look for a higher, stronger being to turn to in times of need and despair. I think that this is why religion was created, to fill up this one tiny spot in our minds to reassure us of a constant presence of a higher being. However, I think that religion, or simply the belief in any higher power or supreme being is completely unnecessary for our existence, i.e. we can live without being subject to a defined set of beliefs stemming from an age old practice. CMV.

t3_381dc7

CMV: I dislike all children from newborns until they reach an age of maturity.

All my friends love children and show me pictures of their little siblings, the children they babysit, and cousins. I don't find them cute to the point where I'm like "awww" or like have the sudden urge to pinch their cheeks. I don't really understand the point of having children I guess. I feel like they are around for enjoyment and love. But I also feel like those feelings can be easily found in other things like pets, friends, family, romantic relationships, etc.. Also the amount of things that you have to sacrifice is annoying. I mean you have to sacrifice time, possibly relationships, possibly your job, and lots of money. I'm a straight female and I also would have to go through a considerable amount of pain if I wanted a (what's the word? I guess biological or genetic?) child. I'd be fine with adopting a 15 year old child, but they have lived a significant amount of their lives without my values or beliefs and it would be difficult to adjust. Also the issue that they know that they are adopted and they might not even consider me their parent. I guess the reason I'm ok with 15 and up is because they are usually mature and understand situations (kinda vague but you get the idea). It frustrates me to be around kids that are having tantrums about not getting candy or a toy. I understand that I myself went through this stage and I am grateful for my parents for what they did and are doing. My parents are also divorced and that split my family apart. Being a child of divorced parents is so emotionally straining and I'd hate to have to put them through it. I predict that some will argue there are certain values you learn from parenthood, but I also feel like there are other ways of being able to obtain these values other than parenthood. This might have come across as a bit selfish, but that isn't my intention. I encourage you to CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I dislike all children from newborns until they reach an age of maturity. All my friends love children and show me pictures of their little siblings, the children they babysit, and cousins. I don't find them cute to the point where I'm like "awww" or like have the sudden urge to pinch their cheeks. I don't really understand the point of having children I guess. I feel like they are around for enjoyment and love. But I also feel like those feelings can be easily found in other things like pets, friends, family, romantic relationships, etc.. Also the amount of things that you have to sacrifice is annoying. I mean you have to sacrifice time, possibly relationships, possibly your job, and lots of money. I'm a straight female and I also would have to go through a considerable amount of pain if I wanted a (what's the word? I guess biological or genetic?) child. I'd be fine with adopting a 15 year old child, but they have lived a significant amount of their lives without my values or beliefs and it would be difficult to adjust. Also the issue that they know that they are adopted and they might not even consider me their parent. I guess the reason I'm ok with 15 and up is because they are usually mature and understand situations (kinda vague but you get the idea). It frustrates me to be around kids that are having tantrums about not getting candy or a toy. I understand that I myself went through this stage and I am grateful for my parents for what they did and are doing. My parents are also divorced and that split my family apart. Being a child of divorced parents is so emotionally straining and I'd hate to have to put them through it. I predict that some will argue there are certain values you learn from parenthood, but I also feel like there are other ways of being able to obtain these values other than parenthood. This might have come across as a bit selfish, but that isn't my intention. I encourage you to CMV.

t3_2tlbue

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, January 17, 2015 - Friday, January 23, 2015

Totals: 7 days, 93 posts, 7,878 comments. Included in this report: The top 93 posts, and 7,355 of the top comments, by 1,954 distinct authors. No posts were gilded, but 1 comment was gilded. --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |1263|/u/avant-garde_funhouse|[CMV: Racism is clearly wrong, but criticism of culture is not wrong if done thoughtfully and in good faith. It should not be equated with racism, and does not make one an asshole.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sqh6c/cmv_racism_is_clearly_wrong_but_criticism_of/)| |714|/u/zeptimius|[CMV: If the Jenny and Carly story is fake, it should be praised for reinveting mystification, not condemned as deception](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t1a83/cmv_if_the_jenny_and_carly_story_is_fake_it/)| |694|/u/draculabakula|[CMV: Michael Moore and Seth Rogan's criticisms of the film"American Sniper" are valid and the glorification of war is wrong.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t2kj1/cmv_michael_moore_and_seth_rogans_criticisms_of/)| |637|/u/BZRoths|[CMV: There should be a significant change in the way math is taught in school because 80% of our time is spent learning how to do computation, and computers make that obsolete.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2suznz/cmv_there_should_be_a_significant_change_in_the/)| |566|/u/kirby_j3|[CMV: Holidays should not be named after people, but after the virtue(s) that they represented.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sy7r5/cmv_holidays_should_not_be_named_after_people_but/)| |402|/u/zjm555|[CMV: "The Hunger Games" as a story is completely unbelievable](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tet25/cmv_the_hunger_games_as_a_story_is_completely/)| |356|/u/Redsecurity|[CMV: Parents who want to conceive should have to take the same tests as those who want to adopt.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tf0y4/cmv_parents_who_want_to_conceive_should_have_to/)| |336|/u/Yggdras1l|[CMV: Child Protective Services (CPS), while a good concept, is virtually useless in practice](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t6ote/cmv_child_protective_services_cps_while_a_good/)| |264|/u/yggdraziil|[CMV: I have no desire to drink alcohol or partake in its associated culture, even at legal age.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2su8e2/cmv_i_have_no_desire_to_drink_alcohol_or_partake/)| |188|/u/rmkreeg|[CMV: Capitalism is cannibalistic](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tc41n/cmv_capitalism_is_cannibalistic/)| |162|/u/618907|[CMV: I believe that mainstream Christianity is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus as presented in the bible.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ssirq/cmv_i_believe_that_mainstream_christianity_is/)| |143|/u/guitarandcheese|[CMV: I believe that Palestinians have every right to take up arms against Israel, because their human rights are being violated.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2swdp1/cmv_i_believe_that_palestinians_have_every_right/)| |135|/u/LetThemEatWar32|[CMV: The Japanese government should NOT pay $200 million ransom for two of its citizens currently held hostage by ISIS](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t383n/cmv_the_japanese_government_should_not_pay_200/)| |125|/u/-Jamerican|[CMV: Institutions of learning, especially colleges, should not hire educators that have accents that make it hard to understand them.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2teulf/cmv_institutions_of_learning_especially_colleges/)| |113|/u/universaladaptoid|[CMV: CGI in movies is not necessarily a bad thing, and the general dislike for it by many Redditors is silly.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2su6pz/cmv_cgi_in_movies_is_not_necessarily_a_bad_thing/)| |103|/u/ahumblesloth|[CMV: The USA spends a ridiculous amount of money on our military.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t8798/cmv_the_usa_spends_a_ridiculous_amount_of_money/)| |89|/u/IAmAN00bie|[[Meta] Some advice for posters to CMV](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2swp9d/meta_some_advice_for_posters_to_cmv/)| |81|/u/WhoIs_DankeyKang|[CMV: The USA should offer totally free Government-subsidized college tuition for all who qualify for college admission (Community or University degrees)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t6w7s/cmv_the_usa_should_offer_totally_free/)| |81|/u/chuckDontSurf|[CMV: We will never travel space in any meaningful way because we'll use up all of our resources long before that](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sv8iw/cmv_we_will_never_travel_space_in_any_meaningful/)| |75|/u/Trenks|[CMV: Believing that all religions are equal is illogical and simply PC](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t7i52/cmv_believing_that_all_religions_are_equal_is/)| |73|/u/AutoModerator|[Fresh Topic Friday - 01/23/15](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2te9ug/fresh_topic_friday_012315/)| |71|/u/kepold|[CMV: It's no coincidence that states that vote Republican are objectively worse off...](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t4tji/cmv_its_no_coincidence_that_states_that_vote/)| |67|/u/anonoman925|[CMV: I'm not afraid of the government invading my privacy, I'm afraid of the public invading my privacy.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sulxy/cmv_im_not_afraid_of_the_government_invading_my/)| |55|/u/Sarandana|[CMV: Mark Wahlberg doesn't deserve a pardon.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t5d0k/cmv_mark_wahlberg_doesnt_deserve_a_pardon/)| |50|/u/togtogtog|[CMV: An american style culture of dating makes it harder for men and women to be friends.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sx85q/cmv_an_american_style_culture_of_dating_makes_it/)| |42|/u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH|[CMV: An argument based on semantics is almost always a bad argument.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tf739/cmv_an_argument_based_on_semantics_is_almost/)| |34|/u/Enchanted_Bunny|[CMV: Legalizing Marijuana Will Not Help the Economy](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tad3x/cmv_legalizing_marijuana_will_not_help_the_economy/)| |32|/u/DistortionMage|[CMV: the process of money creation completely screws over working people for no good reason](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t0j81/cmv_the_process_of_money_creation_completely/)| |32|/u/-SaidNoOneEver-|[CMV. Some lives are worth more than others.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sqerh/cmv_some_lives_are_worth_more_than_others/)| |30|/u/HyperbolicInvective|[CMV: We should not encourage people to major in liberal arts.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t8qea/cmv_we_should_not_encourage_people_to_major_in/)| |28|/u/JankstarrK|[CMV: The Overtime rules of the NFL are unfair](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tdisw/cmv_the_overtime_rules_of_the_nfl_are_unfair/)| |28|/u/the90stotallysucked|[CMV: Why spend money on space exploration when we have so many other issues on Earth?](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tflkf/cmv_why_spend_money_on_space_exploration_when_we/)| |24|/u/Kunc_|[CMV: That Technology will, in the near future, eliminate capitalism and create a more communistic society](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2svh7o/cmv_that_technology_will_in_the_near_future/)| |22|/u/forbin_project1|[CMV: An entire people can never justifiably be punished for crimes committed by their government](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tekkp/cmv_an_entire_people_can_never_justifiably_be/)| |20|/u/Constitution4all|[CMV: People who advocate against guns for self defense should at least suggest non-lethal alternatives.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ss98w/cmv_people_who_advocate_against_guns_for_self/)| |19|/u/HomarusAmericanus|[CMV: Money is a bad joke people use to hurt each other](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tcj5m/cmv_money_is_a_bad_joke_people_use_to_hurt_each/)| |19|/u/noahloiksgeezers|[CMV: In Breaking Bad, Walt is the douche and Skyler is the better of the two](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2szhys/cmv_in_breaking_bad_walt_is_the_douche_and_skyler/)| |19|/u/rey64|[CMV: I should quit my job to start a business](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sqc45/cmv_i_should_quit_my_job_to_start_a_business/)| |17|/u/chessnutz|[CMV:I believe the book "How to Analyze People on Sight" is factually true](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tawhw/cmvi_believe_the_book_how_to_analyze_people_on/)| |17|/u/DenshaOtaku|[CMV: The coming complete automation of unskilled labor in the next 10 years, capitalism, and bell curve intelligence are a completely incompatible combination.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t6t24/cmv_the_coming_complete_automation_of_unskilled/)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, January 17, 2015 - Friday, January 23, 2015. Totals: 7 days, 93 posts, 7,878 comments. Included in this report: The top 93 posts, and 7,355 of the top comments, by 1,954 distinct authors. No posts were gilded, but 1 comment was gilded. --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |1263|/u/avant-garde_funhouse|[CMV: Racism is clearly wrong, but criticism of culture is not wrong if done thoughtfully and in good faith. It should not be equated with racism, and does not make one an asshole.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sqh6c/cmv_racism_is_clearly_wrong_but_criticism_of/)| |714|/u/zeptimius|[CMV: If the Jenny and Carly story is fake, it should be praised for reinveting mystification, not condemned as deception](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t1a83/cmv_if_the_jenny_and_carly_story_is_fake_it/)| |694|/u/draculabakula|[CMV: Michael Moore and Seth Rogan's criticisms of the film"American Sniper" are valid and the glorification of war is wrong.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t2kj1/cmv_michael_moore_and_seth_rogans_criticisms_of/)| |637|/u/BZRoths|[CMV: There should be a significant change in the way math is taught in school because 80% of our time is spent learning how to do computation, and computers make that obsolete.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2suznz/cmv_there_should_be_a_significant_change_in_the/)| |566|/u/kirby_j3|[CMV: Holidays should not be named after people, but after the virtue(s) that they represented.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sy7r5/cmv_holidays_should_not_be_named_after_people_but/)| |402|/u/zjm555|[CMV: "The Hunger Games" as a story is completely unbelievable](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tet25/cmv_the_hunger_games_as_a_story_is_completely/)| |356|/u/Redsecurity|[CMV: Parents who want to conceive should have to take the same tests as those who want to adopt.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tf0y4/cmv_parents_who_want_to_conceive_should_have_to/)| |336|/u/Yggdras1l|[CMV: Child Protective Services (CPS), while a good concept, is virtually useless in practice](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t6ote/cmv_child_protective_services_cps_while_a_good/)| |264|/u/yggdraziil|[CMV: I have no desire to drink alcohol or partake in its associated culture, even at legal age.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2su8e2/cmv_i_have_no_desire_to_drink_alcohol_or_partake/)| |188|/u/rmkreeg|[CMV: Capitalism is cannibalistic](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tc41n/cmv_capitalism_is_cannibalistic/)| |162|/u/618907|[CMV: I believe that mainstream Christianity is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus as presented in the bible.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ssirq/cmv_i_believe_that_mainstream_christianity_is/)| |143|/u/guitarandcheese|[CMV: I believe that Palestinians have every right to take up arms against Israel, because their human rights are being violated.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2swdp1/cmv_i_believe_that_palestinians_have_every_right/)| |135|/u/LetThemEatWar32|[CMV: The Japanese government should NOT pay $200 million ransom for two of its citizens currently held hostage by ISIS](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t383n/cmv_the_japanese_government_should_not_pay_200/)| |125|/u/-Jamerican|[CMV: Institutions of learning, especially colleges, should not hire educators that have accents that make it hard to understand them.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2teulf/cmv_institutions_of_learning_especially_colleges/)| |113|/u/universaladaptoid|[CMV: CGI in movies is not necessarily a bad thing, and the general dislike for it by many Redditors is silly.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2su6pz/cmv_cgi_in_movies_is_not_necessarily_a_bad_thing/)| |103|/u/ahumblesloth|[CMV: The USA spends a ridiculous amount of money on our military.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t8798/cmv_the_usa_spends_a_ridiculous_amount_of_money/)| |89|/u/IAmAN00bie|[[Meta] Some advice for posters to CMV](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2swp9d/meta_some_advice_for_posters_to_cmv/)| |81|/u/WhoIs_DankeyKang|[CMV: The USA should offer totally free Government-subsidized college tuition for all who qualify for college admission (Community or University degrees)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t6w7s/cmv_the_usa_should_offer_totally_free/)| |81|/u/chuckDontSurf|[CMV: We will never travel space in any meaningful way because we'll use up all of our resources long before that](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sv8iw/cmv_we_will_never_travel_space_in_any_meaningful/)| |75|/u/Trenks|[CMV: Believing that all religions are equal is illogical and simply PC](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t7i52/cmv_believing_that_all_religions_are_equal_is/)| |73|/u/AutoModerator|[Fresh Topic Friday - 01/23/15](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2te9ug/fresh_topic_friday_012315/)| |71|/u/kepold|[CMV: It's no coincidence that states that vote Republican are objectively worse off...](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t4tji/cmv_its_no_coincidence_that_states_that_vote/)| |67|/u/anonoman925|[CMV: I'm not afraid of the government invading my privacy, I'm afraid of the public invading my privacy.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sulxy/cmv_im_not_afraid_of_the_government_invading_my/)| |55|/u/Sarandana|[CMV: Mark Wahlberg doesn't deserve a pardon.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t5d0k/cmv_mark_wahlberg_doesnt_deserve_a_pardon/)| |50|/u/togtogtog|[CMV: An american style culture of dating makes it harder for men and women to be friends.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sx85q/cmv_an_american_style_culture_of_dating_makes_it/)| |42|/u/CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH|[CMV: An argument based on semantics is almost always a bad argument.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tf739/cmv_an_argument_based_on_semantics_is_almost/)| |34|/u/Enchanted_Bunny|[CMV: Legalizing Marijuana Will Not Help the Economy](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tad3x/cmv_legalizing_marijuana_will_not_help_the_economy/)| |32|/u/DistortionMage|[CMV: the process of money creation completely screws over working people for no good reason](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t0j81/cmv_the_process_of_money_creation_completely/)| |32|/u/-SaidNoOneEver-|[CMV. Some lives are worth more than others.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sqerh/cmv_some_lives_are_worth_more_than_others/)| |30|/u/HyperbolicInvective|[CMV: We should not encourage people to major in liberal arts.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t8qea/cmv_we_should_not_encourage_people_to_major_in/)| |28|/u/JankstarrK|[CMV: The Overtime rules of the NFL are unfair](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tdisw/cmv_the_overtime_rules_of_the_nfl_are_unfair/)| |28|/u/the90stotallysucked|[CMV: Why spend money on space exploration when we have so many other issues on Earth?](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tflkf/cmv_why_spend_money_on_space_exploration_when_we/)| |24|/u/Kunc_|[CMV: That Technology will, in the near future, eliminate capitalism and create a more communistic society](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2svh7o/cmv_that_technology_will_in_the_near_future/)| |22|/u/forbin_project1|[CMV: An entire people can never justifiably be punished for crimes committed by their government](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tekkp/cmv_an_entire_people_can_never_justifiably_be/)| |20|/u/Constitution4all|[CMV: People who advocate against guns for self defense should at least suggest non-lethal alternatives.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ss98w/cmv_people_who_advocate_against_guns_for_self/)| |19|/u/HomarusAmericanus|[CMV: Money is a bad joke people use to hurt each other](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tcj5m/cmv_money_is_a_bad_joke_people_use_to_hurt_each/)| |19|/u/noahloiksgeezers|[CMV: In Breaking Bad, Walt is the douche and Skyler is the better of the two](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2szhys/cmv_in_breaking_bad_walt_is_the_douche_and_skyler/)| |19|/u/rey64|[CMV: I should quit my job to start a business](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2sqc45/cmv_i_should_quit_my_job_to_start_a_business/)| |17|/u/chessnutz|[CMV:I believe the book "How to Analyze People on Sight" is factually true](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2tawhw/cmvi_believe_the_book_how_to_analyze_people_on/)| |17|/u/DenshaOtaku|[CMV: The coming complete automation of unskilled labor in the next 10 years, capitalism, and bell curve intelligence are a completely incompatible combination.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2t6t24/cmv_the_coming_complete_automation_of_unskilled/)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

t3_5wpwzt

CMV: The political right is more violent than the left.

[An article](http://www.salon.com/2017/02/28/the-nras-new-gun-sales-pitch-america-is-a-war-zone-and-the-violent-left-is-coming-for-you/) on Salon's website, posted today, says that the NRA is trying to boost gun sales by insisting that America is a war zone and that the "violent left" is rising. Ironically, I did recently buy a handgun, but not out of hatred and anger; instead I bought it out of fear and caution. Why? I've always perceived the right to be more angry, more vocal, more likely to own weapons, and more prone to violence than the left. The new administration's policies and rhetoric have increased acts of violence and normalized hate, and I want to feel safe (whether purchasing a handgun can do that is another debate). My perception is anecdotal and based on personal experiences and feelings; I don't have any hard facts, and a recent cursory Google search didn't lead me anywhere. I stated my opinion last week on another subreddit, and I was challenged by an individual who posted a video where anti-Trump protesters set cars on fire back on January, as if that single event alone were enough evidence to the contrary. I don't deny there are violent individuals in both the left and the right, and in these divisive times it's not surprising to see acts of violence -- I'd expect the same if our parties' situations were reversed. That being said, my perception is that the right is more prone to violence. Am I correct in that the right is at least somewhat more violent? About me: Liberal, gay man, non-violent, never protested (YET), voted for Bernie, reluctantly voted for Hillary _____ > *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 political right is more violent than the left. [An article](http://www.salon.com/2017/02/28/the-nras-new-gun-sales-pitch-america-is-a-war-zone-and-the-violent-left-is-coming-for-you/) on Salon's website, posted today, says that the NRA is trying to boost gun sales by insisting that America is a war zone and that the "violent left" is rising. Ironically, I did recently buy a handgun, but not out of hatred and anger; instead I bought it out of fear and caution. Why? I've always perceived the right to be more angry, more vocal, more likely to own weapons, and more prone to violence than the left. The new administration's policies and rhetoric have increased acts of violence and normalized hate, and I want to feel safe (whether purchasing a handgun can do that is another debate). My perception is anecdotal and based on personal experiences and feelings; I don't have any hard facts, and a recent cursory Google search didn't lead me anywhere. I stated my opinion last week on another subreddit, and I was challenged by an individual who posted a video where anti-Trump protesters set cars on fire back on January, as if that single event alone were enough evidence to the contrary. I don't deny there are violent individuals in both the left and the right, and in these divisive times it's not surprising to see acts of violence -- I'd expect the same if our parties' situations were reversed. That being said, my perception is that the right is more prone to violence. Am I correct in that the right is at least somewhat more violent? About me: Liberal, gay man, non-violent, never protested (YET), voted for Bernie, reluctantly voted for Hillary

t3_1k0hzr

I believe that fighting, whether martial arts or brawling, is incredibly beneficial to the human experience. CMV

To start, I am not saying wars are necessary and important. The fighting I am talking about is small scale. You versus someone else. As a young boy I was a very arrogant, snobby little kid. I bragged, boasted, and always tried to be the tough guy, and was always considering myself superior to everyone I met. When I got into a few fights and got my butt handed to me, I learned that I was not a badass. I was not tougher than quite a few people. Not only did this instill in me a drive to improve, it gave me a new respect for people; I stopped assuming I was better automatically, and I stopped judging people by their covers. These traits then applied to almost every other aspect of my life. So as a pride killer and a teacher of courtesy, I’d say fighting did a damn fine job. For others, I know that self-confidence, determination and self control (more a martial arts trait) are also qualities that came out of fighting. In our daily lives, I feel than often we are too complacent. Many of us become lazy, and unlike our ancient ancestors chances of physical contact are far less. And if we do, we are taught from a young age to let others save us (e.g. telling teachers about a bully, calling police for help in situations). I don’t want to say that these things are totally wrong, because no matter how great or skilled you are sometimes you will need help. What I think is that it is a lack in personal development to not try and be able to protect yourself or those you care about and be completely helpless. We are given the potential and ability to take our safety into our own hands and I don’t think we should waste it. That is really how I feel about fighting. Here is a succinct list of pros and cons. Pros • Can produce important virtues • Valuable skill, could save your life • Good for physical fitness Cons • Risk of serious injury I have tried to accurately write how I feel about fighting, and it does seem to be more of an emotional argument rather than a logical one but if you can change my view, go ahead and give it your best shot. Also it’s like 3 am so I’m sort of tired, I can add more to the pros cons list if you comment. **Edit:** The reason I am asking for a change my view is so many of my friends don't seem to understand the benefits of fighting, and instead clamor on about how it is immature and dangerous and doesn't teach anything. I asked so that you all would be able to shed some light on the other side of the argument.

I believe that fighting, whether martial arts or brawling, is incredibly beneficial to the human experience. CMV. To start, I am not saying wars are necessary and important. The fighting I am talking about is small scale. You versus someone else. As a young boy I was a very arrogant, snobby little kid. I bragged, boasted, and always tried to be the tough guy, and was always considering myself superior to everyone I met. When I got into a few fights and got my butt handed to me, I learned that I was not a badass. I was not tougher than quite a few people. Not only did this instill in me a drive to improve, it gave me a new respect for people; I stopped assuming I was better automatically, and I stopped judging people by their covers. These traits then applied to almost every other aspect of my life. So as a pride killer and a teacher of courtesy, I’d say fighting did a damn fine job. For others, I know that self-confidence, determination and self control (more a martial arts trait) are also qualities that came out of fighting. In our daily lives, I feel than often we are too complacent. Many of us become lazy, and unlike our ancient ancestors chances of physical contact are far less. And if we do, we are taught from a young age to let others save us (e.g. telling teachers about a bully, calling police for help in situations). I don’t want to say that these things are totally wrong, because no matter how great or skilled you are sometimes you will need help. What I think is that it is a lack in personal development to not try and be able to protect yourself or those you care about and be completely helpless. We are given the potential and ability to take our safety into our own hands and I don’t think we should waste it. That is really how I feel about fighting. Here is a succinct list of pros and cons. Pros • Can produce important virtues • Valuable skill, could save your life • Good for physical fitness Cons • Risk of serious injury I have tried to accurately write how I feel about fighting, and it does seem to be more of an emotional argument rather than a logical one but if you can change my view, go ahead and give it your best shot. Also it’s like 3 am so I’m sort of tired, I can add more to the pros cons list if you comment. **Edit:** The reason I am asking for a change my view is so many of my friends don't seem to understand the benefits of fighting, and instead clamor on about how it is immature and dangerous and doesn't teach anything. I asked so that you all would be able to shed some light on the other side of the argument.

t3_27dnl1

CMV - "We don't leave a man behind" isn't just a platitude, it's a key tenet that is essential for morale.

When a young person is contemplating joining the US military, it gets explained to them that, should something bad happen, they will not get left behind, no matter what. That tenet, it seems to me, is absolutely essential to recruiting and to the continued morale of those in service. There are no asterisks for a very good reason. Soldiers in the field endure a lot of stress, and sometimes they do stupid things. Sometimes they desert or commit crimes or go crazy. Putting people into those sorts of situations will do that. But a soldier in the field KNOWS that no matter what, even if he goes crazy or goes AWOL and gets captured by the enemy, he will not be left to rot. That knowledge gives a soldier the faith he or she needs to risk their lives. Knowing that doctrine is in place is what convinces young people that they can put their lives into the hands of an institution, and that no matter what, they will not be forgotten about. I find all of the talk about how Bergdahl was a deserter, and should have been left behind, to be deeply disturbing. He is a US soldier, and if he committed any crimes, then the US army will punish him. But the reason we don't leave a man behind isn't primarily for the lost soldiers benefit, it's for the soldier in the fields benefit, so he or she doesn't have to worry about whether or not anybody would come looking for them should they get lost, even if there are unsavory rumors about them. I am posting this here because I have found this forum to be one of the better at generating interesting discussions. I have never been in the military, and don't claim to have any real knowledge of how battlefield stress effects people. I am open to changing my views, and will gladly hand out deltas to anyone who can help me evolve my thoughts on the subject in any way.

CMV - "We don't leave a man behind" isn't just a platitude, it's a key tenet that is essential for morale. When a young person is contemplating joining the US military, it gets explained to them that, should something bad happen, they will not get left behind, no matter what. That tenet, it seems to me, is absolutely essential to recruiting and to the continued morale of those in service. There are no asterisks for a very good reason. Soldiers in the field endure a lot of stress, and sometimes they do stupid things. Sometimes they desert or commit crimes or go crazy. Putting people into those sorts of situations will do that. But a soldier in the field KNOWS that no matter what, even if he goes crazy or goes AWOL and gets captured by the enemy, he will not be left to rot. That knowledge gives a soldier the faith he or she needs to risk their lives. Knowing that doctrine is in place is what convinces young people that they can put their lives into the hands of an institution, and that no matter what, they will not be forgotten about. I find all of the talk about how Bergdahl was a deserter, and should have been left behind, to be deeply disturbing. He is a US soldier, and if he committed any crimes, then the US army will punish him. But the reason we don't leave a man behind isn't primarily for the lost soldiers benefit, it's for the soldier in the fields benefit, so he or she doesn't have to worry about whether or not anybody would come looking for them should they get lost, even if there are unsavory rumors about them. I am posting this here because I have found this forum to be one of the better at generating interesting discussions. I have never been in the military, and don't claim to have any real knowledge of how battlefield stress effects people. I am open to changing my views, and will gladly hand out deltas to anyone who can help me evolve my thoughts on the subject in any way.

t3_1x7k4s

I believe lobbying (including corporate lobbying) is an essential part of the political process, and must be maintained at all costs. CMV

(copied from a comment I made on another thread) Lobbying is an essential form of the political process. Politicians can't be expected to be experts on incredibly complex ideas, and it isnt necessarily desirable that they are. Someone that has dedicated there life to science won't necessarily be good politician. Lobbying exists so that people with expertise can provide the government on insight into how their fields work. If the government is about to pass a law that would cause massive non-intentional damage to the shrimp industry, then the shrimp industry needs to send people to government to lobby them, explaining their side of the argument and providing the government with expertise on the shrimp industry. You may not like it, but corporations are a massive part of our society, even if they were completely cut off from influencing government, what affects corporations will affect all of us, if Coke goes bankrupt (for example) then that would cause damage to society as a whole. Anywho, the point of my argument is that lobbying is not done very well, and leans towards bribery as much as it does to actual lobbying, but illegalizing would be catastrophic for democracy, a man going to his local mp to tell him how something needs to be done about the potholes in his neighborhood is lobbying as much as a massive corporation attempting to influence government decision. Outlawing both would destroy the ability for the people to influence an on-going government outside of an election TL;DR Lobbying is as much about people petitioning and talking to their elected representatives, as it is about corporations "bribing" corrupt officials. Corporate lobbying provides essential expertise for the political process

I believe lobbying (including corporate lobbying) is an essential part of the political process, and must be maintained at all costs. CMV. (copied from a comment I made on another thread) Lobbying is an essential form of the political process. Politicians can't be expected to be experts on incredibly complex ideas, and it isnt necessarily desirable that they are. Someone that has dedicated there life to science won't necessarily be good politician. Lobbying exists so that people with expertise can provide the government on insight into how their fields work. If the government is about to pass a law that would cause massive non-intentional damage to the shrimp industry, then the shrimp industry needs to send people to government to lobby them, explaining their side of the argument and providing the government with expertise on the shrimp industry. You may not like it, but corporations are a massive part of our society, even if they were completely cut off from influencing government, what affects corporations will affect all of us, if Coke goes bankrupt (for example) then that would cause damage to society as a whole. Anywho, the point of my argument is that lobbying is not done very well, and leans towards bribery as much as it does to actual lobbying, but illegalizing would be catastrophic for democracy, a man going to his local mp to tell him how something needs to be done about the potholes in his neighborhood is lobbying as much as a massive corporation attempting to influence government decision. Outlawing both would destroy the ability for the people to influence an on-going government outside of an election TL;DR Lobbying is as much about people petitioning and talking to their elected representatives, as it is about corporations "bribing" corrupt officials. Corporate lobbying provides essential expertise for the political process

t3_2n8psp

CMV: I think 'open' relationships are for commitment phobes waiting for something better to come along that don't want to be alone in the interim.

I'd like to think I am a pretty logical and progressive person. However. This open relationship thing has started to come up more and more in my dating life and it sounds like simple bullshit to me. I don't see how you can have a meaningful, healthy and truly intimate connection with someone if there is a chance that someone else can 'be' with your significant other in that way. Now, I am not jealous or insecure when it comes to my relationships but I think that emotionally and definitely physically the connection to one person comes from being with that one person. Not that one person on Thursday, I can still get that other person's number Friday and if I feel like hopping in the bed with someone else that Sunday it's fine. On the flipside I totally respect their honesty about not being monogamous instead of cheating on someone unknowing. Change my view. Or at least help me to see the POV more clearly of those that believe in open relationships. EDIT: Okay...thanks to everyone that shared their experiences and opinions on this topic. I learned A TON! I can totally say that I can accept that there are people that the poly life simply 'works for' and for others it doesn't. Thanks to everyone that was super transparent sharing their ups and downs. To the people that were kind of a dick I expected you here and there were so few so I still feel good about asking how and what I asked. I will reply more limited to those that still choose to comment but thanks because I not only understand the POV I must say I suppose I have actually changed my view. :) TL;DR: I think open relationships are bullshit CMV EDIT: My view was 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: I think 'open' relationships are for commitment phobes waiting for something better to come along that don't want to be alone in the interim. I'd like to think I am a pretty logical and progressive person. However. This open relationship thing has started to come up more and more in my dating life and it sounds like simple bullshit to me. I don't see how you can have a meaningful, healthy and truly intimate connection with someone if there is a chance that someone else can 'be' with your significant other in that way. Now, I am not jealous or insecure when it comes to my relationships but I think that emotionally and definitely physically the connection to one person comes from being with that one person. Not that one person on Thursday, I can still get that other person's number Friday and if I feel like hopping in the bed with someone else that Sunday it's fine. On the flipside I totally respect their honesty about not being monogamous instead of cheating on someone unknowing. Change my view. Or at least help me to see the POV more clearly of those that believe in open relationships. EDIT: Okay...thanks to everyone that shared their experiences and opinions on this topic. I learned A TON! I can totally say that I can accept that there are people that the poly life simply 'works for' and for others it doesn't. Thanks to everyone that was super transparent sharing their ups and downs. To the people that were kind of a dick I expected you here and there were so few so I still feel good about asking how and what I asked. I will reply more limited to those that still choose to comment but thanks because I not only understand the POV I must say I suppose I have actually changed my view. :) TL;DR: I think open relationships are bullshit CMV EDIT: My view was changed.

t3_4qxka9

CMV: Speeding and other forms of reckless driving are violent crimes and should be treated as such.

I'm writing this mainly in response to the general attitude you see in threads like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/4qu8de/i_really_appreciate_people_who_do_this/): People generally seem to see speeding as a minor offense at best, and treat speeding laws, speeding tickets, and traffic cops with a certain amount of contempt. Many seem to see dangerous driving as a crime that you should simply do your best to get away with (and to help other people get away with), rather than obeying the law. I'm going to make my main argument by analogy. Imagine I go outside with a gun and start randomly firing bullets into the air. I would almost certainly be arrested for this, and I think most reasonable people would agree that this would be appropriate. By firing bullets randomly into the air, I am subjecting the people around me to unnecessary physical risk, as well as psychological distress, without their consent, and that is a violent act. The violent nature of my act would not be mitigated by the fact that the physical risk is relatively low (unless I'm in an extremely crowded area, the bullets are fairly unlikely to actually hit a person), because the people around me have not consented to even that low level of risk. Speeding is a very similar situation to this. By going above the maximum speed at which the roads were designed to be used, you are subjecting people around you to physical risk, and possibly some level of psychological distress (if they're a nervous driver). You are increasing the risk of an accident for other drivers (and cyclists and pedestrians) around you. There is a very real (if small in most cases) that your choice to speed will result in the death or injury of somebody else. That makes it a violent act. The most common argument I encounter against enforcing speeding laws is usually that it's safer to go the speed of the traffic, than to keep to the speed limit. If this is true, then to my mind it's an excellent argument *in favour* of my point; not against it. It implies that by speeding, you are creating a subtle pressure on everybody around you to match your speed. Even if your driving skills are such that you can safely drive above the speed limit (and it should be noted that most people overestimate their driving skills), there is no guarantee that the people around you have the skills to match. Furthermore: Not everybody is necessarily comfortable matching your speed, nor are their vehicles necessarily capable of doing so safely. Hell: on some roads, some of the people around you will be riding bicycles. How the hell are they supposed to match your speed? I'm not really arguing for any particular legal punishment (although for egregious cases of speeding or reckless driving I think 12 hours in jail might be warranted). Mainly I want to argue that people should stop treating speeding with a wink and a nudge, as they currently often do. _____ > *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: Speeding and other forms of reckless driving are violent crimes and should be treated as such. I'm writing this mainly in response to the general attitude you see in threads like [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/4qu8de/i_really_appreciate_people_who_do_this/): People generally seem to see speeding as a minor offense at best, and treat speeding laws, speeding tickets, and traffic cops with a certain amount of contempt. Many seem to see dangerous driving as a crime that you should simply do your best to get away with (and to help other people get away with), rather than obeying the law. I'm going to make my main argument by analogy. Imagine I go outside with a gun and start randomly firing bullets into the air. I would almost certainly be arrested for this, and I think most reasonable people would agree that this would be appropriate. By firing bullets randomly into the air, I am subjecting the people around me to unnecessary physical risk, as well as psychological distress, without their consent, and that is a violent act. The violent nature of my act would not be mitigated by the fact that the physical risk is relatively low (unless I'm in an extremely crowded area, the bullets are fairly unlikely to actually hit a person), because the people around me have not consented to even that low level of risk. Speeding is a very similar situation to this. By going above the maximum speed at which the roads were designed to be used, you are subjecting people around you to physical risk, and possibly some level of psychological distress (if they're a nervous driver). You are increasing the risk of an accident for other drivers (and cyclists and pedestrians) around you. There is a very real (if small in most cases) that your choice to speed will result in the death or injury of somebody else. That makes it a violent act. The most common argument I encounter against enforcing speeding laws is usually that it's safer to go the speed of the traffic, than to keep to the speed limit. If this is true, then to my mind it's an excellent argument *in favour* of my point; not against it. It implies that by speeding, you are creating a subtle pressure on everybody around you to match your speed. Even if your driving skills are such that you can safely drive above the speed limit (and it should be noted that most people overestimate their driving skills), there is no guarantee that the people around you have the skills to match. Furthermore: Not everybody is necessarily comfortable matching your speed, nor are their vehicles necessarily capable of doing so safely. Hell: on some roads, some of the people around you will be riding bicycles. How the hell are they supposed to match your speed? I'm not really arguing for any particular legal punishment (although for egregious cases of speeding or reckless driving I think 12 hours in jail might be warranted). Mainly I want to argue that people should stop treating speeding with a wink and a nudge, as they currently often do.

t3_1bxik2

I don't find Will Ferrell funny. CMV

There are some exceptions where he was very good, but for the most part I feel his style of comedy has gotten old and repetitive. For instance, I don't understand the hype for Anchorman 2 considering the shtick will probably be the same as before. But yet, everybody I know praises Will Ferrell. Am I just not understanding his style of comedy, or does no one care that he almost always plays the same type of character?

I don't find Will Ferrell funny. CMV. There are some exceptions where he was very good, but for the most part I feel his style of comedy has gotten old and repetitive. For instance, I don't understand the hype for Anchorman 2 considering the shtick will probably be the same as before. But yet, everybody I know praises Will Ferrell. Am I just not understanding his style of comedy, or does no one care that he almost always plays the same type of character?

t3_29dqgj

CMV: The actions of the western powers (especially the US and UK) are the main reason for the rise of militant islam

I believe that the meddling of western powers in the middle east caused these terrorist groups to appear directly and indirectly. The Sykes-Picot agreement shows that the British and French wanted to create countries only based on their own wishes paying little to no attention to the religious or ethnic divides of the region. Creation of the state of Israel. This obviously made the entire area furious, creating a jewish state in the middle of muslim land and ignoring the population that previously lived there is a recipe for disaster. The US coup in Iran angered a lot of people and created a strong muslim position in Iran when the shah was overthrown. The war in Afghanistan. While the Soviets caused this mess to happen by invading the country, the USA sent money and weapons to the mujaheddin. These fighters went on to become the Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc. The Iraq war allowed the rise of groups like ISIS and other sunni militias. While Saddam Husein definitely wasn't a nice person there was generally peace in Iraq but after the US started that war for false reasons all hell broke loose. There are obviously way more examples to list but these show that the intents of western powers definitely weren't in the best interest of the citizens of the middle east. Perhaps if we left the middle east alone or treated them like regular countries there wouldn't be groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda or ISIS because young Muslim men wouldn't feel the need to fight the western influence. Some of these groups now focus mainly on sectarian conflict and establishing a caliphate but they exist mainly because of foreign actions. _____ > *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 actions of the western powers (especially the US and UK) are the main reason for the rise of militant islam. I believe that the meddling of western powers in the middle east caused these terrorist groups to appear directly and indirectly. The Sykes-Picot agreement shows that the British and French wanted to create countries only based on their own wishes paying little to no attention to the religious or ethnic divides of the region. Creation of the state of Israel. This obviously made the entire area furious, creating a jewish state in the middle of muslim land and ignoring the population that previously lived there is a recipe for disaster. The US coup in Iran angered a lot of people and created a strong muslim position in Iran when the shah was overthrown. The war in Afghanistan. While the Soviets caused this mess to happen by invading the country, the USA sent money and weapons to the mujaheddin. These fighters went on to become the Taliban, Al-Qaeda etc. The Iraq war allowed the rise of groups like ISIS and other sunni militias. While Saddam Husein definitely wasn't a nice person there was generally peace in Iraq but after the US started that war for false reasons all hell broke loose. There are obviously way more examples to list but these show that the intents of western powers definitely weren't in the best interest of the citizens of the middle east. Perhaps if we left the middle east alone or treated them like regular countries there wouldn't be groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda or ISIS because young Muslim men wouldn't feel the need to fight the western influence. Some of these groups now focus mainly on sectarian conflict and establishing a caliphate but they exist mainly because of foreign actions.

t3_4xkev6

CMV: Black Americans need to change their own culture if they want to experience more equality.

I (white male) want to first state that I acknowledge that the systemic racism in America is real and that white racism has had a significant impact on the black population historically and even today. I am not saying that blacks are responsible for any of that, I just think that they are in the unfortunate situation where they must change their own culture in order to improve their lives. The following is a list of things I feel blacks must change that white people cannot change. - The fact that 72% of black families are living in a single parent household. - Black people are committing a significantly higher amount of violent crime than all other races in America. Fixing this will lead to less police brutality, and will make non-blacks more sympathetic to the unfair police brutality that blacks ~do~ experience. - Black men need to stop being so chauvinistic and homophobic. I know black men who are ridiculed and even assaulted for being homosexual. I realize that this sounds harsh and if i said anything that sounds unreasonable please inform me, I do want to understand these issues and if I say anything is bigoted or ignorant I would like to be corrected. Again, I am not trying to excuse white people or shift the blame onto the victim. Sorry for all the typos, I am too tired to proofread this. EDIT: View definitely changed quite a bit. I still think there is much that needs to be changed with the culture itself but I have a new appreciation for how complex that this issue is and awareness of how much can be done by the police and society as a whole. I'll have to sleep on this for a while, thank you all for the comments and feel free to continue posting. _____ > *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: Black Americans need to change their own culture if they want to experience more equality. I (white male) want to first state that I acknowledge that the systemic racism in America is real and that white racism has had a significant impact on the black population historically and even today. I am not saying that blacks are responsible for any of that, I just think that they are in the unfortunate situation where they must change their own culture in order to improve their lives. The following is a list of things I feel blacks must change that white people cannot change. - The fact that 72% of black families are living in a single parent household. - Black people are committing a significantly higher amount of violent crime than all other races in America. Fixing this will lead to less police brutality, and will make non-blacks more sympathetic to the unfair police brutality that blacks ~do~ experience. - Black men need to stop being so chauvinistic and homophobic. I know black men who are ridiculed and even assaulted for being homosexual. I realize that this sounds harsh and if i said anything that sounds unreasonable please inform me, I do want to understand these issues and if I say anything is bigoted or ignorant I would like to be corrected. Again, I am not trying to excuse white people or shift the blame onto the victim. Sorry for all the typos, I am too tired to proofread this. EDIT: View definitely changed quite a bit. I still think there is much that needs to be changed with the culture itself but I have a new appreciation for how complex that this issue is and awareness of how much can be done by the police and society as a whole. I'll have to sleep on this for a while, thank you all for the comments and feel free to continue posting.

t3_4fzgb5

CMV: I believe there is no possible way to spread information morally.

Recently I have come across an ethical dilemma that has led me to this conclusion: Persuading others to share your views cannot be ethical. More than that, NOT persuading others is also unethical. Here's why: We as humans have a moral obligation to do the right thing. For instance, say there is some information spreading that you believe to be untrue and damaging to your community. The "good" thing to do would be to spread the truth, and, well, change other peoples view. If you aren't spreading what you believe to be true, you are allowing a problem to get worse, which is morally wrong. The counter argument to this is as follows: Humans can never be sure enough that something is good or true, outside of mathematical law (EDIT: or other things that are in extreme consensus, like the sun rising, or facts about recent well documented events. We slowly slip into a grey area of being less and less certain about things, and the things we argue about most usually have the least consensus on what is closest to truth) Spreading anything besides ~~objective~~ trustworthy facts can lead to you spreading misinformation, which is bad for your community. **That is to say, once you begin involving your opinions, the conversation could be tainted by misinformation.** If you believe someone is wrong about something, then its just as likely YOU are the one wrong. If others can believe falsehoods, then so can you. Worse yet, humans tend to believe themselves to be smarter than the average, and are biased towards what they know over what others know. Since you have moral obligation to not spread information that would harm society, you must stay silent (or only spread objective truth) because you could be part of the real problem. With these two arguments in direct opposition to each other, we come up with the previous moral dilemma. You can't spread information without risk of being part of the problem, but staying quiet and watching the world slowly burn is also unethical. Change my view, reddit. **UPDATE 1:** I suppose the topic is slowly leaning to other issues. It was probably a little too obvious what the main answer would be. Discussion is always the best way to get closer to what is best for human kind. /u/super-commenting brought up a good point on how persuasion isn't always about presenting your argument as truth. That sounds really obvious, but I think I was looking at my arguments too one-sided to realize. I'm having a blasted discussing, but I feel like I may be repeating myself a little. A good question to follow all of this is "When-is-it-right/How-do-you to stand up to someone you truly believe is wrong?". I have struggled with this question a lot in recent years. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe there is no possible way to spread information morally. Recently I have come across an ethical dilemma that has led me to this conclusion: Persuading others to share your views cannot be ethical. More than that, NOT persuading others is also unethical. Here's why: We as humans have a moral obligation to do the right thing. For instance, say there is some information spreading that you believe to be untrue and damaging to your community. The "good" thing to do would be to spread the truth, and, well, change other peoples view. If you aren't spreading what you believe to be true, you are allowing a problem to get worse, which is morally wrong. The counter argument to this is as follows: Humans can never be sure enough that something is good or true, outside of mathematical law (EDIT: or other things that are in extreme consensus, like the sun rising, or facts about recent well documented events. We slowly slip into a grey area of being less and less certain about things, and the things we argue about most usually have the least consensus on what is closest to truth) Spreading anything besides ~~objective~~ trustworthy facts can lead to you spreading misinformation, which is bad for your community. **That is to say, once you begin involving your opinions, the conversation could be tainted by misinformation.** If you believe someone is wrong about something, then its just as likely YOU are the one wrong. If others can believe falsehoods, then so can you. Worse yet, humans tend to believe themselves to be smarter than the average, and are biased towards what they know over what others know. Since you have moral obligation to not spread information that would harm society, you must stay silent (or only spread objective truth) because you could be part of the real problem. With these two arguments in direct opposition to each other, we come up with the previous moral dilemma. You can't spread information without risk of being part of the problem, but staying quiet and watching the world slowly burn is also unethical. Change my view, reddit. **UPDATE 1:** I suppose the topic is slowly leaning to other issues. It was probably a little too obvious what the main answer would be. Discussion is always the best way to get closer to what is best for human kind. /u/super-commenting brought up a good point on how persuasion isn't always about presenting your argument as truth. That sounds really obvious, but I think I was looking at my arguments too one-sided to realize. I'm having a blasted discussing, but I feel like I may be repeating myself a little. A good question to follow all of this is "When-is-it-right/How-do-you to stand up to someone you truly believe is wrong?". I have struggled with this question a lot in recent years.

t3_30oxky

CMV: People should pronounce .gif however they choose and allow others to do the same.

I think that the whole thing is a little silly and overblown. I pronounce the abbreviation with a hard g. I do it because it is how I learned it, and because the g stands for graphics, which has a hard g. I will probably never get out of the habit of saying it this way, and that's fine with me. I have people tell me that I'm saying it "wrong," or praise me for saying it "right" all the time. I know the whole story of how the gentleman who invented the .gif is adamant about how it be pronounced like the peanut butter. I know that people say that since he invented it, he gets pronunciation rights. But I still don't understand why it matters so much. We all know what an individual means when they say it either way, so why should it matter? I could hypothetically see the problem if it was at all confusing, but it is not. So here's the deal, if someone can give me a compelling argument to change the way that I say it, then I will do my best to shift my habits. And you will get a delta. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People should pronounce .gif however they choose and allow others to do the same. I think that the whole thing is a little silly and overblown. I pronounce the abbreviation with a hard g. I do it because it is how I learned it, and because the g stands for graphics, which has a hard g. I will probably never get out of the habit of saying it this way, and that's fine with me. I have people tell me that I'm saying it "wrong," or praise me for saying it "right" all the time. I know the whole story of how the gentleman who invented the .gif is adamant about how it be pronounced like the peanut butter. I know that people say that since he invented it, he gets pronunciation rights. But I still don't understand why it matters so much. We all know what an individual means when they say it either way, so why should it matter? I could hypothetically see the problem if it was at all confusing, but it is not. So here's the deal, if someone can give me a compelling argument to change the way that I say it, then I will do my best to shift my habits. And you will get a delta.

t3_4auqyn

CMV: The modern world is too globalized to allow a third world war to happen, on a scale of massive military activity and destruction similar or surpassing that of World War II.

I have noticed that nearly all conflicts in today's world either are: amongst different rebel/guerilla factions, or a government (usually of the developing world) vs. rebel factions, warring governments in smaller, developing countries, or an alliance of several governments, 1st world or otherwise, against rebels or non-recognized entities that declare themselves a state (the war on ISIS is a recent example). However, since the end of the Cold War, military tensions or conflicts exclusively within large world powers is basically unheard of. Because of globalization, I believe that 1st world countries, along with many developing countries, are too aligned in diplomatic and trade activity that would prevent them or leave them little desire to use military force against each other to meet their demands. A lot of economic interdependence exists not only amongst the 1st world but in also all the other countries that offer something that would be a great boon to their economy. I cannot see a "traditional" massive world war breaking out again that involves alliances of world powers, short of a cataclysmic natural event that would result in a massive shortage of too many important resources. _____ > *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 modern world is too globalized to allow a third world war to happen, on a scale of massive military activity and destruction similar or surpassing that of World War II. I have noticed that nearly all conflicts in today's world either are: amongst different rebel/guerilla factions, or a government (usually of the developing world) vs. rebel factions, warring governments in smaller, developing countries, or an alliance of several governments, 1st world or otherwise, against rebels or non-recognized entities that declare themselves a state (the war on ISIS is a recent example). However, since the end of the Cold War, military tensions or conflicts exclusively within large world powers is basically unheard of. Because of globalization, I believe that 1st world countries, along with many developing countries, are too aligned in diplomatic and trade activity that would prevent them or leave them little desire to use military force against each other to meet their demands. A lot of economic interdependence exists not only amongst the 1st world but in also all the other countries that offer something that would be a great boon to their economy. I cannot see a "traditional" massive world war breaking out again that involves alliances of world powers, short of a cataclysmic natural event that would result in a massive shortage of too many important resources.

t3_1j8bxn

I believe that pronouncing judgment on the NSA and PRISM is misguided. CMV

Okay, so this conclusion ultimately stems from two supporting beliefs: 1. To judge something requires a certain amount of knowledge about that thing, and 2. The information we have about these governmental actors is severely limited, enough so that it does not meet the standard described in belief number 1. I take it that belief 1 is pretty uncontroversial. If I met Sally five minutes ago, and all I know about her is her name, it would be pretty unreasonable for me to think that she is an awful person – I don’t know if she’s ever done anything awful. The common redditor’s acquaintance with the government is not so limited as my hypothetical with Sally, but it is far from the point where making any significant judgment about the government is fair. The most important statistic about PRISM is one that certainly isn’t available to the public now, and might never be – the amount of terrorist attacks that it has prevented (or helped prevent). If the existence of PRISM has had an active role in saving lives then most people would consider it a very good thing. If it hasn’t, and if it leads to a fracturing of the internet and economic problems (as described in the second paragraph [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j6qo4/i_am_joseph_bonneau_2013_nsa_award_winner_for/cbbnnes)) then most people would consider it a very bad thing. We just don’t know enough to tell. We can speculate about these things; we can create hypotheticals with fixed variables that are very black-and-white cases with clear moral judgments to be made about them. But the real world doesn’t work that way. edit: A couple of things - People seem to have problems with a 'lives saved' metric being used to judge PRISM. Here's a comment I made addressing that: >You're right about the 'lives saved' metric, but I was really using it as a shorthand for a more abstract concept, something like a 'utility balance' metric - which 'lives saved' figures into but is not the the entire thing. ('Lives saved' is more relatable and easier to understand, and I didn't want to waste time defining terms.) We don't know how PRISM is affecting mass utility either though - preventing even one terror attack conceivably could have benefits including (but not limited to) preventing loss of life, preventing economic trouble, preventing mass fear and panic, etc. But my argument is not that PRISM is justified because it might be preventing terror attacks. My argument is that unless we know for certain that it's negatively or positively affecting utility, we should suspend judgment. I'm getting downvotes for comments further articulating my opinion, so I suppose I'll stop commenting. Didn't think that happened here. Great job CMV.

I believe that pronouncing judgment on the NSA and PRISM is misguided. CMV. Okay, so this conclusion ultimately stems from two supporting beliefs: 1. To judge something requires a certain amount of knowledge about that thing, and 2. The information we have about these governmental actors is severely limited, enough so that it does not meet the standard described in belief number 1. I take it that belief 1 is pretty uncontroversial. If I met Sally five minutes ago, and all I know about her is her name, it would be pretty unreasonable for me to think that she is an awful person – I don’t know if she’s ever done anything awful. The common redditor’s acquaintance with the government is not so limited as my hypothetical with Sally, but it is far from the point where making any significant judgment about the government is fair. The most important statistic about PRISM is one that certainly isn’t available to the public now, and might never be – the amount of terrorist attacks that it has prevented (or helped prevent). If the existence of PRISM has had an active role in saving lives then most people would consider it a very good thing. If it hasn’t, and if it leads to a fracturing of the internet and economic problems (as described in the second paragraph [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j6qo4/i_am_joseph_bonneau_2013_nsa_award_winner_for/cbbnnes)) then most people would consider it a very bad thing. We just don’t know enough to tell. We can speculate about these things; we can create hypotheticals with fixed variables that are very black-and-white cases with clear moral judgments to be made about them. But the real world doesn’t work that way. edit: A couple of things - People seem to have problems with a 'lives saved' metric being used to judge PRISM. Here's a comment I made addressing that: >You're right about the 'lives saved' metric, but I was really using it as a shorthand for a more abstract concept, something like a 'utility balance' metric - which 'lives saved' figures into but is not the the entire thing. ('Lives saved' is more relatable and easier to understand, and I didn't want to waste time defining terms.) We don't know how PRISM is affecting mass utility either though - preventing even one terror attack conceivably could have benefits including (but not limited to) preventing loss of life, preventing economic trouble, preventing mass fear and panic, etc. But my argument is not that PRISM is justified because it might be preventing terror attacks. My argument is that unless we know for certain that it's negatively or positively affecting utility, we should suspend judgment. I'm getting downvotes for comments further articulating my opinion, so I suppose I'll stop commenting. Didn't think that happened here. Great job CMV.

t3_33vkdr

CMV: Infinity is a logical impossibility

I've long thought the concept of infinity... That is, infinite space, infinite time, infinite anything is simply impossible. Instead I feel the accurate word would be "countlessness". It astounds me that even a scientist or a mathematician could entertain the thought of infinity when it is so easily disproven. Consider for a moment, Zeno's paradox of motion. Achilles is racing against a tortoise. The tortoise had a headstart from Achilles. The paradox is that in order for Achilles to ever catch up to the tortoise he must first make it half way to the tortoise, and before that he must have made it a quarter of the way, then an eighth, a sixteenth, ad infinitum. Most take this paradox to be a simple philosophical musing with no real implications since the reality is that Achilles would, of course, surpass the turtle if we consider the paradox's practical application. What everyone seems to overlook is that this paradox exists because of our conceptualization of mathematical infinity. The logic is that fractions disperse forever, halfing and halfing and halfing with no end. The paradox proves this is false and we are living under an obsolete assumption that an infinity exists when in fact it is simply "countlessness". **edit**: My inbox has exploded and I am now a "mathematical heretic". Understand that every "assertion" put forth here is conditional on the theory being correct and I have said it a dozen times. It is a theory, not the law of the universe so calm down and take a breath

CMV: Infinity is a logical impossibility. I've long thought the concept of infinity... That is, infinite space, infinite time, infinite anything is simply impossible. Instead I feel the accurate word would be "countlessness". It astounds me that even a scientist or a mathematician could entertain the thought of infinity when it is so easily disproven. Consider for a moment, Zeno's paradox of motion. Achilles is racing against a tortoise. The tortoise had a headstart from Achilles. The paradox is that in order for Achilles to ever catch up to the tortoise he must first make it half way to the tortoise, and before that he must have made it a quarter of the way, then an eighth, a sixteenth, ad infinitum. Most take this paradox to be a simple philosophical musing with no real implications since the reality is that Achilles would, of course, surpass the turtle if we consider the paradox's practical application. What everyone seems to overlook is that this paradox exists because of our conceptualization of mathematical infinity. The logic is that fractions disperse forever, halfing and halfing and halfing with no end. The paradox proves this is false and we are living under an obsolete assumption that an infinity exists when in fact it is simply "countlessness". **edit**: My inbox has exploded and I am now a "mathematical heretic". Understand that every "assertion" put forth here is conditional on the theory being correct and I have said it a dozen times. It is a theory, not the law of the universe so calm down and take a breath

t3_2k1hpi

CMV: If karma was anything but useless, Reddit as we know it would be ruines

As it is right now, karma whoring is merely a joke and done purely for vanity. Let's say reddit implemented a karma store. I can imagine a large percentage of users competing for karma and turning reddit it into some kind of game. I believe the quality of post would go down because too many posts would appeal to the majority in order to yield maximum karma. Making karma useful for anything, would then result in more circlejerking than there already is. The new section would even more be flooded by posts by users trying to achieve karma (a relatively low percentage of users currently) , rather than simply sharing something they saw. The end result, is individualistic motivations, rather than social motivation. The skepticism that exists over certain posts with unverifiable context would only increase. Drama and emotions over karma would increase and distract from reddit's current purpose of news and interesting content. While this might be preferable for some, I think it would ruin what makes reddit a good site today. I challenge you to change my view, I still hold some hope for a karma store someday :)

CMV: If karma was anything but useless, Reddit as we know it would be ruines. As it is right now, karma whoring is merely a joke and done purely for vanity. Let's say reddit implemented a karma store. I can imagine a large percentage of users competing for karma and turning reddit it into some kind of game. I believe the quality of post would go down because too many posts would appeal to the majority in order to yield maximum karma. Making karma useful for anything, would then result in more circlejerking than there already is. The new section would even more be flooded by posts by users trying to achieve karma (a relatively low percentage of users currently) , rather than simply sharing something they saw. The end result, is individualistic motivations, rather than social motivation. The skepticism that exists over certain posts with unverifiable context would only increase. Drama and emotions over karma would increase and distract from reddit's current purpose of news and interesting content. While this might be preferable for some, I think it would ruin what makes reddit a good site today. I challenge you to change my view, I still hold some hope for a karma store someday :)

t3_3hmpv3

CMV: The best strategy on Cutthroat Kitchen is to dogpile.

Cutthroat Kitchen is a reality TV cooking show where contestants bid on sabotages to make their competitors fail at cooking the dish that needs to be cooked, and keep the money remaining. Often, this requires picking a competitor who gets sabotaged. E.g. "One of your opponents will give up all their ingredients and have to make their tacos using just what they can recover from this day old salad bar." This view is about what the best strategy for handing out a sabotage is. I think that in the first 2 rounds, when you have a choice, you should always target whoever already has a sabotage. So if someone gave another competitor the salad bar, and then you're handing out who has to give up all utensils for tinfoil, you should always pick the person who got the salad bar. The reason is this: you do not win a round of CTK. You just refrain from losing. Having the best dish is no better than having the second or third best dish in round one. You are best off by trying to guarantee one person fails totally. Because then they go home. Spreading out the sabotages means its less likely that they'll be crippling (since they're tested to be doable). If you pile them all on one person though, it becomes much more likely they'll totally fail, thus saving you. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The best strategy on Cutthroat Kitchen is to dogpile. Cutthroat Kitchen is a reality TV cooking show where contestants bid on sabotages to make their competitors fail at cooking the dish that needs to be cooked, and keep the money remaining. Often, this requires picking a competitor who gets sabotaged. E.g. "One of your opponents will give up all their ingredients and have to make their tacos using just what they can recover from this day old salad bar." This view is about what the best strategy for handing out a sabotage is. I think that in the first 2 rounds, when you have a choice, you should always target whoever already has a sabotage. So if someone gave another competitor the salad bar, and then you're handing out who has to give up all utensils for tinfoil, you should always pick the person who got the salad bar. The reason is this: you do not win a round of CTK. You just refrain from losing. Having the best dish is no better than having the second or third best dish in round one. You are best off by trying to guarantee one person fails totally. Because then they go home. Spreading out the sabotages means its less likely that they'll be crippling (since they're tested to be doable). If you pile them all on one person though, it becomes much more likely they'll totally fail, thus saving you.

t3_2ro8j0

CMV: There should be no problem with openly discussing pay/wages with co-workers

This is a view that I've always personally held for all of my employed life. I don't understand why it's considered a problem for employees to discuss the amount they are paid with their co-workers. Removing any glaring or overarching social no-nos (ie: bragging about pay or rubbing it in another person's face - let's assume everyone is a generally polite and respectful co-worker), I think that it should be normal and acceptable for co-workers to discuss their wages among each other. Often times this is discouraged by the company (or it's representative). Many times, the reason for the hush up is that it "cuts down on conflict" - but I would argue that it has the potential to increase conflict (or imagined conflict!) because people are left to their own imaginations about who makes what and why. **Reasons why I think discussing wages should not be problematic:** * Any employee's wage should be a justifiable amount relative to the job they preform * There is already a clear and obvious pay scale difference within most offices (say, a senior manager vs. a temp). This difference should not be surprising to anyone. * It could help cut down on wage discrimination caused by non-work related factors (sex, gender, religion, race) * It could help ease fears about in-hiring or familial hiring (ie: the boss's kid got hired - does he make more than me just because he's the boss's kid?) * It gives a realistic ballpark figure when inquiring about raises or promotions, removing the risk on the employee's reputation to look uninformed, unrealistic, or overambitious * It could encourage coworkers positively to work as hard as other employees that more but are still in the same pay scale/position * It allows for better recognition of an employee's hard work by being able to openly discuss bonuses or pay increases they may have received as a result of their hard work This is something that has always bothered me, and that I have never understood. _____ > *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 should be no problem with openly discussing pay/wages with co-workers. This is a view that I've always personally held for all of my employed life. I don't understand why it's considered a problem for employees to discuss the amount they are paid with their co-workers. Removing any glaring or overarching social no-nos (ie: bragging about pay or rubbing it in another person's face - let's assume everyone is a generally polite and respectful co-worker), I think that it should be normal and acceptable for co-workers to discuss their wages among each other. Often times this is discouraged by the company (or it's representative). Many times, the reason for the hush up is that it "cuts down on conflict" - but I would argue that it has the potential to increase conflict (or imagined conflict!) because people are left to their own imaginations about who makes what and why. **Reasons why I think discussing wages should not be problematic:** * Any employee's wage should be a justifiable amount relative to the job they preform * There is already a clear and obvious pay scale difference within most offices (say, a senior manager vs. a temp). This difference should not be surprising to anyone. * It could help cut down on wage discrimination caused by non-work related factors (sex, gender, religion, race) * It could help ease fears about in-hiring or familial hiring (ie: the boss's kid got hired - does he make more than me just because he's the boss's kid?) * It gives a realistic ballpark figure when inquiring about raises or promotions, removing the risk on the employee's reputation to look uninformed, unrealistic, or overambitious * It could encourage coworkers positively to work as hard as other employees that more but are still in the same pay scale/position * It allows for better recognition of an employee's hard work by being able to openly discuss bonuses or pay increases they may have received as a result of their hard work This is something that has always bothered me, and that I have never understood.

t3_5va3y6

CMV: There is nothing positive about having a disorder

This is especially the case if it is a chronic or lifelong disorder. I have ADHD myself and I think that there are no positives regarding having it. I mean, it's called a mental "disorder" for a reason. There's a reason why nobody wants to be born with ADHD and many ADHDers wish they didn't have this disorder and get medication for it. Some people say that ADHD makes you more creative, spontaneous, etc. However, these traits have nothing to do with ADHD. You can still be creative and spontaneous without this disorder. There are famous people with ADHD such as Michael Phelps. However, ADHD didn't help him to becomr famous. It was an obstacle that he had to overcome. As for other disorders such as cerebral palsy, arthritis, etc, it is obviously that these disorders have no positives. There are only negatives associated with them such as the need to buy medication, being discriminated against for having the disorder, being bullied for having the disorder, etc. _____ > *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 nothing positive about having a disorder. This is especially the case if it is a chronic or lifelong disorder. I have ADHD myself and I think that there are no positives regarding having it. I mean, it's called a mental "disorder" for a reason. There's a reason why nobody wants to be born with ADHD and many ADHDers wish they didn't have this disorder and get medication for it. Some people say that ADHD makes you more creative, spontaneous, etc. However, these traits have nothing to do with ADHD. You can still be creative and spontaneous without this disorder. There are famous people with ADHD such as Michael Phelps. However, ADHD didn't help him to becomr famous. It was an obstacle that he had to overcome. As for other disorders such as cerebral palsy, arthritis, etc, it is obviously that these disorders have no positives. There are only negatives associated with them such as the need to buy medication, being discriminated against for having the disorder, being bullied for having the disorder, etc.

t3_1dr1wo

I think that being racist should be legal. CMW

First off let me say that I do not think that when it comes to a job application, choosing a white person with worse qualifications over a black person is acceptable. I just think that being racist is a part of free speech . No matter how ignorant or offensive something is, it should not be illegal to share your own opinion or just throw hate at a certain group of people.

I think that being racist should be legal. CMW. First off let me say that I do not think that when it comes to a job application, choosing a white person with worse qualifications over a black person is acceptable. I just think that being racist is a part of free speech . No matter how ignorant or offensive something is, it should not be illegal to share your own opinion or just throw hate at a certain group of people.

t3_5l5ujg

CMV: /r/AccidentalRenaissance needs more moderation, new rules, and tags

/r/AccidentalRenaissance has gone from my favorite subreddit to my least favorite subreddit. The subreddit has no strict rules and is plagued by low quality posts and complaints that posts “aren't renaissance” under nearly post. At the time of posting this, at the top of /r/AccidentalRenaissance is a [metapost](https://www.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRenaissance/comments/5l32so/starter_pack/?) about the low quality of the subreddit and the highest upvoted comment under it is: >Ok this is funny, but dae lament how self-hating this sub has become? My proposal is this: * newly created rules, chief among them being no low quality posts * an increase in moderation to enforce these rules at the moderators discretion. * a new tag system added to sort posts between different art styles. Examples of these would be “accidental impressionism”, “accidental Surrealism”, or “accidental modernism” The reason for this being that there simply isn’t enough quality content which can be described as “accidental renaissance”

CMV: /r/AccidentalRenaissance needs more moderation, new rules, and tags. /r/AccidentalRenaissance has gone from my favorite subreddit to my least favorite subreddit. The subreddit has no strict rules and is plagued by low quality posts and complaints that posts “aren't renaissance” under nearly post. At the time of posting this, at the top of /r/AccidentalRenaissance is a [metapost](https://www.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRenaissance/comments/5l32so/starter_pack/?) about the low quality of the subreddit and the highest upvoted comment under it is: >Ok this is funny, but dae lament how self-hating this sub has become? My proposal is this: * newly created rules, chief among them being no low quality posts * an increase in moderation to enforce these rules at the moderators discretion. * a new tag system added to sort posts between different art styles. Examples of these would be “accidental impressionism”, “accidental Surrealism”, or “accidental modernism” The reason for this being that there simply isn’t enough quality content which can be described as “accidental renaissance”

t3_1ne7mu

I believe that 16:10 is a better aspect ration than 16:9 for screens of computers, tablets and cellphones. CMV

I believe this because I find it to be more useful for the majority of tasks I perform. A 1920x1200 display can do anything a 1920x1080 can and can do most things better. It provides more vertical space when working on documents. This is especially important with more recent versions of microsoft word, as the toolbar takes up a lot of vertical space and cannot be moved. Most websites scroll vertically and do not occupy the full width of the screen. 16:10 allows you to see more of the site without scrolling and wastes less space on blank margins. 16:10 provides a better vertical angle when gaming, allowing you to better see enemies above or below you. I believe the keyboards to be better in 16:10 on touchscreens. In landscape you have more space to view whatever it is you're typing, which is often quite constricted on 16:9 screens. In portrait the keys can be made wider, which allows me to type faster. When watching widescreen videos, the margins can be kept an unobtrusive black or be used for video controls and subtitles without interfering with the video. Most of these reasons come down to 16:10 displays offering more space where space is at a premium. It should be noted that I am a student in computer science so my computer will be used more for work than pleasure. I need this view changed because 16:10 displays have less of a selection available and are considerably more expensive than comparable 16:9 displays.

I believe that 16:10 is a better aspect ration than 16:9 for screens of computers, tablets and cellphones. CMV. I believe this because I find it to be more useful for the majority of tasks I perform. A 1920x1200 display can do anything a 1920x1080 can and can do most things better. It provides more vertical space when working on documents. This is especially important with more recent versions of microsoft word, as the toolbar takes up a lot of vertical space and cannot be moved. Most websites scroll vertically and do not occupy the full width of the screen. 16:10 allows you to see more of the site without scrolling and wastes less space on blank margins. 16:10 provides a better vertical angle when gaming, allowing you to better see enemies above or below you. I believe the keyboards to be better in 16:10 on touchscreens. In landscape you have more space to view whatever it is you're typing, which is often quite constricted on 16:9 screens. In portrait the keys can be made wider, which allows me to type faster. When watching widescreen videos, the margins can be kept an unobtrusive black or be used for video controls and subtitles without interfering with the video. Most of these reasons come down to 16:10 displays offering more space where space is at a premium. It should be noted that I am a student in computer science so my computer will be used more for work than pleasure. I need this view changed because 16:10 displays have less of a selection available and are considerably more expensive than comparable 16:9 displays.

t3_2l109y

CMV: It is pointless for a Democrat in a heavily Democratic district to vote in this year's election.

I live in New Jersey, and my district is heavily Democratic. My district has not had a Republican representative for over 30 years; there is no indication whatsoever that this is going to stop. Why should any Democrat bother voting when the result is practically already known to be the one they want regardless of whether or not he or she votes. The elderly population (who votes heavily democratically strangely enough) alone is enough to win the election for the Democrats. Since they are very consistent in their voting turnout, why should anyone else even bother voting?

CMV: It is pointless for a Democrat in a heavily Democratic district to vote in this year's election. I live in New Jersey, and my district is heavily Democratic. My district has not had a Republican representative for over 30 years; there is no indication whatsoever that this is going to stop. Why should any Democrat bother voting when the result is practically already known to be the one they want regardless of whether or not he or she votes. The elderly population (who votes heavily democratically strangely enough) alone is enough to win the election for the Democrats. Since they are very consistent in their voting turnout, why should anyone else even bother voting?

t3_1kinkc

I believe that all decisions made are inherently selfish. CMV.

I think that decisions are primarily fueled by selfish desires. Regardless of the type of motivation, the main justification is usually to benefit yourself. If someone never donates money to charity then they might be seen as selfish. However, someone who does donate to charity is still motivated by self-interest. They may do it do resolve any guilt they have about possessions or they may donate to charity to appear morally superior to someone else who doesn't donate to charity. The point is, decisions are also made based on furthering your own self-interest whether your interest would be material possessions or for something that would usually be perceived as selfless. CMV.

I believe that all decisions made are inherently selfish. CMV. I think that decisions are primarily fueled by selfish desires. Regardless of the type of motivation, the main justification is usually to benefit yourself. If someone never donates money to charity then they might be seen as selfish. However, someone who does donate to charity is still motivated by self-interest. They may do it do resolve any guilt they have about possessions or they may donate to charity to appear morally superior to someone else who doesn't donate to charity. The point is, decisions are also made based on furthering your own self-interest whether your interest would be material possessions or for something that would usually be perceived as selfless. CMV.

t3_5vuctv

CMV: Making abortion legal in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother is something everyone should agree with

Looking for some common ground that everyone should be able to get on board with. It is commonly accepted the killing another person in self-defense - to save your own life - is legal and acceptable. So the fact that the person threatening your life is unborn shouldn't change that theory. I suppose it's possible that there are some big-time pacifists out there who think that you shouldn't even kill another person to save your own life. But I've never heard of anyone being so much a pacifist that they think killing in self defense should be legal. Finally, just to clarify, my view is that everyone should agree that getting an abortion to save the life of the mother should be legal. The entire premise here is that the abortion will save the mother's life.

CMV: Making abortion legal in cases where it is necessary to save the life of the mother is something everyone should agree with. Looking for some common ground that everyone should be able to get on board with. It is commonly accepted the killing another person in self-defense - to save your own life - is legal and acceptable. So the fact that the person threatening your life is unborn shouldn't change that theory. I suppose it's possible that there are some big-time pacifists out there who think that you shouldn't even kill another person to save your own life. But I've never heard of anyone being so much a pacifist that they think killing in self defense should be legal. Finally, just to clarify, my view is that everyone should agree that getting an abortion to save the life of the mother should be legal. The entire premise here is that the abortion will save the mother's life.

t3_1ydq7s

I believe the Bible is just a book made up some day by some people and the things that 'make sense' in it are just made up to do so. CMV.

I think God is made up as some kind of reliability a long time ago when there was no other reliability. I think the greatest thinkers and most intelligent people should realize that there are so many planets and species left out there, that there is no such thing as a mighty 'God' watching over us. I would also like to hear your opinion on the phrase: " If there was a God, why does anything bad happen in the world?" Please try to change my view, I really wonder why people could believe in such things. And people, don't feel offended, i want to think out of the box on this one.

I believe the Bible is just a book made up some day by some people and the things that 'make sense' in it are just made up to do so. CMV. I think God is made up as some kind of reliability a long time ago when there was no other reliability. I think the greatest thinkers and most intelligent people should realize that there are so many planets and species left out there, that there is no such thing as a mighty 'God' watching over us. I would also like to hear your opinion on the phrase: " If there was a God, why does anything bad happen in the world?" Please try to change my view, I really wonder why people could believe in such things. And people, don't feel offended, i want to think out of the box on this one.

t3_1flux5

I think the American government is corrupt, CMV.

I am specifically referring to the federal government. First of all, there's only two mainstream political parties of people who are filthy stinkin' rich, wasting money that could go to charities or shelters, on advertising and mudslinging. There seems to be very little difference in what they want, which is more power. The Conservatives want a near-theocracy, with all the money and social rights to themselves, whereas the liberals want an all-powerful federal government that demands society be conforming and homogeneous; both groups in order to control every little detail of the individual's life, both public and personal. The higher up a politician is, the more they lie and scheme and bullshit the public and waste money. Both Bush and Obama, seemingly so different, commit war crimes and shocking monetary transgressions and a whole host of things. While I originally though Obama was the lesser of two evils, after reading about the unsanctioned drone strikes on civilians and Americans (not on American soil, obviously) and all the political cover-ups, he just seems like a different face on the same political monster. That being said, I'd be quite happy if people could offer me evidence that this is an unrealistically bleak view, I'd be happy to change my mind.

I think the American government is corrupt, CMV. I am specifically referring to the federal government. First of all, there's only two mainstream political parties of people who are filthy stinkin' rich, wasting money that could go to charities or shelters, on advertising and mudslinging. There seems to be very little difference in what they want, which is more power. The Conservatives want a near-theocracy, with all the money and social rights to themselves, whereas the liberals want an all-powerful federal government that demands society be conforming and homogeneous; both groups in order to control every little detail of the individual's life, both public and personal. The higher up a politician is, the more they lie and scheme and bullshit the public and waste money. Both Bush and Obama, seemingly so different, commit war crimes and shocking monetary transgressions and a whole host of things. While I originally though Obama was the lesser of two evils, after reading about the unsanctioned drone strikes on civilians and Americans (not on American soil, obviously) and all the political cover-ups, he just seems like a different face on the same political monster. That being said, I'd be quite happy if people could offer me evidence that this is an unrealistically bleak view, I'd be happy to change my mind.

t3_1v5nvp

CMV - Jim Morrison wasn't as well-above-his-years as many people think

When I was 16, I greatly admired Jim Morrison (lead singer of The Doors). I thought him to be really intelligent, an independent-minded individual and a person to look up to (even if he struggled with alcoholism). Now, I think that he was an interesting person but if he went to high or college, he wouldn't stand out as much. The fame, massive exposure and headlines made him stand out, especially in an industry that's so homogenous. In interviews, he sounded intelligent, but not well above you or I (or anyone who is well read on things). But he was pretty much on par with lots of the bohemians walking around on college campus, as well the whole party scene. And if narcissism wears on you, you probably wouldn't have enjoyed his company for too long. Unique + unpopular = weird. Unique + famous = greatly fascinating. Morrison had a good formula for a 17 year old and a 22 year old - but not a 27 year old. So, I appreciate him for who he was, but I never view him like a demi-god.

CMV - Jim Morrison wasn't as well-above-his-years as many people think. When I was 16, I greatly admired Jim Morrison (lead singer of The Doors). I thought him to be really intelligent, an independent-minded individual and a person to look up to (even if he struggled with alcoholism). Now, I think that he was an interesting person but if he went to high or college, he wouldn't stand out as much. The fame, massive exposure and headlines made him stand out, especially in an industry that's so homogenous. In interviews, he sounded intelligent, but not well above you or I (or anyone who is well read on things). But he was pretty much on par with lots of the bohemians walking around on college campus, as well the whole party scene. And if narcissism wears on you, you probably wouldn't have enjoyed his company for too long. Unique + unpopular = weird. Unique + famous = greatly fascinating. Morrison had a good formula for a 17 year old and a 22 year old - but not a 27 year old. So, I appreciate him for who he was, but I never view him like a demi-god.

t3_5yvqpu

CMV: Instead of raising the Medicare eligibility age, it should be capped

Medicare and similar programs in developed countries are crumbling under the increased healthcare costs of which the primary driver are the expenses related to aging and rising life expectancy. Old people have multiple illnesses that require experimental or intensive care and medication. To ensure the capacity of the program, many politicians are proposing rising the eligibility age, while I think that capping it would be a more sensible thing to do. I really don't see why expensive treatments that are targeted to prolong life are used on people who are over 85, 90 or 100. In my opinion a civilized society should provide basic healthcare for all, and specialized healthcare for the vast majority of the population, but it is not financially possible or fair to the tax payers who are financing the system to continue guaranteeing the same level of expansive care that is provided today. Based on a 2012 CBO report, there were around 6,3 million Medicare recipients over the age of 85 that cost the system 79,5B$ with an average of 12,692$ compared to the overall average of 8,319$ (2010 numbers). From 1999 to 2012 the age when Medicare expenses are at their highest grew by nearly a decade from 89 to 97. From 1999 to 2012, the medicare expenses for ages 65-74 grew by 25% while they grew 72% for ages 95-105. A Forbes article from 2013 suggests that 30% of Medicare expenses are used on the 5% of recipients who die each year, with 1/3 of that 30% used during the last month of the patients lives. There is potential to save tens of billions of dollars and avoid rising the eligibility age or lowering the quality of service if expensive care targeted to extend life would be reserved for people below either an arbitrary age limit, say 85, or a limit tied to life expectancy. Healthcare should prioritize palliative and pain alleviating treatments when patients above this age develop life threatening conditions such as tumors or heart disease. At the ages of 85 and above, I think that you had a good run and if the limits of your body are nearing, expanding them shouldn't be the responsibility of the society anymore, but yourself. CMV Sources: >[Forbes Article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbell/2013/01/10/why-5-of-patients-create-50-of-health-care-costs/#30acd96228d7) >[CBO Report](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/workingpaper/51027-MedicareSpending.pdf) _____ > *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: Instead of raising the Medicare eligibility age, it should be capped. Medicare and similar programs in developed countries are crumbling under the increased healthcare costs of which the primary driver are the expenses related to aging and rising life expectancy. Old people have multiple illnesses that require experimental or intensive care and medication. To ensure the capacity of the program, many politicians are proposing rising the eligibility age, while I think that capping it would be a more sensible thing to do. I really don't see why expensive treatments that are targeted to prolong life are used on people who are over 85, 90 or 100. In my opinion a civilized society should provide basic healthcare for all, and specialized healthcare for the vast majority of the population, but it is not financially possible or fair to the tax payers who are financing the system to continue guaranteeing the same level of expansive care that is provided today. Based on a 2012 CBO report, there were around 6,3 million Medicare recipients over the age of 85 that cost the system 79,5B$ with an average of 12,692$ compared to the overall average of 8,319$ (2010 numbers). From 1999 to 2012 the age when Medicare expenses are at their highest grew by nearly a decade from 89 to 97. From 1999 to 2012, the medicare expenses for ages 65-74 grew by 25% while they grew 72% for ages 95-105. A Forbes article from 2013 suggests that 30% of Medicare expenses are used on the 5% of recipients who die each year, with 1/3 of that 30% used during the last month of the patients lives. There is potential to save tens of billions of dollars and avoid rising the eligibility age or lowering the quality of service if expensive care targeted to extend life would be reserved for people below either an arbitrary age limit, say 85, or a limit tied to life expectancy. Healthcare should prioritize palliative and pain alleviating treatments when patients above this age develop life threatening conditions such as tumors or heart disease. At the ages of 85 and above, I think that you had a good run and if the limits of your body are nearing, expanding them shouldn't be the responsibility of the society anymore, but yourself. CMV Sources: >[Forbes Article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbell/2013/01/10/why-5-of-patients-create-50-of-health-care-costs/#30acd96228d7) >[CBO Report](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/workingpaper/51027-MedicareSpending.pdf)

t3_1yn68u

I am in favor of affirmative action, but believe that it should be based on things like family income and geography instead of race. CMV.

I believe that conscious, deliberate racial discrimination is almost never the direct cause of racial disparity anymore. In my opinion, modern racial disparity is mainly an effect of economic realities that were created by overt racial discrimination in the past. Predominantly black communities are disproportionately impoverished not because racial prejudice prevents them from obtaining wealth, but rather because poverty itself tends to be a chronic, self-sustaining condition. My position is not that racism is "over," but rather that modern racism is essentially an economic phenomenon, and that socioeconomic status is a much better index of actual disadvantage than race is. Because affirmative action is designed to specifically benefit the members of certain races, it fails to account for the exceptions: black students from wealthy suburban neighborhoods, for example, and white students who were raised in inner-city ghettos. If it were based on socioeconomic status instead, disadvantaged members of minority races would still be given the hand up that they need--and so would people who are disadvantaged for other reasons. Plus, no one would be given preferential treatment that they don't actually need, so the program would be less vulnerable to criticism and resentment.

I am in favor of affirmative action, but believe that it should be based on things like family income and geography instead of race. CMV. I believe that conscious, deliberate racial discrimination is almost never the direct cause of racial disparity anymore. In my opinion, modern racial disparity is mainly an effect of economic realities that were created by overt racial discrimination in the past. Predominantly black communities are disproportionately impoverished not because racial prejudice prevents them from obtaining wealth, but rather because poverty itself tends to be a chronic, self-sustaining condition. My position is not that racism is "over," but rather that modern racism is essentially an economic phenomenon, and that socioeconomic status is a much better index of actual disadvantage than race is. Because affirmative action is designed to specifically benefit the members of certain races, it fails to account for the exceptions: black students from wealthy suburban neighborhoods, for example, and white students who were raised in inner-city ghettos. If it were based on socioeconomic status instead, disadvantaged members of minority races would still be given the hand up that they need--and so would people who are disadvantaged for other reasons. Plus, no one would be given preferential treatment that they don't actually need, so the program would be less vulnerable to criticism and resentment.

t3_1eavxi

I think giving children strong drugs is abusive cmv.

(To be up front I had an extremely negative experience with Ritalin, which I still have unresolved issues with so patience will kinda be necessary) I don't actually have an argument that applies to all cases; so I feel there is a chance I'm blaming the drugs for things that were just happening around my experence with the drugs; ("take this drug or punishment" vololates the NAP, and that was used in order to get me to take it)

I think giving children strong drugs is abusive cmv. (To be up front I had an extremely negative experience with Ritalin, which I still have unresolved issues with so patience will kinda be necessary) I don't actually have an argument that applies to all cases; so I feel there is a chance I'm blaming the drugs for things that were just happening around my experence with the drugs; ("take this drug or punishment" vololates the NAP, and that was used in order to get me to take it)

t3_1tm7qq

Libertarianism is the future of America. CMV

In their private lives, American have become accustomed to ever greater amounts of freedom, choice, and autonomy. We decide what media to consume, what services to patronize, and where and how to live. The mass adoption of services that cater to our expansion of choice like Netflix, Amazon, AirBnB, and Priceline tell us that Americans prefer decisions to be handled by ourselves rather than some monopolistic agent like government or telecoms. While attitudes of young people may be against limited government for its association with the Republican brand, which was tarnished under GW Bush, eventually, people's voting choices will more closely align with their private behavior.

Libertarianism is the future of America. CMV. In their private lives, American have become accustomed to ever greater amounts of freedom, choice, and autonomy. We decide what media to consume, what services to patronize, and where and how to live. The mass adoption of services that cater to our expansion of choice like Netflix, Amazon, AirBnB, and Priceline tell us that Americans prefer decisions to be handled by ourselves rather than some monopolistic agent like government or telecoms. While attitudes of young people may be against limited government for its association with the Republican brand, which was tarnished under GW Bush, eventually, people's voting choices will more closely align with their private behavior.

t3_3p1ufk

CMV: "Blindness" should be defined in relative, not absolute, terms

U.S. federal tax laws allow a deduction for vision which cannot be corrected to 20/200 in the better eye. This allows for lots of struggle in a competitive economy and job market. Instead, deductions should be based on something like 'worst 2% of vision' and allow for things like color vision, which *can* exclude people from jobs from driving trucks to piloting airplanes. Details could be worked out by eye doctors and their associations who would certify 'blindness' for tax purposes at least. The current law looks like a loophole in the tax code intended to *appear* good and accomodating, but uses a somewhat arbitrary standard. 'Correction' might include thousands of dollars of surgery (glaucoma?) or eyecare (contacts).

CMV: "Blindness" should be defined in relative, not absolute, terms. U.S. federal tax laws allow a deduction for vision which cannot be corrected to 20/200 in the better eye. This allows for lots of struggle in a competitive economy and job market. Instead, deductions should be based on something like 'worst 2% of vision' and allow for things like color vision, which *can* exclude people from jobs from driving trucks to piloting airplanes. Details could be worked out by eye doctors and their associations who would certify 'blindness' for tax purposes at least. The current law looks like a loophole in the tax code intended to *appear* good and accomodating, but uses a somewhat arbitrary standard. 'Correction' might include thousands of dollars of surgery (glaucoma?) or eyecare (contacts).

t3_1mvjs8

I believe meditation is the answer to all of mankinds problems CMV

(view has been changed, instead of solving all problems i think it would allow solutions that we know work to be implemented and where isn't a complete solution it would lead to better use of resources and more suffering would be alleviated) While this is my view I intentionally made the title as hyperbolic as i could to generate more discussion. So the argument basically splits into three parts. First that all of our problems are caused by greed or anger or fear or other such negative emotions. The second part is that meditation helps people overcome these emotions. The third part is that happy, unbiased people will out compete other groups and natural selection will kill off greed and fear and such. What do most if not all problems have in common? They were caused by people making bad decisions. Someone trying to make more money creates monopolies and lobbies politicians. Countries scared of being outgunned start arms races. People obsessed with status or instant gratification consume to much. I will concede some problems aren't man made (volcanoes) but I will say the vast majority. Why do I think meditation will solve these problems. Lots of you will be wanting proof. A nice accessible Ted talk by a biochemist turned buddhist monk can be found [here]. (http://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_happiness.html) At 16:40 he starts to talk about a paper submitted to nature showing monks who meditate are 4 standard deviations away from the bell curve of normal people on a scale showing how happy and compassionate people are. For more info on the research look at /r/meditationpapers For those of you not wanting to read/watch all that. Meditation is like an exercise for your brain making you more aware of your thought processes and what is really going on in your mind. Redditors will most likely be aware of all the biases and flaws the brain has and by getting to know them and understand them by focusing on them in meditation you can overcome them. You realise that you are not really hungry your just bored, you realise you don't really want that flashy new car you just want people to think your a big shot and then you realise you don't really need strangers to approve of you because you know how much your friends and family love you. I know i'm simplifying a lot but i hope you get the idea. So how does this help mankind. Well the third part is that everything works so much better without these biases and errors of judgement. If person starts meditating they will do better at work and get promoted so they have more influence. People will notice you being happier and have more worthwhile relationships and start meditating too. Slowly but surely people ruled by fear and greed will be outperformed and replaced. I would also mention at this point that I am atheist because that will probably come up. A lot of my goals and ideas are based on this belief and i want make sure i'm not making a big mistake so reddit try and CMV

I believe meditation is the answer to all of mankinds problems CMV. (view has been changed, instead of solving all problems i think it would allow solutions that we know work to be implemented and where isn't a complete solution it would lead to better use of resources and more suffering would be alleviated) While this is my view I intentionally made the title as hyperbolic as i could to generate more discussion. So the argument basically splits into three parts. First that all of our problems are caused by greed or anger or fear or other such negative emotions. The second part is that meditation helps people overcome these emotions. The third part is that happy, unbiased people will out compete other groups and natural selection will kill off greed and fear and such. What do most if not all problems have in common? They were caused by people making bad decisions. Someone trying to make more money creates monopolies and lobbies politicians. Countries scared of being outgunned start arms races. People obsessed with status or instant gratification consume to much. I will concede some problems aren't man made (volcanoes) but I will say the vast majority. Why do I think meditation will solve these problems. Lots of you will be wanting proof. A nice accessible Ted talk by a biochemist turned buddhist monk can be found [here]. (http://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_happiness.html) At 16:40 he starts to talk about a paper submitted to nature showing monks who meditate are 4 standard deviations away from the bell curve of normal people on a scale showing how happy and compassionate people are. For more info on the research look at /r/meditationpapers For those of you not wanting to read/watch all that. Meditation is like an exercise for your brain making you more aware of your thought processes and what is really going on in your mind. Redditors will most likely be aware of all the biases and flaws the brain has and by getting to know them and understand them by focusing on them in meditation you can overcome them. You realise that you are not really hungry your just bored, you realise you don't really want that flashy new car you just want people to think your a big shot and then you realise you don't really need strangers to approve of you because you know how much your friends and family love you. I know i'm simplifying a lot but i hope you get the idea. So how does this help mankind. Well the third part is that everything works so much better without these biases and errors of judgement. If person starts meditating they will do better at work and get promoted so they have more influence. People will notice you being happier and have more worthwhile relationships and start meditating too. Slowly but surely people ruled by fear and greed will be outperformed and replaced. I would also mention at this point that I am atheist because that will probably come up. A lot of my goals and ideas are based on this belief and i want make sure i'm not making a big mistake so reddit try and CMV

t3_1cx8ji

I believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental protector of democracy. CMV

I've gotten a lot of flak from my Canadian friends about supporting the 2nd amendment in spite of the fact that I am otherwise liberal, but haven't really managed to get a coherent response out of them. I believe that without the right to bear arms, tyranny will inevitably encroach on the rights of the people, either domestically in the form of corruption or foreign in the form of invasion, and that the "fourth box" is the only thing of substance standing between us and tyranny. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." CMV

I believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental protector of democracy. CMV. I've gotten a lot of flak from my Canadian friends about supporting the 2nd amendment in spite of the fact that I am otherwise liberal, but haven't really managed to get a coherent response out of them. I believe that without the right to bear arms, tyranny will inevitably encroach on the rights of the people, either domestically in the form of corruption or foreign in the form of invasion, and that the "fourth box" is the only thing of substance standing between us and tyranny. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." CMV

t3_1wjgnr

Conceiving a child is always unethical because positive and negative morality are asymmetric. CMV.

I believe it is unethical for anyone to choose to bring a child into existence. Not just people who are unfit to be parents, not just because there are already children who need to be adopted, not even because of overpopulation-- rather, choosing to conceive is **always** morally wrong. My reasoning goes: A non-zero number of people will experience more pain than happiness in their lives, and some of these people will prefer not have been born. Bringing those people into existence condemns them to suffering, which is morally wrong. I do not believe you are doing any harm to a person by never causing them to exist. However, you *are* doing harm to someone by causing them to experience suffering. David Benatar calls this the asymmetry thesis: The presence of pain is bad; the absence of pain is good. The presence of pleasure is good; but the absence of pleasure is not bad. (A good summary of Benatar is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Moral_responsibility). Following this, even if there were a 99.9% chance your child would be happy and a 0.1% chance it would be sad, it is still wrong to take the risk. Having a happy child is not a moral imperative, but not having an unhappy child *is* a moral imperative. In other words, bringing someone who enjoys life into existence may be supererogatory, but ***not* bringing someone who would rather not be alive into existence is obligatory**. ... I anticipate these counterarguments: 1. The majority of people are glad to be alive, making the morality of conception a net positive. 2. Doing good and preventing bad should be considered symmetric; you do equal harm by not providing a potential person a good life as you do by causing a person to live a bad life. Here are my responses: 1. I don't know how many people prefer existence over nonexistence or vice-versa. **But even if the number favoring existence far outweigh the number favoring nonexistence, this does not justify conception**. Compare it to this (admittedly imperfect) analogy: If you could press a button that had a 99.9% chance of causing your friend to be happy until his/her death, and a 0.1% chance of making him/her suffer until death, would probably still think it was wrong to push the button, at least without the consent of the friend. The child you conceive does not consent to suffering or the possibility of suffering, so I view conception to be an equally unethical gamble. **No matter the likelihood of a positive outcome for the child, the possibility of any negative outcomes makes conception morally wrong.** 2. The difference is whom the harm is being done to. By not creating a good life, you only harm somebody who doesn't exist. So, this can't really be considered significant harm. By creating a bad life, you harm someone who does exist. So, this harm can be considered significant. (This is essentially the variabilist solution. More here: http://people.su.se/~guarr/FGkurs/RobertsAsymmetry2011.pdf) *TL,DR removed because it seemed to be misleading some people.* --- *In his papers, Benatar also argues that non-existence is always preferable to existence-- this is not my view.

Conceiving a child is always unethical because positive and negative morality are asymmetric. CMV. I believe it is unethical for anyone to choose to bring a child into existence. Not just people who are unfit to be parents, not just because there are already children who need to be adopted, not even because of overpopulation-- rather, choosing to conceive is **always** morally wrong. My reasoning goes: A non-zero number of people will experience more pain than happiness in their lives, and some of these people will prefer not have been born. Bringing those people into existence condemns them to suffering, which is morally wrong. I do not believe you are doing any harm to a person by never causing them to exist. However, you *are* doing harm to someone by causing them to experience suffering. David Benatar calls this the asymmetry thesis: The presence of pain is bad; the absence of pain is good. The presence of pleasure is good; but the absence of pleasure is not bad. (A good summary of Benatar is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Moral_responsibility). Following this, even if there were a 99.9% chance your child would be happy and a 0.1% chance it would be sad, it is still wrong to take the risk. Having a happy child is not a moral imperative, but not having an unhappy child *is* a moral imperative. In other words, bringing someone who enjoys life into existence may be supererogatory, but ***not* bringing someone who would rather not be alive into existence is obligatory**. ... I anticipate these counterarguments: 1. The majority of people are glad to be alive, making the morality of conception a net positive. 2. Doing good and preventing bad should be considered symmetric; you do equal harm by not providing a potential person a good life as you do by causing a person to live a bad life. Here are my responses: 1. I don't know how many people prefer existence over nonexistence or vice-versa. **But even if the number favoring existence far outweigh the number favoring nonexistence, this does not justify conception**. Compare it to this (admittedly imperfect) analogy: If you could press a button that had a 99.9% chance of causing your friend to be happy until his/her death, and a 0.1% chance of making him/her suffer until death, would probably still think it was wrong to push the button, at least without the consent of the friend. The child you conceive does not consent to suffering or the possibility of suffering, so I view conception to be an equally unethical gamble. **No matter the likelihood of a positive outcome for the child, the possibility of any negative outcomes makes conception morally wrong.** 2. The difference is whom the harm is being done to. By not creating a good life, you only harm somebody who doesn't exist. So, this can't really be considered significant harm. By creating a bad life, you harm someone who does exist. So, this harm can be considered significant. (This is essentially the variabilist solution. More here: http://people.su.se/~guarr/FGkurs/RobertsAsymmetry2011.pdf) *TL,DR removed because it seemed to be misleading some people.* --- *In his papers, Benatar also argues that non-existence is always preferable to existence-- this is not my view.

t3_24i35t

CMV: I believe that Clayton Lockett deserved everything he got, and that the 8th Amendment should be altered, allowing all murderers to be executed in as close to the manner in which they themselves murdered as is possible.

Personally, I find the outrage over the "botched" execution of Clayton Lockett disgusting, and completely misplaced. This man tortured and raped an 18 year-old girl, then made her lure one of her friends into the house where she was being held. [He then tied up and beat 19 year-old Stephanie Neiman](http://www.newson6.com/story/25392928/remembering-stephanie-neiman-oklahoma-murder-victims-tragic-story), made her kneel, shot her with a shotgun (which jammed initially, and had to be cleaned out so that they could shoot her again). While Stephanie was screaming, writhing in pain, he made her watch as he and his accomplices dug her grave. He then threw her in, still breathing, and buried her alive. Stephanie Neiman (nor any other murder victim), received the benefit of due process-- something that Mr. Lockett availed himself of. She got no trial, no advocate to argue on her behalf. There was no deliberation by a jury of her peers, and no judge, after carefully weighing the facts, in accordance with state law, passed sentence. She was not given multiple chances to appeal over the course of 15 years, as Mr. Lockett was, nor was she offered a last meal, and the chance to make a final statement. The way Stephanie Neiman died was, by any standard, "Cruel and Unusual", the fact that it took a little bit longer for her murderer to be "put to sleep", is neither "*[gruesome](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/30/lethal-injection-leads-to-the-most-botched-executions.html)*" nor "*heinous*". Change my view. **Edit**: There seems to be some confusion so let me clear this up. I'm not talking about expanding who can receive the Death Penalty. My changes would apply only to those murderers who have been sentenced to death. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that Clayton Lockett deserved everything he got, and that the 8th Amendment should be altered, allowing all murderers to be executed in as close to the manner in which they themselves murdered as is possible. Personally, I find the outrage over the "botched" execution of Clayton Lockett disgusting, and completely misplaced. This man tortured and raped an 18 year-old girl, then made her lure one of her friends into the house where she was being held. [He then tied up and beat 19 year-old Stephanie Neiman](http://www.newson6.com/story/25392928/remembering-stephanie-neiman-oklahoma-murder-victims-tragic-story), made her kneel, shot her with a shotgun (which jammed initially, and had to be cleaned out so that they could shoot her again). While Stephanie was screaming, writhing in pain, he made her watch as he and his accomplices dug her grave. He then threw her in, still breathing, and buried her alive. Stephanie Neiman (nor any other murder victim), received the benefit of due process-- something that Mr. Lockett availed himself of. She got no trial, no advocate to argue on her behalf. There was no deliberation by a jury of her peers, and no judge, after carefully weighing the facts, in accordance with state law, passed sentence. She was not given multiple chances to appeal over the course of 15 years, as Mr. Lockett was, nor was she offered a last meal, and the chance to make a final statement. The way Stephanie Neiman died was, by any standard, "Cruel and Unusual", the fact that it took a little bit longer for her murderer to be "put to sleep", is neither "*[gruesome](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/30/lethal-injection-leads-to-the-most-botched-executions.html)*" nor "*heinous*". Change my view. **Edit**: There seems to be some confusion so let me clear this up. I'm not talking about expanding who can receive the Death Penalty. My changes would apply only to those murderers who have been sentenced to death.

t3_1v4un4

The fan reaction to Mass Effect 3's ending, and the subsequent developer response, shows that neither side treats video games as art. CMV.

When Mass Effect 3 came out, a lot of people hated the ending and complained to Bioware. After this response, they issued DLC changing the ending. Basically, this isn't how art works. In my eyes, the main tenet of art is free expression, the ability to say something how you want to say it and make the statement you want with a lack of obligation to change it to fit the views of the public. When fans started the outcry against the ending, it showed that despite what they say, they still treat video games predominately as consumer product and expect them bent to their will and enjoyment. You can't send back a Dali painting or a Death Grips album and say "hey, I didn't like this, start over" and expect it to be changed, and that leads into the developer's fault in this. The fact that they caved shows that they don't care about making an artistic statement and only care about making money. It's like when bands go back to their "old sound" because fans don't like new experiments they do. Now, you can probably say that the ending was a disappointment, but that's not the point; the point is that that's how Bioware INTENDED for it to end, and the fact that consumers didn't accept that and the company bent to accommodate shows that neither side looks at video games as an art form. CMV.

The fan reaction to Mass Effect 3's ending, and the subsequent developer response, shows that neither side treats video games as art. CMV. When Mass Effect 3 came out, a lot of people hated the ending and complained to Bioware. After this response, they issued DLC changing the ending. Basically, this isn't how art works. In my eyes, the main tenet of art is free expression, the ability to say something how you want to say it and make the statement you want with a lack of obligation to change it to fit the views of the public. When fans started the outcry against the ending, it showed that despite what they say, they still treat video games predominately as consumer product and expect them bent to their will and enjoyment. You can't send back a Dali painting or a Death Grips album and say "hey, I didn't like this, start over" and expect it to be changed, and that leads into the developer's fault in this. The fact that they caved shows that they don't care about making an artistic statement and only care about making money. It's like when bands go back to their "old sound" because fans don't like new experiments they do. Now, you can probably say that the ending was a disappointment, but that's not the point; the point is that that's how Bioware INTENDED for it to end, and the fact that consumers didn't accept that and the company bent to accommodate shows that neither side looks at video games as an art form. CMV.

t3_22u348

CMV: Charity for the most part does not solve problems but rather perpetuates the problem

"In an abstract sense [charity] is better than nothing" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g I'm currently in a class discussing corporate social responsibility and during our discussion today, we watching this video by Slavoj Zizek where he argued that charity is like morphine for pain or a bandaid on a gaping wound, it may alleviate issues in the short run but it doesn't solve anything in the long run. In fact, charity gives people the semblance that they are doing good when they are doing next to nothing. If you give a poor child a pair of shoes, it doesn't change the fact they still live in poverty albeit now with a pair of shoes. He quotes Oscar Wilde "The worst slave owners were those that were kind to their slaves" because it softened people's view of the problem while never resolving the problem of slavery. "It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property". Now God knows I'm not a socialist but Zizek and Wilde's words ring true, charity is using one hand to build up what you destroyed with the other hand, it's a zero sum game in its most basic form. I don't disagree with charity because I have a solution to poverty, which I don't and if I did I wouldn't be here, but I disagree because it doesn't solve issues, it just keeps the dying patient on life support.

CMV: Charity for the most part does not solve problems but rather perpetuates the problem. "In an abstract sense [charity] is better than nothing" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g I'm currently in a class discussing corporate social responsibility and during our discussion today, we watching this video by Slavoj Zizek where he argued that charity is like morphine for pain or a bandaid on a gaping wound, it may alleviate issues in the short run but it doesn't solve anything in the long run. In fact, charity gives people the semblance that they are doing good when they are doing next to nothing. If you give a poor child a pair of shoes, it doesn't change the fact they still live in poverty albeit now with a pair of shoes. He quotes Oscar Wilde "The worst slave owners were those that were kind to their slaves" because it softened people's view of the problem while never resolving the problem of slavery. "It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property". Now God knows I'm not a socialist but Zizek and Wilde's words ring true, charity is using one hand to build up what you destroyed with the other hand, it's a zero sum game in its most basic form. I don't disagree with charity because I have a solution to poverty, which I don't and if I did I wouldn't be here, but I disagree because it doesn't solve issues, it just keeps the dying patient on life support.

t3_34vyxp

CMV: Bernie Sanders has very little chance of getting the Democratic presidential nomincation

The main reason I hold this view is that his ideology is too different from the Democratic party's. He's an independent who often works with Democrats, an affiliate, not a Democrat. Because of this he's both not a good fit for the party itself and the party would also be keenly aware that his socialist democratic views would be eaten up by Fox News and their huge viewership. You'd lock in your proper left leaning base but you'd scare off some of your tentative conservative base and you need both to win an election. The only way I can see him getting the nomination is if he goes full John McCain and changes his previously expressed views from his own to towing the party line, which I can't see him doing. ** Nomination. Damnit. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Bernie Sanders has very little chance of getting the Democratic presidential nomincation. The main reason I hold this view is that his ideology is too different from the Democratic party's. He's an independent who often works with Democrats, an affiliate, not a Democrat. Because of this he's both not a good fit for the party itself and the party would also be keenly aware that his socialist democratic views would be eaten up by Fox News and their huge viewership. You'd lock in your proper left leaning base but you'd scare off some of your tentative conservative base and you need both to win an election. The only way I can see him getting the nomination is if he goes full John McCain and changes his previously expressed views from his own to towing the party line, which I can't see him doing. ** Nomination. Damnit.

t3_1fu2ut

I think it is morally appropriate/not homophobic to be uncomfortable in a locker room setting with a homosexual person of the same gender.

In classs we were having a discussion about homosexuality, and some points were brought up that I really had to think about. I'm usually very liberal minded and a big promoter of gay rights, etc. Although, when an athlete said he'd be uncomfortable with a gay guy seeing him nude in the locker room, I felt that was an appropriate statement. People say that it's just so egotistical to think that a gay man is attracted to all guys, but I think that's wrong. If I, a straight man, were placed into a locker room full of naked women, I'd be ecstatic. I don't think it's any different for a gay man in a locker room full of naked men.

I think it is morally appropriate/not homophobic to be uncomfortable in a locker room setting with a homosexual person of the same gender. In classs we were having a discussion about homosexuality, and some points were brought up that I really had to think about. I'm usually very liberal minded and a big promoter of gay rights, etc. Although, when an athlete said he'd be uncomfortable with a gay guy seeing him nude in the locker room, I felt that was an appropriate statement. People say that it's just so egotistical to think that a gay man is attracted to all guys, but I think that's wrong. If I, a straight man, were placed into a locker room full of naked women, I'd be ecstatic. I don't think it's any different for a gay man in a locker room full of naked men.

t3_18ueg5

I used to be pro-choice, but after much internal struggle I am now leaning pro-life. CMV.

I used to be staunchly pro-choice. Recently, I have been on the fence regarding the abortion issue and now I think I am leaning toward being against abortion. Need some help working out my confusion. I understand that a fetus in is not a human. However, I just can't get past the notion that the fetus is being deprived of the chance at being born and living a full life. Also, I can't stop thinking that if left alone, the fetus would continue to develop into a baby (who would then benefit from all the rights and protections under the law). I would like to clarify that religion is not a factor in my opinion, and my change of stance is based on the aforementioned notion alone. Thank you.

I used to be pro-choice, but after much internal struggle I am now leaning pro-life. CMV. I used to be staunchly pro-choice. Recently, I have been on the fence regarding the abortion issue and now I think I am leaning toward being against abortion. Need some help working out my confusion. I understand that a fetus in is not a human. However, I just can't get past the notion that the fetus is being deprived of the chance at being born and living a full life. Also, I can't stop thinking that if left alone, the fetus would continue to develop into a baby (who would then benefit from all the rights and protections under the law). I would like to clarify that religion is not a factor in my opinion, and my change of stance is based on the aforementioned notion alone. Thank you.

t3_4dtd1c

CMV: Gender is not a binary system

I see a lot of requests on CMV of people asking their view that gender is binary to be changed. Contrary to this common theme, I accept that not everyone is placed into one of two genders. To me, fluidity or lack of identity seem completely reasonable as no one truly meets 100% of one identity. I don't want to be convinced that gender is a scale, as that is a separate issue. Without using the argument that biological gender and identity gender should align, convince me that gender is binary. The only caveat I may add is that I believe transgender people don't contribute to non-binary gender -a biological man who identifies as a woman is a woman on the binary scale. edit: clarified biological transgender man

CMV: Gender is not a binary system. I see a lot of requests on CMV of people asking their view that gender is binary to be changed. Contrary to this common theme, I accept that not everyone is placed into one of two genders. To me, fluidity or lack of identity seem completely reasonable as no one truly meets 100% of one identity. I don't want to be convinced that gender is a scale, as that is a separate issue. Without using the argument that biological gender and identity gender should align, convince me that gender is binary. The only caveat I may add is that I believe transgender people don't contribute to non-binary gender -a biological man who identifies as a woman is a woman on the binary scale. edit: clarified biological transgender man

t3_1ks2md

I feel bad for my cat spending his entire potential 15+ year long life inside of my house, I'm pretty sure he's miserable this way. CMV

I know this is pathetic and I couldn't find a better way of phrasing it, but my cat must feel awful being confined to my house. He's only just under 2 years old and he must feel imprisoned in my house. I'm pretty sure that walking him would be a good idea, I mean, people do it with dogs, right? How could any creature possibly be content with spending their entire 10-20 year life confined to such a tiny little space (2200 sq ft in my house's case) when the world is 510 million square kilometres or so? I want someone to convince me that I'm wrong and that I shouldn't feel bad for my cat for having to live indoors for his entire life. P.S. You guys, I know this is a terrible post and that I'm pretty much BEGGING for someone to change my point of view for me, but I didn't really know where else to take it.

I feel bad for my cat spending his entire potential 15+ year long life inside of my house, I'm pretty sure he's miserable this way. CMV. I know this is pathetic and I couldn't find a better way of phrasing it, but my cat must feel awful being confined to my house. He's only just under 2 years old and he must feel imprisoned in my house. I'm pretty sure that walking him would be a good idea, I mean, people do it with dogs, right? How could any creature possibly be content with spending their entire 10-20 year life confined to such a tiny little space (2200 sq ft in my house's case) when the world is 510 million square kilometres or so? I want someone to convince me that I'm wrong and that I shouldn't feel bad for my cat for having to live indoors for his entire life. P.S. You guys, I know this is a terrible post and that I'm pretty much BEGGING for someone to change my point of view for me, but I didn't really know where else to take it.

t3_6by65x

CMV: Increasing housing supply in Vancouver and similar expensive housing cities will not reduce prices

I feel that the focus on increasing housing supply in Vancouver is misguided. I do understand that zoning regulations mandating single-family-housing in areas that could be replaced with dense towers drives up cost via a simple supply and demand argument. However, from what I see, our housing market doesn't come from Vancouver. A large amount of the capital in our housing market comes from other places in Canada with better wages and from global wealth internationally. I feel that increasing housing supply and zoning for more density would not drastically improve the situation? Why? Because the natural features and loose financial regulations will still ensure that if we threw a bunch of dense housing into the market, there would still be enough demand from elsewhere to ensure this did not translate into more affordable housing. CMV. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Increasing housing supply in Vancouver and similar expensive housing cities will not reduce prices. I feel that the focus on increasing housing supply in Vancouver is misguided. I do understand that zoning regulations mandating single-family-housing in areas that could be replaced with dense towers drives up cost via a simple supply and demand argument. However, from what I see, our housing market doesn't come from Vancouver. A large amount of the capital in our housing market comes from other places in Canada with better wages and from global wealth internationally. I feel that increasing housing supply and zoning for more density would not drastically improve the situation? Why? Because the natural features and loose financial regulations will still ensure that if we threw a bunch of dense housing into the market, there would still be enough demand from elsewhere to ensure this did not translate into more affordable housing. CMV.

t3_2gflt6

CMV: Political Science/International Relations as an academic field annoys me

I have taken a class in poli sci, and I have held jobs relating to international relations and public diplomacy. I must say that I found a major gap between the ways of thinking in the classroom and what I experienced in life. I just got back from what was kind of like a Yale Model UN except for global security (I don't live in America, but this country's top universities participated). I must say I was thoroughly disappointed. Everyone from the students to the professors seems to have this "actors" view of history and the world. "America is like X, therefore America will react like Y" type thinking and game theory strikes me as inappropriate. One professor at the event referred to himself as "Public Enemy Number One" among the other attendees. Why? Because he viewed things from an economic and "systems thinking" point of view. I found his analysis to be the most sound. The world cannot be broken down into neat little triangles of alliances and game theory. There are so many viewpoints and flows of economic activity driving world relations that it is, in my opinion, far more chaotic than Poli Sci folks would like to admit. Have I misjudged the field? Admittedly, one class and a global policy simulation may not be enough to really judge the field, but I can't be completely wrong, right? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Political Science/International Relations as an academic field annoys me. I have taken a class in poli sci, and I have held jobs relating to international relations and public diplomacy. I must say that I found a major gap between the ways of thinking in the classroom and what I experienced in life. I just got back from what was kind of like a Yale Model UN except for global security (I don't live in America, but this country's top universities participated). I must say I was thoroughly disappointed. Everyone from the students to the professors seems to have this "actors" view of history and the world. "America is like X, therefore America will react like Y" type thinking and game theory strikes me as inappropriate. One professor at the event referred to himself as "Public Enemy Number One" among the other attendees. Why? Because he viewed things from an economic and "systems thinking" point of view. I found his analysis to be the most sound. The world cannot be broken down into neat little triangles of alliances and game theory. There are so many viewpoints and flows of economic activity driving world relations that it is, in my opinion, far more chaotic than Poli Sci folks would like to admit. Have I misjudged the field? Admittedly, one class and a global policy simulation may not be enough to really judge the field, but I can't be completely wrong, right?