Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1ucmmp

Fighting a battle that you know you're not going to win because "it is the right thing to do" is not a sign of virtue, it's a sign of stupidity. CMV

"You don't fight fascism because you're going to win. You fight fascism because it is fascist." Jean-Paul Sartre. I just find this point of view completely idiotic. As heretical and heartless as this might sound, I have the same opinion of people like [Sophie Scholl](http://www.viruscomix.com/page474.html). I mean, if you take the case of the latter, what exactly did she accomplish? She had a statue made out of her and became a martyr. But as far as I know she didn't inspire anyone during the war itself, she just became a nameless corpse until she was discovered. I have [earlier exposed my views on the environment and the future of the planet](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1pkdvu/i_think_people_who_have_biological_children_in/). Honestly I think that there is no hope since there are way too many billion dollar interest groups dedicated into blocking the necessary political action and protesting them will be like an ant fighting the sun. Same with stuff like the NSA and essentially all the growing evils in this world. If I fight them, I will suffer, I will die, and no one shall benefit. This is not cowardice, this is intelligence. Benefitting myself is better than benefitting no one. I know this sounds heartless but this is my only refuge other than crippling depression and hopelessness. Once during a particularly bad period I came across [this article](http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/170/). I wish I could punch the person who wrote this in the face. I don't want to suffer needlessly out of some sense of "virtue". I am fully convinced that there will be no entity judging us for what we do in life. If there is, then we would all deserve to go to hell for creating such a destructive system in the first place and I will scream at said entity for placing all of us in a test with objectives both poorly defined and borderline impossible to meet. Things are going off a cliff and I intend to laugh on the way down and shoot myself before we hit the ground. Like I said, this mentality is all that I have other than crippling depression over our impeding doom. Please CMV. Please.

Fighting a battle that you know you're not going to win because "it is the right thing to do" is not a sign of virtue, it's a sign of stupidity. CMV. "You don't fight fascism because you're going to win. You fight fascism because it is fascist." Jean-Paul Sartre. I just find this point of view completely idiotic. As heretical and heartless as this might sound, I have the same opinion of people like [Sophie Scholl](http://www.viruscomix.com/page474.html). I mean, if you take the case of the latter, what exactly did she accomplish? She had a statue made out of her and became a martyr. But as far as I know she didn't inspire anyone during the war itself, she just became a nameless corpse until she was discovered. I have [earlier exposed my views on the environment and the future of the planet](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1pkdvu/i_think_people_who_have_biological_children_in/). Honestly I think that there is no hope since there are way too many billion dollar interest groups dedicated into blocking the necessary political action and protesting them will be like an ant fighting the sun. Same with stuff like the NSA and essentially all the growing evils in this world. If I fight them, I will suffer, I will die, and no one shall benefit. This is not cowardice, this is intelligence. Benefitting myself is better than benefitting no one. I know this sounds heartless but this is my only refuge other than crippling depression and hopelessness. Once during a particularly bad period I came across [this article](http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/170/). I wish I could punch the person who wrote this in the face. I don't want to suffer needlessly out of some sense of "virtue". I am fully convinced that there will be no entity judging us for what we do in life. If there is, then we would all deserve to go to hell for creating such a destructive system in the first place and I will scream at said entity for placing all of us in a test with objectives both poorly defined and borderline impossible to meet. Things are going off a cliff and I intend to laugh on the way down and shoot myself before we hit the ground. Like I said, this mentality is all that I have other than crippling depression over our impeding doom. Please CMV. Please.

t3_1df54z

CMV - Closing Guantanamo Bay won't change anything.

Recent history shows that the US consistently breaks the law and ignores human rights in "the battle against terrorism" with little or no consequences. Closing Guantanamo Bay would only move the operation to another place, taking the public eye off of abuses. Without legislation and enforcement, the only thing closing Guantanamo Bay will do is get the press off Congress' back. CMV.

CMV - Closing Guantanamo Bay won't change anything. Recent history shows that the US consistently breaks the law and ignores human rights in "the battle against terrorism" with little or no consequences. Closing Guantanamo Bay would only move the operation to another place, taking the public eye off of abuses. Without legislation and enforcement, the only thing closing Guantanamo Bay will do is get the press off Congress' back. CMV.

t3_2rkplw

CMV: "What is your favorite X" does not stimulate interesting discussion and shouldn't be allowed on strictly moderated forums/subreddits.

Like "What is your favorite line from a TV show" or "What is your favorite movie poster." These threads always get hugely upvoted and loads of comments because everyone likes to share things they like, but they never really produce anything meaningful. Just people gushing about "OMG X IS SO AMAZING." On top of this, since everybody feels that their favorite is more important than everybody else's, you'll get a bunch of top-level replies with very little discussion beyond them. If there are replies, they usually just agree with the above poster. "OMG YES I KNOW." Nobody wants to be the dissent in a "positivity thread," or they just haven't heard of your favorite thing and aren't going to watch a 2h movie/play a 50h game/whatever for every single response in that thread, anyway. There's generally very little to learn from things that are done *well.* The exception is multiple viewpoints or interpretations of something, but you can only really get that if you have a large number of people discussing the same thing, which these kinds of threads very much discourage. _____ > *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 is your favorite X" does not stimulate interesting discussion and shouldn't be allowed on strictly moderated forums/subreddits. Like "What is your favorite line from a TV show" or "What is your favorite movie poster." These threads always get hugely upvoted and loads of comments because everyone likes to share things they like, but they never really produce anything meaningful. Just people gushing about "OMG X IS SO AMAZING." On top of this, since everybody feels that their favorite is more important than everybody else's, you'll get a bunch of top-level replies with very little discussion beyond them. If there are replies, they usually just agree with the above poster. "OMG YES I KNOW." Nobody wants to be the dissent in a "positivity thread," or they just haven't heard of your favorite thing and aren't going to watch a 2h movie/play a 50h game/whatever for every single response in that thread, anyway. There's generally very little to learn from things that are done *well.* The exception is multiple viewpoints or interpretations of something, but you can only really get that if you have a large number of people discussing the same thing, which these kinds of threads very much discourage.

t3_3idxla

CMV: A refrigerator should be a required condition of habitability, not just an amenity.

Just moved to California starting look for an apartment. much to my dismay 9/10 apartments I viewed do not include refrigerators in the lease. I'm from Detroit - where every single apartment I viewed had a fridge included. The first apartment I went to I was like - WHAT? NO FRIDGE???? [In California, a refrigerator is not a habitable condition. It's an amenity.] (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08/business/la-fi-rent-20120108) I found out via r/personalfinance that in Texas - an air conditioning unit is a habitable condition - meaning the landlord must provide and repair it. In fact, when your A/C unit breaks (and its not tenants' fault), you might not owe rent for days its broken because the unit is only livable while the A/C is working per Texas law. There are several reasons state law should change to make a fridge a habitable condition. * *I believe every other state requires this as a habitable condition, correct me if I'm wrong.* In my personal opinion an apartment without a fridge in not habitable, wouldn't you agree? but more importantly.... * *There's a lot of illegal bait-and-switch going on in the apartment rental market.* I'm shopping for an apartment now and I would say about half the listings that say "fridge included" are just outright lies. I caught a landlord in this lie just yesterday. He said "oh well I must have made a mistake online..." This also happens with dishwashers and with rent prices. You're not fooling any damn body, you listed imaginary apartment with fake pictures, just to get people to show up so you can start throwing sales shit at them. Sometimes, in areas where the market is really hot (such as West Hollywood), people sign for apartments without having seen the inside first (because the unit is already leased by the time previous tenants move out). Making a fridge an optional amenity gives landlords the ability to LIE and say the unit comes with a fridge and then when they move in, they find out that the fridge belonged to the previous tenants. You might say "well they should read the lease before they sign" but that logic only holds up in theory. In reality you know there are people getting screwed over on this issue. Such as people from other states who it never occurred to them that a fridge might not be included. * *California law should mimc Texas law* When a habitable condition appliance breaks, the landlord is losing rent money every day it sits broken. In Michigan, when a unit is unlivable, a tenant can break a lease with no penalty and no notice. That gives them very strong incentive to hurry up and fix it already. If Texas does this with air conditioners, why cant California do this with a damn refrigerator? _____ > *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 refrigerator should be a required condition of habitability, not just an amenity. Just moved to California starting look for an apartment. much to my dismay 9/10 apartments I viewed do not include refrigerators in the lease. I'm from Detroit - where every single apartment I viewed had a fridge included. The first apartment I went to I was like - WHAT? NO FRIDGE???? [In California, a refrigerator is not a habitable condition. It's an amenity.] (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/08/business/la-fi-rent-20120108) I found out via r/personalfinance that in Texas - an air conditioning unit is a habitable condition - meaning the landlord must provide and repair it. In fact, when your A/C unit breaks (and its not tenants' fault), you might not owe rent for days its broken because the unit is only livable while the A/C is working per Texas law. There are several reasons state law should change to make a fridge a habitable condition. * *I believe every other state requires this as a habitable condition, correct me if I'm wrong.* In my personal opinion an apartment without a fridge in not habitable, wouldn't you agree? but more importantly.... * *There's a lot of illegal bait-and-switch going on in the apartment rental market.* I'm shopping for an apartment now and I would say about half the listings that say "fridge included" are just outright lies. I caught a landlord in this lie just yesterday. He said "oh well I must have made a mistake online..." This also happens with dishwashers and with rent prices. You're not fooling any damn body, you listed imaginary apartment with fake pictures, just to get people to show up so you can start throwing sales shit at them. Sometimes, in areas where the market is really hot (such as West Hollywood), people sign for apartments without having seen the inside first (because the unit is already leased by the time previous tenants move out). Making a fridge an optional amenity gives landlords the ability to LIE and say the unit comes with a fridge and then when they move in, they find out that the fridge belonged to the previous tenants. You might say "well they should read the lease before they sign" but that logic only holds up in theory. In reality you know there are people getting screwed over on this issue. Such as people from other states who it never occurred to them that a fridge might not be included. * *California law should mimc Texas law* When a habitable condition appliance breaks, the landlord is losing rent money every day it sits broken. In Michigan, when a unit is unlivable, a tenant can break a lease with no penalty and no notice. That gives them very strong incentive to hurry up and fix it already. If Texas does this with air conditioners, why cant California do this with a damn refrigerator?

t3_1klm2d

I believe several non-murder crimes should be punished by death. CMV.

Well, the title kinda says it. I believe that crime should have 0 tolerance and that prison is an extremely ineffective system. This being said, there are a lot of laws that would need to be changed and crime needs to be defined better. So here's my logic. I live in the US so that will be my basis. Crime, right now, is stupid high for the technology, wealth, and lifestyle that people have. Several criminals who get out of prison end up going back in for similar or even worse crimes. Death gets rid of those guys. That, for the most part is understandable. Where I feel that I am a bit extreme is what is considered lesser crimes. And yet these are the the crimes I am more adamant about. For example, under-aged drinking/smoking, consumption of illegal goods, and most if not all theft, are all less severe crimes which I believe should be punished by death. Theft is a big one. Partially, some kind of fear needs to be instilled because people do not respect the law enough to abide by it. I'm a firm believer that the innocent have nothing to hide. And if people understand that they can and will be punished, then the risk of committing a crime no longer becomes worth it. But there is another reason. DUI puts innocent lives at risk. So why isn't DUI put on the same charges as attempted murder? Especially in a situation when it actually does threaten lives. Instead, I hear ads on the radio in my car about DUI lawyers who can get you a smaller punishment even if you are already found guilty. Explaining every detail seems like it would be too long so ask for details individually if needed. I've had 2 women tell me that this was a huge turn off and I got weird looks at work when one of them told my beliefs. So CMV. Oh, and for those saying that the death penalty hasn't reduced crime in the states that is legal in in the US, I believe that that is due to the process in which it is executed. It takes on average 18 years to actually be executed and that's only if some other arrangement isn't made in that time. EDIT: Gonna head to sleep now. Just a few things. From what I've read so far, most of you guys are saying the same thing. and a couple of you are just arguing in an unproductive manor. There were a couple really helpful ones and a lot of reading material posted so thank you for that. Just want to say that my concern is prevention of crime more so than punishment and I believe that this is an acceptable sacrifice. Someone said I have no regard for human life (that hurt **:(** ) and i think its more accurate to say that I have no regard for people who make the conscious decision to commit a crime. Hope that gives you more to work with, and thank you all for your efforts.

I believe several non-murder crimes should be punished by death. CMV. Well, the title kinda says it. I believe that crime should have 0 tolerance and that prison is an extremely ineffective system. This being said, there are a lot of laws that would need to be changed and crime needs to be defined better. So here's my logic. I live in the US so that will be my basis. Crime, right now, is stupid high for the technology, wealth, and lifestyle that people have. Several criminals who get out of prison end up going back in for similar or even worse crimes. Death gets rid of those guys. That, for the most part is understandable. Where I feel that I am a bit extreme is what is considered lesser crimes. And yet these are the the crimes I am more adamant about. For example, under-aged drinking/smoking, consumption of illegal goods, and most if not all theft, are all less severe crimes which I believe should be punished by death. Theft is a big one. Partially, some kind of fear needs to be instilled because people do not respect the law enough to abide by it. I'm a firm believer that the innocent have nothing to hide. And if people understand that they can and will be punished, then the risk of committing a crime no longer becomes worth it. But there is another reason. DUI puts innocent lives at risk. So why isn't DUI put on the same charges as attempted murder? Especially in a situation when it actually does threaten lives. Instead, I hear ads on the radio in my car about DUI lawyers who can get you a smaller punishment even if you are already found guilty. Explaining every detail seems like it would be too long so ask for details individually if needed. I've had 2 women tell me that this was a huge turn off and I got weird looks at work when one of them told my beliefs. So CMV. Oh, and for those saying that the death penalty hasn't reduced crime in the states that is legal in in the US, I believe that that is due to the process in which it is executed. It takes on average 18 years to actually be executed and that's only if some other arrangement isn't made in that time. EDIT: Gonna head to sleep now. Just a few things. From what I've read so far, most of you guys are saying the same thing. and a couple of you are just arguing in an unproductive manor. There were a couple really helpful ones and a lot of reading material posted so thank you for that. Just want to say that my concern is prevention of crime more so than punishment and I believe that this is an acceptable sacrifice. Someone said I have no regard for human life (that hurt **:(** ) and i think its more accurate to say that I have no regard for people who make the conscious decision to commit a crime. Hope that gives you more to work with, and thank you all for your efforts.

t3_1rti1i

I don't believe any state has any rights. CMV.

In response to /u/peacerequiresvanity's [response](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rsujz/i_dont_believe_any_state_has_the_right_to_its_own/) to /u/anonymous123421's [post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rry4m/i_dont_believe_any_country_that_prohibits_free/). I don't believe that any state has any kind of rights, in the ethical sense of the word. Mostly, because they're not people. When considering the morality of some decision or action, you need to consider two things; the practical outcomes, but also the rights of the people involved. Because humans should be treated as an ends and not merely a means. States, however (and corporations, or any other kind of social constructs) don't have feelings. They don't have needs, or wants. They are simply organizations we created to make things simpler for us (people). So, when making a decision, factoring in the "rights" of a state or worrying about the state being and end and not nearly a means is ridiculous. Change my view.

I don't believe any state has any rights. CMV. In response to /u/peacerequiresvanity's [response](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rsujz/i_dont_believe_any_state_has_the_right_to_its_own/) to /u/anonymous123421's [post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1rry4m/i_dont_believe_any_country_that_prohibits_free/). I don't believe that any state has any kind of rights, in the ethical sense of the word. Mostly, because they're not people. When considering the morality of some decision or action, you need to consider two things; the practical outcomes, but also the rights of the people involved. Because humans should be treated as an ends and not merely a means. States, however (and corporations, or any other kind of social constructs) don't have feelings. They don't have needs, or wants. They are simply organizations we created to make things simpler for us (people). So, when making a decision, factoring in the "rights" of a state or worrying about the state being and end and not nearly a means is ridiculous. Change my view.

t3_1etawu

"A lack of voter participation is not a problem to a functioning democracy. CMV."

The right to vote is a choice that people are given when they talk part in democracy. Voting is a form of expression and people are not obliged to express their decisions. It is good that some views aren't expressed since with a fewer amount of views it is easier for legislation to be passed. Simply, I don't see what the major problems with a lack of voter population are.

"A lack of voter participation is not a problem to a functioning democracy. CMV.". The right to vote is a choice that people are given when they talk part in democracy. Voting is a form of expression and people are not obliged to express their decisions. It is good that some views aren't expressed since with a fewer amount of views it is easier for legislation to be passed. Simply, I don't see what the major problems with a lack of voter population are.

t3_1g65ss

I think athletes are paid too much money. CMV.

[This](http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-10423863) will show you how much money athletes can make. $5.15 *million* dollars from some guy who can dunk and play basketball. Yeah, it takes a lot of skill, but it's just him entertaining people for being good. [This](http://www1.salary.com/Military-Salaries.html) shows the salary for people in the military. Significantly less than it is in the NFL - the least paid of the sports. Please CMV.

I think athletes are paid too much money. CMV. [This](http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ycn-10423863) will show you how much money athletes can make. $5.15 *million* dollars from some guy who can dunk and play basketball. Yeah, it takes a lot of skill, but it's just him entertaining people for being good. [This](http://www1.salary.com/Military-Salaries.html) shows the salary for people in the military. Significantly less than it is in the NFL - the least paid of the sports. Please CMV.

t3_6mr6hp

CMV: the answer to the question of whether or not humans have free will is pointless, because the idea of a lack of free will is a philosophical dead end.

What I mean by this is that, if we conclude that humans have no free will, there's really no where to go from there. Reasoning and purpose begin to break down as coherent concepts, because what's the point in thinking of what you think and do is utterly predetermined? It brings into question the whole notion of justice, and with that the existence of society as a whole. The position that humans don't have free will might even be true, but that does not mean it's an acceptable position. But maybe I'm wrong and it's actually an interesting and constructive line of thinking, just one I'm not yet grasping. To that end, Change My View!

CMV: the answer to the question of whether or not humans have free will is pointless, because the idea of a lack of free will is a philosophical dead end. What I mean by this is that, if we conclude that humans have no free will, there's really no where to go from there. Reasoning and purpose begin to break down as coherent concepts, because what's the point in thinking of what you think and do is utterly predetermined? It brings into question the whole notion of justice, and with that the existence of society as a whole. The position that humans don't have free will might even be true, but that does not mean it's an acceptable position. But maybe I'm wrong and it's actually an interesting and constructive line of thinking, just one I'm not yet grasping. To that end, Change My View!

t3_2wfxpm

CMV: The new Cosmos is worse than useless

The new ***Cosmos***, the one hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, is worse than useless: it is actively harmful to science education. There are two main reasons for this. **The first is that it is inaccurate**. In the first episode, the ship of the imagination flies through the asteroid belt, and must dodge between the asteroids, which are a few dozens of meters apart. In reality, they are hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart. We now know that the visual representations in the show are not necessarily accurate. We later see a very cool three dimensional model of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. I have no idea if that is the shape it actually is, though, since I know that they already lied about the appearance of another astronomical body; how do I know they're not making this one up for visual appeal as well? I cannot learn anything from the visuals of this show, and the visuals are a huge portion of what's going on there. **The second is that it inculcates a decidedly unscientific worldview**. There is a lot of time spent discussing Giordano Bruno, because he made the lucky guess that there were planets orbiting other stars besides the sun. The fact that this was just a lucky guess and not something he discovered through observation or experimentation is completely glossed over - there's a throwaway line at the end of that section that mentions this, but it's a two second disclaimer following several interminable minutes of praise heaped upon this random renaissance friar who did not do anything scientific. This teaches the idea of "team science", science as attire, or set of beliefs, instead of science as a method: we should be learning about experimentation and observation, not about people making random guesses that happen to be more accurate than their contemporaries' random guesses. Disclaimer: I have only seen the first episode, since I was so disgusted at it that I gave up after that. My view would definitely be changed if it turns out I'm mistaken about what the asteroid belt looks like and there's something I'm missing in the Bruno story (and which they discuss in the show and I just forgot), or if the subsequent episodes are completely error free and do a good job of teaching the scientific method and that we should not respect someone for their particular beliefs, but rather for how they arrived at them. You might also be able to change my mind some other way, but I can't see what it could be from here. edit: **Downvotes do not change minds**. When I see my posts at 0 or negative karma, I can only assume that some frustrated idiot can't respond sensibly, which is evidence my position is correct. _____ > *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 new Cosmos is worse than useless. The new ***Cosmos***, the one hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, is worse than useless: it is actively harmful to science education. There are two main reasons for this. **The first is that it is inaccurate**. In the first episode, the ship of the imagination flies through the asteroid belt, and must dodge between the asteroids, which are a few dozens of meters apart. In reality, they are hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart. We now know that the visual representations in the show are not necessarily accurate. We later see a very cool three dimensional model of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. I have no idea if that is the shape it actually is, though, since I know that they already lied about the appearance of another astronomical body; how do I know they're not making this one up for visual appeal as well? I cannot learn anything from the visuals of this show, and the visuals are a huge portion of what's going on there. **The second is that it inculcates a decidedly unscientific worldview**. There is a lot of time spent discussing Giordano Bruno, because he made the lucky guess that there were planets orbiting other stars besides the sun. The fact that this was just a lucky guess and not something he discovered through observation or experimentation is completely glossed over - there's a throwaway line at the end of that section that mentions this, but it's a two second disclaimer following several interminable minutes of praise heaped upon this random renaissance friar who did not do anything scientific. This teaches the idea of "team science", science as attire, or set of beliefs, instead of science as a method: we should be learning about experimentation and observation, not about people making random guesses that happen to be more accurate than their contemporaries' random guesses. Disclaimer: I have only seen the first episode, since I was so disgusted at it that I gave up after that. My view would definitely be changed if it turns out I'm mistaken about what the asteroid belt looks like and there's something I'm missing in the Bruno story (and which they discuss in the show and I just forgot), or if the subsequent episodes are completely error free and do a good job of teaching the scientific method and that we should not respect someone for their particular beliefs, but rather for how they arrived at them. You might also be able to change my mind some other way, but I can't see what it could be from here. edit: **Downvotes do not change minds**. When I see my posts at 0 or negative karma, I can only assume that some frustrated idiot can't respond sensibly, which is evidence my position is correct.

t3_2f0rda

CMV: there is nothing wrong with saying "not all X are like that", just like there is nothing wrong with saying "not all prime numbers are odd".

firstly, I am aware of this thread that has the exact same topic:http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/29dbuj/cmv_not_all_x_are_like_that_is_a_completely_valid/ but I am not convinced after reading through it, so I am bringing it up again. This is a post to defend "not all X are like that", it's not specifically about prime numbers. Although I will be using prime numbers as an example. and if you're asking why I made this thread, it was prompted really by these two posts: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/1cvyhy/is_anyone_else_tired_of_the_constant_not_all_men/ http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/ so I've been told that "not all X are like that" is derailing, and trying to change the subject. I do not agree. If the speaker meant "some X are like that", then they need to make that point clear, and they need to not be making generalizations like this. It's just like with prime numbers. 2 is an even prime number, and as such, not all prime numbers are odd. Additionally, one single man who is not a rapist means that not all men are rapists. When someone says "not all X are like that", they are saying something that is true, and relevant to the topic at hand. It's a very simple concept. if you say "all x are like that", then a single counter-example is sufficient to falsify the claim. That's it. **One. Single. Counter-example.** It does not matter if you can come up with a million examples that work, nor does it matter if 99.999% of all examples work, all that matters is that there is one single counter-example. That is sufficient to falsify the claim. To believe otherwise is to believe that all primes are odd. one thing is that people need to be precise about what they mean. in DHCKris's example with the scientist and the beekeeper, when the scientist says "humans are killing bees", they need to be precise as to what such a statement means. "some humans kill bees", or "there exists a human that is killing bees" , or "all humans kill bees". When the beekeeper responds with "not all humans kill bees", then the onus is on the scientist to clarify what they meant by saying "humans are killing bees". when someone says "not all men are like that", the correct response is to clarify, or admit to a factual error, and not to accuse the other side of "derailing", or "changing the subject". _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: there is nothing wrong with saying "not all X are like that", just like there is nothing wrong with saying "not all prime numbers are odd". firstly, I am aware of this thread that has the exact same topic:http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/29dbuj/cmv_not_all_x_are_like_that_is_a_completely_valid/ but I am not convinced after reading through it, so I am bringing it up again. This is a post to defend "not all X are like that", it's not specifically about prime numbers. Although I will be using prime numbers as an example. and if you're asking why I made this thread, it was prompted really by these two posts: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/1cvyhy/is_anyone_else_tired_of_the_constant_not_all_men/ http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/ so I've been told that "not all X are like that" is derailing, and trying to change the subject. I do not agree. If the speaker meant "some X are like that", then they need to make that point clear, and they need to not be making generalizations like this. It's just like with prime numbers. 2 is an even prime number, and as such, not all prime numbers are odd. Additionally, one single man who is not a rapist means that not all men are rapists. When someone says "not all X are like that", they are saying something that is true, and relevant to the topic at hand. It's a very simple concept. if you say "all x are like that", then a single counter-example is sufficient to falsify the claim. That's it. **One. Single. Counter-example.** It does not matter if you can come up with a million examples that work, nor does it matter if 99.999% of all examples work, all that matters is that there is one single counter-example. That is sufficient to falsify the claim. To believe otherwise is to believe that all primes are odd. one thing is that people need to be precise about what they mean. in DHCKris's example with the scientist and the beekeeper, when the scientist says "humans are killing bees", they need to be precise as to what such a statement means. "some humans kill bees", or "there exists a human that is killing bees" , or "all humans kill bees". When the beekeeper responds with "not all humans kill bees", then the onus is on the scientist to clarify what they meant by saying "humans are killing bees". when someone says "not all men are like that", the correct response is to clarify, or admit to a factual error, and not to accuse the other side of "derailing", or "changing the subject".

t3_1ctroe

I think there's nothing wrong with being vain. CMV

Specifically, I don't think it's bad to think of yourself as attractive, or to check yourself out. I think it shows that you take good care of yourself and you care about how you appear to others, and that's a good thing.

I think there's nothing wrong with being vain. CMV. Specifically, I don't think it's bad to think of yourself as attractive, or to check yourself out. I think it shows that you take good care of yourself and you care about how you appear to others, and that's a good thing.

t3_2d0mdz

CMV: UK - It would be a lot more sensible to say "Scotland, if you don't meet these targets by 'whatever date', then we'll have to consider removing you from the union"

That would be fair/supportive/respectful? Why did they not say that? It's not like Scotland would implode overnight with no foresight. Why does everyone think that the only solution is to take the pound away from Scotland? surely it's worth giving them a chance... such a powerful ally could bode well for the future of the economy, no? Also, after all this time they've had to work things out, it's only recently they've decided they're absolutely not allowed to use it, the Euro too! Giving Scotland a handful of months to find an alternative solution. Madness. I can't think of any other reason other than to twist the Scots arms up their back. It's oppressive and tyrannical. I'm no expert so if someone could give me a logical explanation for this it would be greatly appreciated. _____ > *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: UK - It would be a lot more sensible to say "Scotland, if you don't meet these targets by 'whatever date', then we'll have to consider removing you from the union". That would be fair/supportive/respectful? Why did they not say that? It's not like Scotland would implode overnight with no foresight. Why does everyone think that the only solution is to take the pound away from Scotland? surely it's worth giving them a chance... such a powerful ally could bode well for the future of the economy, no? Also, after all this time they've had to work things out, it's only recently they've decided they're absolutely not allowed to use it, the Euro too! Giving Scotland a handful of months to find an alternative solution. Madness. I can't think of any other reason other than to twist the Scots arms up their back. It's oppressive and tyrannical. I'm no expert so if someone could give me a logical explanation for this it would be greatly appreciated.

t3_21y8fy

CMV: Carthago delenda est

We've already had two wars with Carthage. When will it end? We must destroy them completely or risk destruction ourselves. They are growing entirely too powerful, with their vast military and abundant trade routes. If we do not strike at them, they will surely strike at us. And let us not forget the vengeance we owe them for our fallen at the Battle of Cannae! How can we let such a thing go unpunished? Censeo Carthaginem esse delendam. _____ > *Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)*** *about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through* ***[our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***.

CMV: Carthago delenda est. We've already had two wars with Carthage. When will it end? We must destroy them completely or risk destruction ourselves. They are growing entirely too powerful, with their vast military and abundant trade routes. If we do not strike at them, they will surely strike at us. And let us not forget the vengeance we owe them for our fallen at the Battle of Cannae! How can we let such a thing go unpunished? Censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

t3_5bg6ct

CMV: There is nothing inherently wrong with having everything handed to you as a kid.

I've been having the same argument with a friend of mine for the last several years. Basically, he thinks I'm a spoiled brat (we're both 17), and I think he's full of shit. I've always been the kid who could ask his mom for money to go see a movie, while most of my friends had to pay out of their own wallets. During the winter, my parents would pay me to shovel the driveway, while my friends just had to do it because their parents said so. Most recently, he was criticizing me for the fact that my parents bought me a car, saying, "I'm gonna get a job so I can pay for my own car instead of having shit handed to me." This is all well and good. I totally understand how lucky I am, and I don't in any way look down on people who are less fortunate. If you bought your first car yourself, good for you! However, if reading that first paragraph leaves you seething with anger at the fact that I was given lots of things, I think you're just projecting your insecurities onto me. There seems to be this general idea that "all rich people are assholes unless they're self-made (not saying that I'm rich here)." I can see where this idea comes from. "Rich kid" tends to evoke in image like [this,](http://i.imgur.com/PWM3rxt.jpg) A spoiled brat who thinks he's better than everyone else. Obviously, most wealthy people are just people who have more money to spend, and are probably perfectly nice people. The main thing I hear is that people who "have everything handed to them" won't know how function in the real world, since they have gone through life with people giving them everything they need. This is simply ridiculous. To say that people won't know how to function without help, is basically saying that they are absolute morons. Everybody knows that you have to work to get money, you have to study to do well in school, and you can't solve all your problems by suing somebody. There is nothing wrong with coming from a family wealthy enough to buy you a car. If you look down on someone because they were fortunate enough to be given things, its probably because you are insecure and just want to find a way to feel superior to them. CMV _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is nothing inherently wrong with having everything handed to you as a kid. I've been having the same argument with a friend of mine for the last several years. Basically, he thinks I'm a spoiled brat (we're both 17), and I think he's full of shit. I've always been the kid who could ask his mom for money to go see a movie, while most of my friends had to pay out of their own wallets. During the winter, my parents would pay me to shovel the driveway, while my friends just had to do it because their parents said so. Most recently, he was criticizing me for the fact that my parents bought me a car, saying, "I'm gonna get a job so I can pay for my own car instead of having shit handed to me." This is all well and good. I totally understand how lucky I am, and I don't in any way look down on people who are less fortunate. If you bought your first car yourself, good for you! However, if reading that first paragraph leaves you seething with anger at the fact that I was given lots of things, I think you're just projecting your insecurities onto me. There seems to be this general idea that "all rich people are assholes unless they're self-made (not saying that I'm rich here)." I can see where this idea comes from. "Rich kid" tends to evoke in image like [this,](http://i.imgur.com/PWM3rxt.jpg) A spoiled brat who thinks he's better than everyone else. Obviously, most wealthy people are just people who have more money to spend, and are probably perfectly nice people. The main thing I hear is that people who "have everything handed to them" won't know how function in the real world, since they have gone through life with people giving them everything they need. This is simply ridiculous. To say that people won't know how to function without help, is basically saying that they are absolute morons. Everybody knows that you have to work to get money, you have to study to do well in school, and you can't solve all your problems by suing somebody. There is nothing wrong with coming from a family wealthy enough to buy you a car. If you look down on someone because they were fortunate enough to be given things, its probably because you are insecure and just want to find a way to feel superior to them. CMV

t3_3ao1o1

CMV: If the suffering and death of animals in factory farms is something that should be prevented, so should the suffering and death of animals in the wild.

Animal rights activists believe that animals should be free from exploitation, suffering, and death. I am not debating this baseline belief, but rather extending it in a morally consistent way. If the suffering of one animal is universal in a type of way, then there is nothing morally relevant between a pig being killed by a slaughterhouse worker and a gazelle being killed by a lion. One counterargument is that in the pig situation, the killer is a human with moral thinking and ability to rationalized and act according to social norms and moral values. The lion obviously is not capable of that, acting only on base instincts and does not follow moral norms or rules. However, to the animal that is suffering because of being dominated, does that suffering change based on the moral ability of the oppressor? The suffering is equal, and the animal does not care of the reasoning for the suffering, only that the suffering is happening. Thus, if animal rights groups are trying to eliminate the exploitation and suffering of animals, it is morally consistent to desire to eliminate wild animal suffering, too. Another counter argument is that one thing is "natural" and the other is "unnatural". This seems like an appeal to nature fallacy and thus doesn't have any logical or moral relevance. The suffering of the pig and the gazelle are equal, even if the context is different. As humans, as moral agents, we have the capacity to determine right from wrong. If we eventually get to the point where we collectively agree that the suffering of animals in farms (large or small) is morally relevant and something that should not be supported, then we should also take steps to eliminate all types of animal suffering, including the suffering of animals in the wild. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If the suffering and death of animals in factory farms is something that should be prevented, so should the suffering and death of animals in the wild. Animal rights activists believe that animals should be free from exploitation, suffering, and death. I am not debating this baseline belief, but rather extending it in a morally consistent way. If the suffering of one animal is universal in a type of way, then there is nothing morally relevant between a pig being killed by a slaughterhouse worker and a gazelle being killed by a lion. One counterargument is that in the pig situation, the killer is a human with moral thinking and ability to rationalized and act according to social norms and moral values. The lion obviously is not capable of that, acting only on base instincts and does not follow moral norms or rules. However, to the animal that is suffering because of being dominated, does that suffering change based on the moral ability of the oppressor? The suffering is equal, and the animal does not care of the reasoning for the suffering, only that the suffering is happening. Thus, if animal rights groups are trying to eliminate the exploitation and suffering of animals, it is morally consistent to desire to eliminate wild animal suffering, too. Another counter argument is that one thing is "natural" and the other is "unnatural". This seems like an appeal to nature fallacy and thus doesn't have any logical or moral relevance. The suffering of the pig and the gazelle are equal, even if the context is different. As humans, as moral agents, we have the capacity to determine right from wrong. If we eventually get to the point where we collectively agree that the suffering of animals in farms (large or small) is morally relevant and something that should not be supported, then we should also take steps to eliminate all types of animal suffering, including the suffering of animals in the wild.

t3_2fg916

CMV: I only want to have one child.

My wife and I had our first child 6 weeks ago. It's been a challenging but fun 6 weeks. We could not be more thrilled to have a healthy peeing, pooping, and crying machine! With that said, I have no desire to have more than one child. If we only have one child we'll all be able to live a very comfortable life. We won't need to buy a larger house. We've already started a college fund for the little guy and he'll be able to go to any college in the country (granted he need to earn his way in!). We'll be able to buy a nice lake house in 10 years or so. In short, we'll be able ensure he gets all the resources he'll ever need. If we have more than one those previously mentioned resources will be stretched more thinly. Don't get me wrong, we won't go hungry if we have two children, but we won't be able to fully fund two educations and still live the life we would have been able to with one child. Money and lifestyle aside - we're very thankful that he's the picture of health. What if we have a second and s/he isn't as healthy? Why ruin what you already know is a good thing? I guess I just do not see the value in having a second child. In my eyes, less is more. _____ > *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 only want to have one child. My wife and I had our first child 6 weeks ago. It's been a challenging but fun 6 weeks. We could not be more thrilled to have a healthy peeing, pooping, and crying machine! With that said, I have no desire to have more than one child. If we only have one child we'll all be able to live a very comfortable life. We won't need to buy a larger house. We've already started a college fund for the little guy and he'll be able to go to any college in the country (granted he need to earn his way in!). We'll be able to buy a nice lake house in 10 years or so. In short, we'll be able ensure he gets all the resources he'll ever need. If we have more than one those previously mentioned resources will be stretched more thinly. Don't get me wrong, we won't go hungry if we have two children, but we won't be able to fully fund two educations and still live the life we would have been able to with one child. Money and lifestyle aside - we're very thankful that he's the picture of health. What if we have a second and s/he isn't as healthy? Why ruin what you already know is a good thing? I guess I just do not see the value in having a second child. In my eyes, less is more.

t3_24akc1

CMV: The recent stabbing of a teacher in the UK highlights the benefits of strict gun legislation

Recently, in a tragic turn of events, a British teacher was stabbed by a 15 year old pupil in her own classroom. It is the first murder of a teacher in a school since the 1996 Dunblane massacre, an event that prompted the Firearms act of 1997, which effectively made private ownership of firearms illegal in the United Kingdom. In recent years, we've seen similar tragedies to the events of Dunblane in the USA (Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and Columbine to name a few), prompting national debate over whether or not firearms should be similarly controlled in the states. I'm English, and admit that I will most likely never be able to truly understand first-hand the cultural relationship between US citizens and firearms, and the association with the right to protect your own family; provide resistance to oppression; and exercise your civic duty. However, it seems that Ann Maguire's murder by a 15 year old pupil highlights the benefits of strict gun legislation. Whilst not a great deal is known about the pupil yet, news articles seem to hint at a similar character to many of the USA's high-profile shooters: a mentally unstable recluse. Whilst one of the (admittedly extreme) responses to the Sandy Hook shooting, in particular, was that of placing armed guards in schools to protect children, it seems that the benefits of a near-gunless British society have been made clear. As tragic and awful an event as it was, I am of the opinion that - with more unrestricted access to firearms - there could have been a significantly higher number of casualties. Ignoring the logistical challenge of removing/regulating more closely the vast amount of firearms in cirulation in the USA, I would be interested to hear the rational/logical reasons for supporting a citizen's right to bear arms in a year that has already seen 41 school shootings in the US alone (figure taken from wikipedia, and not every shooting was a case of a pupil being the shooter). As a disclaimer, I don't intend to come across as compelling everyone to "think of the children!", it was a more a case of explaining and contextualising my opinion. 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: The recent stabbing of a teacher in the UK highlights the benefits of strict gun legislation. Recently, in a tragic turn of events, a British teacher was stabbed by a 15 year old pupil in her own classroom. It is the first murder of a teacher in a school since the 1996 Dunblane massacre, an event that prompted the Firearms act of 1997, which effectively made private ownership of firearms illegal in the United Kingdom. In recent years, we've seen similar tragedies to the events of Dunblane in the USA (Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, and Columbine to name a few), prompting national debate over whether or not firearms should be similarly controlled in the states. I'm English, and admit that I will most likely never be able to truly understand first-hand the cultural relationship between US citizens and firearms, and the association with the right to protect your own family; provide resistance to oppression; and exercise your civic duty. However, it seems that Ann Maguire's murder by a 15 year old pupil highlights the benefits of strict gun legislation. Whilst not a great deal is known about the pupil yet, news articles seem to hint at a similar character to many of the USA's high-profile shooters: a mentally unstable recluse. Whilst one of the (admittedly extreme) responses to the Sandy Hook shooting, in particular, was that of placing armed guards in schools to protect children, it seems that the benefits of a near-gunless British society have been made clear. As tragic and awful an event as it was, I am of the opinion that - with more unrestricted access to firearms - there could have been a significantly higher number of casualties. Ignoring the logistical challenge of removing/regulating more closely the vast amount of firearms in cirulation in the USA, I would be interested to hear the rational/logical reasons for supporting a citizen's right to bear arms in a year that has already seen 41 school shootings in the US alone (figure taken from wikipedia, and not every shooting was a case of a pupil being the shooter). As a disclaimer, I don't intend to come across as compelling everyone to "think of the children!", it was a more a case of explaining and contextualising my opinion. CMV!

t3_64rk9b

CMV: Airline tickets are actually raffle tickets and should be regulated accordingly.

The recent United incident got me (and the rest of the internet) thinking about the nature of air travel, and it occurred to me that airlines don’t actually sell tickets to fly on their planes. Instead, they sell raffle tickets which enter you for a chance to win a seat on a specific flight. Let’s say, for example, that you buy a ticket to fly from Dallas to Chicago. The airline knows how many tickets they plan to sell, as well as the plane they will most likely use for that trip. Let’s just say the plane seats 100 people to make this easy. The airline intentionally overbooks that flight, selling say 105 tickets. This means that the holders of those 105 tickets actually hold raffle tickets with about a 95% chance of winning. Those are really good odds for a raffle, but that’s still a raffle. I think, then, that airlines should be regulated in the same way any other raffle is regulated. They should be required to refer to their products as raffle tickets or entries, and they should be required to publicize the odds of winning at the time of the sale. Thus, an airline ticket that today is advertised like this “Flight from Dallas to Chicago, departure time 1:30, $500” would look more like this “One entry into raffle for seat on a flight from Dallas to Chicago, $500. Drawing to be held at 1:30. Must be present at time of drawing to win. Odds of winning 100:105.” This would also mean that airlines would have to operate as non-profits, as only non-profits can legally run raffles. Note that I think this is true only in the context of intentional overbooking on the part of the airline. I understand that airlines may need to occasionally deny boarding due to mechanical failure, weather, or other unforeseen circumstances, just as an event coordinator may need to cancel a concert due to weather or the illness of the performers, or delivery of pre-sales on the agreed date may need to be delayed due to unforeseen production issues. If the airline is intentionally arranging things such that not everyone sold a ticket can possibly be given a seat on the plane, however, they are running a raffle. And if they want to sell their products like raffle tickets, then they should be regulated like any other raffle. In summary: 1. Selling a product which entitles the owner to a chance to obtain some desired good or service, but which does not guarantee attainment of that good or service, is a raffle. 2. Raffles are strictly regulated, including requirements that they only be held by non-profit organizations. 3. Airlines intentionally sell more tickets for their flights then they can possibly accommodate. 4. Each ticket holder, therefore, has a chance of obtaining a seat on the flight, but is not guaranteed a seat on the flight. 5. Because airline tickets are sold in such a way as to intentionally preclude all holders from obtaining a seat, they are raffle tickets. 6. Airlines should be regulated by the relevant laws pertaining to raffles. _____ > *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: Airline tickets are actually raffle tickets and should be regulated accordingly. The recent United incident got me (and the rest of the internet) thinking about the nature of air travel, and it occurred to me that airlines don’t actually sell tickets to fly on their planes. Instead, they sell raffle tickets which enter you for a chance to win a seat on a specific flight. Let’s say, for example, that you buy a ticket to fly from Dallas to Chicago. The airline knows how many tickets they plan to sell, as well as the plane they will most likely use for that trip. Let’s just say the plane seats 100 people to make this easy. The airline intentionally overbooks that flight, selling say 105 tickets. This means that the holders of those 105 tickets actually hold raffle tickets with about a 95% chance of winning. Those are really good odds for a raffle, but that’s still a raffle. I think, then, that airlines should be regulated in the same way any other raffle is regulated. They should be required to refer to their products as raffle tickets or entries, and they should be required to publicize the odds of winning at the time of the sale. Thus, an airline ticket that today is advertised like this “Flight from Dallas to Chicago, departure time 1:30, $500” would look more like this “One entry into raffle for seat on a flight from Dallas to Chicago, $500. Drawing to be held at 1:30. Must be present at time of drawing to win. Odds of winning 100:105.” This would also mean that airlines would have to operate as non-profits, as only non-profits can legally run raffles. Note that I think this is true only in the context of intentional overbooking on the part of the airline. I understand that airlines may need to occasionally deny boarding due to mechanical failure, weather, or other unforeseen circumstances, just as an event coordinator may need to cancel a concert due to weather or the illness of the performers, or delivery of pre-sales on the agreed date may need to be delayed due to unforeseen production issues. If the airline is intentionally arranging things such that not everyone sold a ticket can possibly be given a seat on the plane, however, they are running a raffle. And if they want to sell their products like raffle tickets, then they should be regulated like any other raffle. In summary: 1. Selling a product which entitles the owner to a chance to obtain some desired good or service, but which does not guarantee attainment of that good or service, is a raffle. 2. Raffles are strictly regulated, including requirements that they only be held by non-profit organizations. 3. Airlines intentionally sell more tickets for their flights then they can possibly accommodate. 4. Each ticket holder, therefore, has a chance of obtaining a seat on the flight, but is not guaranteed a seat on the flight. 5. Because airline tickets are sold in such a way as to intentionally preclude all holders from obtaining a seat, they are raffle tickets. 6. Airlines should be regulated by the relevant laws pertaining to raffles.

t3_2n9fhx

CMV: Gender (not sex) is a social construct equivalent to religion, and I don't believe in it. Transgender-people who undergo reassignment surgeries go against the belief that "sex =\= gender"

I have a hard time following some of my feminist friends, and would be labeled a trans-exclusive feminist for thinking this way. Feminists work hard to destroy gender rolls and norms. And then, as one example, usually whenever you ask a trans-person how they knew they weren't, say, a male, they say something along the lines of "I never fit in with the girls growing up" ('not like other girls' trope) or "I didn't like wearing makeup" (gender rolls trope). Gender seems more like a spiritual/religious/horoscope BS type thing to me, and it's damaging to certain feminist movements. Edit: Thank you all for your wonderful replies! I enjoyed reading them and they definitely cleared up some of my false assumptions. A big thank you to the trans folk who replied who I'm sure don't need anymore of this uninformed CIS bullshit. _____ > *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: Gender (not sex) is a social construct equivalent to religion, and I don't believe in it. Transgender-people who undergo reassignment surgeries go against the belief that "sex =\= gender". I have a hard time following some of my feminist friends, and would be labeled a trans-exclusive feminist for thinking this way. Feminists work hard to destroy gender rolls and norms. And then, as one example, usually whenever you ask a trans-person how they knew they weren't, say, a male, they say something along the lines of "I never fit in with the girls growing up" ('not like other girls' trope) or "I didn't like wearing makeup" (gender rolls trope). Gender seems more like a spiritual/religious/horoscope BS type thing to me, and it's damaging to certain feminist movements. Edit: Thank you all for your wonderful replies! I enjoyed reading them and they definitely cleared up some of my false assumptions. A big thank you to the trans folk who replied who I'm sure don't need anymore of this uninformed CIS bullshit.

t3_1fc7y0

I don't see any reason to hate Monsanto. CMV.

I've seen so many posts on Reddit about how Monsanto isn't just an evil corp--but THE most evil corp in human history. The evidence for this seems to be mostly speculation, conspiracy theories, and flat out inaccurate reporting. Now, I have no vested interest in this issue--in fact, I'm pretty apathetic. I'm more focused on other issues. However, I'd like to be more informed about the anti-Monsanto case, and I've posted several times on Reddit to get a clear and evidence-based argument against the company. I've had nothing. So, for now I remain neutral on Monsanto, but I'd like to understand the passionate hatred people have for this company. Can anyone explain?

I don't see any reason to hate Monsanto. CMV. I've seen so many posts on Reddit about how Monsanto isn't just an evil corp--but THE most evil corp in human history. The evidence for this seems to be mostly speculation, conspiracy theories, and flat out inaccurate reporting. Now, I have no vested interest in this issue--in fact, I'm pretty apathetic. I'm more focused on other issues. However, I'd like to be more informed about the anti-Monsanto case, and I've posted several times on Reddit to get a clear and evidence-based argument against the company. I've had nothing. So, for now I remain neutral on Monsanto, but I'd like to understand the passionate hatred people have for this company. Can anyone explain?

t3_6u4zky

CMV: Due to recent events all forms of Identitarianism should be outlawed.

The root cause of the recent violence and many instances of past violence is due to Identitarianism. The alt-right are Identitarians all their grievances surround the white identity. The alt-right has seen massive growth in recent times due to the Identitarians of the opposition. This is clearly observable simple watch members of the alt-right speak about how the recent years has seen massive amounts of people come to the movement with the same complaints. These misguided individuals see all the rhetoric of "It's white peoples fault" or "kill all whites" or "All whites are racist" and run straight into the arms of racists groups. So I see both sides as guilty. Once you break people down into believing that their race defines them more then any other factors, of course you're gonna get racism. I think it's time to end this once and for all by outlawing Identitarianism this blanket ban would eliminate many movements Some groups I can think of that use Identitarianism are all alt-right groups, antifa, bamn Just to name a few.

CMV: Due to recent events all forms of Identitarianism should be outlawed. The root cause of the recent violence and many instances of past violence is due to Identitarianism. The alt-right are Identitarians all their grievances surround the white identity. The alt-right has seen massive growth in recent times due to the Identitarians of the opposition. This is clearly observable simple watch members of the alt-right speak about how the recent years has seen massive amounts of people come to the movement with the same complaints. These misguided individuals see all the rhetoric of "It's white peoples fault" or "kill all whites" or "All whites are racist" and run straight into the arms of racists groups. So I see both sides as guilty. Once you break people down into believing that their race defines them more then any other factors, of course you're gonna get racism. I think it's time to end this once and for all by outlawing Identitarianism this blanket ban would eliminate many movements Some groups I can think of that use Identitarianism are all alt-right groups, antifa, bamn Just to name a few.

t3_1g44hf

I believe that, putting morals aside, Hitler was making the world a better place. CMV

It is probably immediately apparent to many of you that I did not study modern history, but I digress. Obviously, not all of Hitler's movements were beneficial, such as persecution of Jews, but some movements would have been quite beneficial society, such as persecution of disabled and gypsies. On a global level, the war aided the invention of new technologies, and planted the seeds for the women,s rights movement. I realise that this will not be a popular view, and is probably quite an ignorant view, but I would prefer to be corrected than to maintain such a callous view.

I believe that, putting morals aside, Hitler was making the world a better place. CMV. It is probably immediately apparent to many of you that I did not study modern history, but I digress. Obviously, not all of Hitler's movements were beneficial, such as persecution of Jews, but some movements would have been quite beneficial society, such as persecution of disabled and gypsies. On a global level, the war aided the invention of new technologies, and planted the seeds for the women,s rights movement. I realise that this will not be a popular view, and is probably quite an ignorant view, but I would prefer to be corrected than to maintain such a callous view.

t3_6cvquo

CMV: The Middle East is justified in hating the West.

I am not saying that the way ISIS spreads it's message is justified, but I understand where the anger comes from. I don't know much about history but I'm sure if I read more about it, I would find countless more examples of the West essentially fucking the Middle East over. We drone strike innocent Muslims on an almost daily basis, we kicked Muslims out of their homes to create Israel, we invaded Iraq with no reason and the West tries to propagate it's way of life into places where it's not wanted. Like I said, I don't know much about the history but from what I've heard, we are the bad guys and ISIS is a group of people who feel like they have no other options so they spread their own propaganda to susceptible and convince them what they're doing is needed. So change my view! Edit: A lot of people are getting hung up on the fact I mentioned ISIS. Does anyone think it's possible that they think the way they do because of the Western World coming in and trying to change their way of life? Or do you guys really think that ISIS would be created even if the West wasn't involved in the Middle East? From what I understand is that ISIS was able to become what it is today because of the Iraq War. Do you think so many people would have been open to their message if the West was involved in the Middle East?

CMV: The Middle East is justified in hating the West. I am not saying that the way ISIS spreads it's message is justified, but I understand where the anger comes from. I don't know much about history but I'm sure if I read more about it, I would find countless more examples of the West essentially fucking the Middle East over. We drone strike innocent Muslims on an almost daily basis, we kicked Muslims out of their homes to create Israel, we invaded Iraq with no reason and the West tries to propagate it's way of life into places where it's not wanted. Like I said, I don't know much about the history but from what I've heard, we are the bad guys and ISIS is a group of people who feel like they have no other options so they spread their own propaganda to susceptible and convince them what they're doing is needed. So change my view! Edit: A lot of people are getting hung up on the fact I mentioned ISIS. Does anyone think it's possible that they think the way they do because of the Western World coming in and trying to change their way of life? Or do you guys really think that ISIS would be created even if the West wasn't involved in the Middle East? From what I understand is that ISIS was able to become what it is today because of the Iraq War. Do you think so many people would have been open to their message if the West was involved in the Middle East?

t3_5wsjwr

CMV: There shoul be test to allow citizens to vote.

After having this conversation with several people both in reddit and real life I have realised that the mention of a test-to-vote kind of idea is automatically seen with bad eyes. I can understant the historical reasons such as our past with racism and the psychological reasons such as the subjectivity of the human mind. However, both of this arguments assume that the questions or answers that would be on the test will allow this subjectivity to happen when in reality there are several subjects and topics that can be tested that have an objective right or wrong answer and society would be greatly benefitted by providing its voters with this knowledge. The subjects that would be tested range from economics to history, covering some basic science and probably critical thinking. The cost of the test and of the bunch of classes that you would need to pass it would be covered by taxes and allthough a burden in the short run it would ovbiously be benefitial on the long term.

CMV: There shoul be test to allow citizens to vote. After having this conversation with several people both in reddit and real life I have realised that the mention of a test-to-vote kind of idea is automatically seen with bad eyes. I can understant the historical reasons such as our past with racism and the psychological reasons such as the subjectivity of the human mind. However, both of this arguments assume that the questions or answers that would be on the test will allow this subjectivity to happen when in reality there are several subjects and topics that can be tested that have an objective right or wrong answer and society would be greatly benefitted by providing its voters with this knowledge. The subjects that would be tested range from economics to history, covering some basic science and probably critical thinking. The cost of the test and of the bunch of classes that you would need to pass it would be covered by taxes and allthough a burden in the short run it would ovbiously be benefitial on the long term.

t3_4dn7no

CMV: The gap between the wealthy and poor has never been less significant.

With the rise of popularity of Socialism and Bernie Sanders here on reddit, I hear this quote fairly often: "The top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 50%" or something along the lines of [this clip from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Wealth Gap](https://youtu.be/LfgSEwjAeno?t=3m27s) And those things may be true, but I don't really care about a dollar amount, because wealth means nothing if you can't buy anything. What matters to me is quality of life, which is what wealth can buy. And in my view the quality of life gap between the rich and poor has never been smaller. Here are a few examples. Only a few hundred years ago royalty were the only people that didn't have to worry about starvation, in 2016 America, the poor are generally obese. Royalty were the only people that could bathe, in 2016 America, local parks have free showers. [Until World War II and into the late 1940s, many Americans did not own cars. People lived in cities and towns, and 40 percent did not own cars but used public buses, trolleys and trains. In 2016 America, 95 percent of households own a car.](http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2012/05/201205165791.html#ixzz454ZTfjIc) And while I will admit Bill Gates car is probably a lot nicer than your car or my car, they still gets all of us from point A to B. Used to be in the 1920's that only the fat cats living in New York City had access to electricity, in 2016 America, [everyone has access to electricity.](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS) Or something newer, like the internet, almost right away the internet became accessible to everyone, even if you can't afford a personal computer or wifi, it's free at the library. I know I will probably get someone that thinks this, so let me try and make it very clear: My point is not that you are living better than someone did in the 1900s, My point is that you have access to everything you need regardless of wealth or income, which makes the gap between the wealthy and poor more insignificant than it has ever been. I can't really think of anything that is a *need* (in a broad sense, not just food & water) that only the wealthy have access to. _____ > *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 gap between the wealthy and poor has never been less significant. With the rise of popularity of Socialism and Bernie Sanders here on reddit, I hear this quote fairly often: "The top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 50%" or something along the lines of [this clip from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Wealth Gap](https://youtu.be/LfgSEwjAeno?t=3m27s) And those things may be true, but I don't really care about a dollar amount, because wealth means nothing if you can't buy anything. What matters to me is quality of life, which is what wealth can buy. And in my view the quality of life gap between the rich and poor has never been smaller. Here are a few examples. Only a few hundred years ago royalty were the only people that didn't have to worry about starvation, in 2016 America, the poor are generally obese. Royalty were the only people that could bathe, in 2016 America, local parks have free showers. [Until World War II and into the late 1940s, many Americans did not own cars. People lived in cities and towns, and 40 percent did not own cars but used public buses, trolleys and trains. In 2016 America, 95 percent of households own a car.](http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2012/05/201205165791.html#ixzz454ZTfjIc) And while I will admit Bill Gates car is probably a lot nicer than your car or my car, they still gets all of us from point A to B. Used to be in the 1920's that only the fat cats living in New York City had access to electricity, in 2016 America, [everyone has access to electricity.](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS) Or something newer, like the internet, almost right away the internet became accessible to everyone, even if you can't afford a personal computer or wifi, it's free at the library. I know I will probably get someone that thinks this, so let me try and make it very clear: My point is not that you are living better than someone did in the 1900s, My point is that you have access to everything you need regardless of wealth or income, which makes the gap between the wealthy and poor more insignificant than it has ever been. I can't really think of anything that is a *need* (in a broad sense, not just food & water) that only the wealthy have access to.

t3_5uvkvl

CMV: I believe that life is meaningless

Everything anyone ever does will be eventually forgotten, people like Martin Luther King and Hitler that make a big impact on the world will be remembered for longer than others but someday even the language of our history books will be forgotten. Someone mediocre and insignificant as me is especially meaningless, this doesn't mean I don't have drive though- I still want to make a difference in people's lives with my music and writing, but in the grand scheme of things I'll be forgotten. I don't think this is an excuse to be a dick, but it's a comforting thought for me. _____ > *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: I believe that life is meaningless. Everything anyone ever does will be eventually forgotten, people like Martin Luther King and Hitler that make a big impact on the world will be remembered for longer than others but someday even the language of our history books will be forgotten. Someone mediocre and insignificant as me is especially meaningless, this doesn't mean I don't have drive though- I still want to make a difference in people's lives with my music and writing, but in the grand scheme of things I'll be forgotten. I don't think this is an excuse to be a dick, but it's a comforting thought for me.

t3_1o56hj

Other than matters of personal preference, I think there is a definitive "right" and "wrong" answer to everything and it should be defended. CMV.

Forgive me for explaining my point via politics, but it's what i'm most well-versed in and I think drives the point home best. Last Presidential election cycle, one thing stuck out at me leading up to the election. You had pundits on every 24 hour news channel arguing why they thought some candidate was going to win over the other, and creating this dynamic of uncertainty to make things interesting. Then I saw Nate Silver being interviewed on The Daily Show. For those who aren't familiar with him, [this](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) is his blog on the NYTimes; he is well-known for predicting the winners of elections with incredible accuracy. He was asked a question by Jon regarding why he thinks he knows what's going to happen when all the pundits perpetuate this environment that "it's anyone's race". He answered that it's simply math. Statistics, to be more specific. They have the polling data; it's simply aggregating the data and calculating the results. He continued to say that the pundits create this dynamic because they're paid for ratings, not truth. This is just one small example to assist the larger point i'm making...that almost everything has a right answer in life and is not up to "personal opinion". One thing that irks me is when people try to act like both sides on the political spectrum have a legitimate belief and they should all be respected. I'm convinced that only one right answer can exist in most political issues, so only one side can have it right. Let's take an example...keynesian economics vs supply-side, "trickle-down" economics. We have data that shows one of these is effective and one isn't. To keep peddling that they are both legitimate ideas and that they are simply differences of opinion is destructive to our national debate. Obviously this only applies to issues that can be quantified; qualitative, subjective issues are based on each individual's personal philosophy and thus are prescriptive and not descriptive. I'm just tired of the false equivalency that is rampant in society today; the idea that "well there are two sides, we have to respect both" is absolutely detrimental to progress. There's only one side, and that side is truth.

Other than matters of personal preference, I think there is a definitive "right" and "wrong" answer to everything and it should be defended. CMV. Forgive me for explaining my point via politics, but it's what i'm most well-versed in and I think drives the point home best. Last Presidential election cycle, one thing stuck out at me leading up to the election. You had pundits on every 24 hour news channel arguing why they thought some candidate was going to win over the other, and creating this dynamic of uncertainty to make things interesting. Then I saw Nate Silver being interviewed on The Daily Show. For those who aren't familiar with him, [this](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) is his blog on the NYTimes; he is well-known for predicting the winners of elections with incredible accuracy. He was asked a question by Jon regarding why he thinks he knows what's going to happen when all the pundits perpetuate this environment that "it's anyone's race". He answered that it's simply math. Statistics, to be more specific. They have the polling data; it's simply aggregating the data and calculating the results. He continued to say that the pundits create this dynamic because they're paid for ratings, not truth. This is just one small example to assist the larger point i'm making...that almost everything has a right answer in life and is not up to "personal opinion". One thing that irks me is when people try to act like both sides on the political spectrum have a legitimate belief and they should all be respected. I'm convinced that only one right answer can exist in most political issues, so only one side can have it right. Let's take an example...keynesian economics vs supply-side, "trickle-down" economics. We have data that shows one of these is effective and one isn't. To keep peddling that they are both legitimate ideas and that they are simply differences of opinion is destructive to our national debate. Obviously this only applies to issues that can be quantified; qualitative, subjective issues are based on each individual's personal philosophy and thus are prescriptive and not descriptive. I'm just tired of the false equivalency that is rampant in society today; the idea that "well there are two sides, we have to respect both" is absolutely detrimental to progress. There's only one side, and that side is truth.

t3_2uow6n

CMV: Singing well is a skill that a substantial amount of people can't learn

I believe voice is something you're born with, and no amount of training can substantially alter your vocal range. And even within the range one is given many people will sound naturally awful and not be able to hit notes correctly and in a pleasing fashion, even with a lifetime of singing to favorite songs in the car or even with a professional voice trainer. By people I'm talking healthy people, not smokers, tone deaf, or people with voice problems. By substantial I mean something along the lines of more than ten percent. I would like to present the example of Bob Dylan, whose job was to sing for decades, but the natural timbre of his voice means that he doesn't sound particularly pleasing to most people. I have started to get into karaoke recently, and while I have fun I've accepted that I won't be wowing anyone. Please change my view! Edit: By "well" I mean in tune and in a manner that is pleasing (i.e. I could probably sing a really annoying falsetto technically "in tune" but it's not pleasing), not Double Platinum album good. -------- > *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: Singing well is a skill that a substantial amount of people can't learn. I believe voice is something you're born with, and no amount of training can substantially alter your vocal range. And even within the range one is given many people will sound naturally awful and not be able to hit notes correctly and in a pleasing fashion, even with a lifetime of singing to favorite songs in the car or even with a professional voice trainer. By people I'm talking healthy people, not smokers, tone deaf, or people with voice problems. By substantial I mean something along the lines of more than ten percent. I would like to present the example of Bob Dylan, whose job was to sing for decades, but the natural timbre of his voice means that he doesn't sound particularly pleasing to most people. I have started to get into karaoke recently, and while I have fun I've accepted that I won't be wowing anyone. Please change my view! Edit: By "well" I mean in tune and in a manner that is pleasing (i.e. I could probably sing a really annoying falsetto technically "in tune" but it's not pleasing), not Double Platinum album good. -------- > *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_1g8bfi

I think all laws not restricting violence, trespassing, and theft should be abolished. CMV.

I am almost an anarchist, but still understand the need for police and I believe that the three categories I listed cover a lot. Violence can also include the threat of violence (such as Driving Under the Influence). I am against the nanny state in pretty much every way. I think allowing the populace to "sink or swim" instead of trying to protect us from ourselves will allow for more freedom as well as allowing the strong (not the physically strong) to succeed. I am American. Edit: I believe that my right to swing my fist should only end when my fist hits your face.

I think all laws not restricting violence, trespassing, and theft should be abolished. CMV. I am almost an anarchist, but still understand the need for police and I believe that the three categories I listed cover a lot. Violence can also include the threat of violence (such as Driving Under the Influence). I am against the nanny state in pretty much every way. I think allowing the populace to "sink or swim" instead of trying to protect us from ourselves will allow for more freedom as well as allowing the strong (not the physically strong) to succeed. I am American. Edit: I believe that my right to swing my fist should only end when my fist hits your face.

t3_21c82w

I believe police officers should be required to have a bachelors degree in order to become officers, CMV.

The world has changed. A high school diploma isn't good enough for most jobs yet this is the only requirement for the people we trust with enforcing the law. A decision an officer makes has the potential to drastically change someones life yet all they need is to be able to pass high school, [something ~75% of the U.S population is capable of doing.](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/high-school-graduation-rate-hits-40-year-peak-in-the-us/276604/) The degree a police officer gets doesn't matter. The point is to make it so you can't get straight C's in high school, barely learn anything, and then become a police officer. Colleges usually have a minimum of a 3.0 GPA (B average) requirement so that would motivate the future officers to do well in high school AND learn valuable information by completing a 4-year degree. CMV. Edit: I would love it if a police officer could give us a first-hand idea of what is actually taught in the police academy. Edit 2: I'll be back in a bit. Don't hesitate to comment :) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

I believe police officers should be required to have a bachelors degree in order to become officers, CMV. The world has changed. A high school diploma isn't good enough for most jobs yet this is the only requirement for the people we trust with enforcing the law. A decision an officer makes has the potential to drastically change someones life yet all they need is to be able to pass high school, [something ~75% of the U.S population is capable of doing.](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/high-school-graduation-rate-hits-40-year-peak-in-the-us/276604/) The degree a police officer gets doesn't matter. The point is to make it so you can't get straight C's in high school, barely learn anything, and then become a police officer. Colleges usually have a minimum of a 3.0 GPA (B average) requirement so that would motivate the future officers to do well in high school AND learn valuable information by completing a 4-year degree. CMV. Edit: I would love it if a police officer could give us a first-hand idea of what is actually taught in the police academy. Edit 2: I'll be back in a bit. Don't hesitate to comment :)

t3_52lzik

CMV: All drugs should be legal for recreational use.

I believe all drugs no matter what should be legal for recreational use because as a free person, we have the right to do anything we please with our own bodies. If we willingly ingesting any drug we are assuming the possible and unlikely risks associated with them and should be punish accordingly. If someone does bathsalts and goes eating faces they should be punish for eating faces not taking bathsalts. Moreover, if someone drops acid and chills in their dorm room, they shouldn't be arrested/ jailed/ fined. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: All drugs should be legal for recreational use. I believe all drugs no matter what should be legal for recreational use because as a free person, we have the right to do anything we please with our own bodies. If we willingly ingesting any drug we are assuming the possible and unlikely risks associated with them and should be punish accordingly. If someone does bathsalts and goes eating faces they should be punish for eating faces not taking bathsalts. Moreover, if someone drops acid and chills in their dorm room, they shouldn't be arrested/ jailed/ fined.

t3_3cgda2

CMV: Greece should leave the Euro.

Im a German citizen. I think we spend enough money on the finacial cisis which did not help greece at all. Every taxeuro gone from Germany to Greece of its for liabilities or direct payments is not only wasted but also illegally spend because its our taxpayer money. Its not greeces´ money. 1. I believe that the greek ecomony cannot flourish while stuck in a Union which a high valued currency ( I dont think it can flourish otherwise with the same taxsystem or useless politicians but whatever ). It only costs money to keep greece in with no benefit for us in return. For greece: austerity is bad. Having to default on money markets is even worse. Having no productive economy horrendous. Some problems can be solved with leaving the Euro. some cant. But it would be a good start for us Europeans to spend less on something we dont want. And for greece because they accompished their goal to not be extorted by europe. 2. Furthermore I think it would be a sign to every voter in greece that idiocy will get punished. A german saying is: Dummheit muss bestraft werden. Idiocy must be punished. And Greeks politicians and the people who legitimatly voted for them should take their responsiblity themselves. 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: Greece should leave the Euro. Im a German citizen. I think we spend enough money on the finacial cisis which did not help greece at all. Every taxeuro gone from Germany to Greece of its for liabilities or direct payments is not only wasted but also illegally spend because its our taxpayer money. Its not greeces´ money. 1. I believe that the greek ecomony cannot flourish while stuck in a Union which a high valued currency ( I dont think it can flourish otherwise with the same taxsystem or useless politicians but whatever ). It only costs money to keep greece in with no benefit for us in return. For greece: austerity is bad. Having to default on money markets is even worse. Having no productive economy horrendous. Some problems can be solved with leaving the Euro. some cant. But it would be a good start for us Europeans to spend less on something we dont want. And for greece because they accompished their goal to not be extorted by europe. 2. Furthermore I think it would be a sign to every voter in greece that idiocy will get punished. A german saying is: Dummheit muss bestraft werden. Idiocy must be punished. And Greeks politicians and the people who legitimatly voted for them should take their responsiblity themselves. CMV

t3_1jzvq9

I think personal responsibility has been lost on my generation. CMV

I was born in the late 80's; it just seems like everyone around me has some kind of persecution complex. The world is out to get them, collective complaining has replaced conversation, and they all claim "depression" and "anxiety" when in reality they're just socially inept. I *know* depression and anxiety are **real**, i'm not saying otherwise, but it seems like people who grew up alongside the internet don't have any willpower; it's so easy to just complain on the internet and convince a doctor to give you pills so you don't have to actually *work* on yourself. Not to mention this nanny-state ideal! Why do we have to have a "campaign" for everything, don't text & drive? people do that!? I'd yell at a driver for that. Rampant obesity! what happened to conversations? self-improvement? common sense? why does everyone and their mother have "anxiety" about everything. Are there studies showing generations are losing their "people-skills", I guess it just seems like no one has faith in themselves or the system and complaining is *in* now. Everyone expects everything to work out without putting work in!

I think personal responsibility has been lost on my generation. CMV. I was born in the late 80's; it just seems like everyone around me has some kind of persecution complex. The world is out to get them, collective complaining has replaced conversation, and they all claim "depression" and "anxiety" when in reality they're just socially inept. I *know* depression and anxiety are **real**, i'm not saying otherwise, but it seems like people who grew up alongside the internet don't have any willpower; it's so easy to just complain on the internet and convince a doctor to give you pills so you don't have to actually *work* on yourself. Not to mention this nanny-state ideal! Why do we have to have a "campaign" for everything, don't text & drive? people do that!? I'd yell at a driver for that. Rampant obesity! what happened to conversations? self-improvement? common sense? why does everyone and their mother have "anxiety" about everything. Are there studies showing generations are losing their "people-skills", I guess it just seems like no one has faith in themselves or the system and complaining is *in* now. Everyone expects everything to work out without putting work in!

t3_26eh9p

CMV: Men and Women can be partially at fault for their own violence

I firmly believe that a person can hold a certain level of fault and accountability if they are assaulted, molested, or raped. **There are certainly exceptions** (small children, mentally ill, etc.) but the average 20-30 able-bodied and mentally-stable person is partially to blame for their injury. This comes after some self reflection after I was mugged for the second time a week ago. I chose to walk home alone after closing time and in doing so made myself vulnerable to being mugged, and therefore I am partially to blame for the situation. My main source of comparison would be a cyclist that chooses to ride outside his lane. This comparison is accurate in that their is an alternative for the cyclist, but he/she chooses to use a less safe method of biking. By doing so they are considered partially at fault in the case of an accident (at least here in Ontario, Canada) and will receive a ticket accordingly unless they can prove they needed to be out of their lane (it was blocked, unsafe, etc.). Its not a perfect comparison, but it is the best I've come up with in a week. If a person chooses to put themselves into a position of weakness/vulnerability, i.e. walking home alone while intoxicated, they are partially at fault as they could have prevented it. By this I mean they could have chosen to go home earlier, not get intoxicated, choose a different route home. Certainly there are times when you don't have alternatives, but this should be considered before going out and decisions should include these as considerations. I am not saying that people deserve this, or that it is a punishment for something which they did, only that the air of impunity and victim-hood that surrounds **some** survivors (went to a assault/rape group meeting this week) is incorrect. If a person makes a mistake they should own up to it, even if the mistake is not the sole reason that the misfortune befalls 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: Men and Women can be partially at fault for their own violence. I firmly believe that a person can hold a certain level of fault and accountability if they are assaulted, molested, or raped. **There are certainly exceptions** (small children, mentally ill, etc.) but the average 20-30 able-bodied and mentally-stable person is partially to blame for their injury. This comes after some self reflection after I was mugged for the second time a week ago. I chose to walk home alone after closing time and in doing so made myself vulnerable to being mugged, and therefore I am partially to blame for the situation. My main source of comparison would be a cyclist that chooses to ride outside his lane. This comparison is accurate in that their is an alternative for the cyclist, but he/she chooses to use a less safe method of biking. By doing so they are considered partially at fault in the case of an accident (at least here in Ontario, Canada) and will receive a ticket accordingly unless they can prove they needed to be out of their lane (it was blocked, unsafe, etc.). Its not a perfect comparison, but it is the best I've come up with in a week. If a person chooses to put themselves into a position of weakness/vulnerability, i.e. walking home alone while intoxicated, they are partially at fault as they could have prevented it. By this I mean they could have chosen to go home earlier, not get intoxicated, choose a different route home. Certainly there are times when you don't have alternatives, but this should be considered before going out and decisions should include these as considerations. I am not saying that people deserve this, or that it is a punishment for something which they did, only that the air of impunity and victim-hood that surrounds **some** survivors (went to a assault/rape group meeting this week) is incorrect. If a person makes a mistake they should own up to it, even if the mistake is not the sole reason that the misfortune befalls them.

t3_203c46

I believe society needs a term like "nigger" to describe shitty black people CMV

Wait, WHAT!!!!! How dare you, you racist piece of crap.... Yes I get it, for some of you talking about race and saying anything bad about any group is racist... Cool enjoy the rest of your day content in the knowledge that I don't have any actual power to change any of this, I'm just spit balling an idea Now on to those that actually enjoy discussing things. * **White Trash** now that is a term we all know, it is for poor shitty white people who suck at life. They live in trailers and enjoy collecting their welfare check and food stamps and holy fuck do they love their mac n Cheese * **Rednecks** Yep, those are those big truck, multiple shotgun owning idiots who have few more redeeming qualities than White Trash. Fucking **"White Trash**" or, those god damn **"rednecks"**... see white folks have a way of separating the crap in their "group". However minorities especially black people do not. Years ago Chris Rock made the point... "there are black people and there are niggers" A nigger is a blah blah blah (bad things) The problem is, society cannot/will not let that happen. Because of the history of the word it cannot be used to describe the "black trash" **OK, you still aren't convinced** When I say White person, what image do you think of? When I say Black person, what image do you think of? When I say White trash, what image do you think of? When I say redneck, what image do you think of? See White society names to describe the shitty parts of their subculture. Black people are stuck being all grouped together. The Fat cow of a white woman on a mini go-kart at walmart picking up her mac n cheese, we can all look at in disgust and say fucking white trash But the idiot black guy who has his pants below his ass, gold teeth shinning who is acting like a bully in line to spend his food stamps... well the brain only has "black guy" to categorizing him in. And IMO this is where modern racism comes from. The mind is going to stereotype, that is a reality. If society doesn't find a way to separate the shitty black people from the normal ones our opinion of them as a group will always be dragged down further than that of the white folks, because we don't categorize them as "white" in our head we categorize them as "white Trash" I do not see a flaw in this argument, maybe you can show me where I'm wrong **TL:DR**, Screw you, take 45 seconds and read it, I broke it up so it is easy on the eyes, my prose may be lacking but it is the internet deal with it

I believe society needs a term like "nigger" to describe shitty black people CMV. Wait, WHAT!!!!! How dare you, you racist piece of crap.... Yes I get it, for some of you talking about race and saying anything bad about any group is racist... Cool enjoy the rest of your day content in the knowledge that I don't have any actual power to change any of this, I'm just spit balling an idea Now on to those that actually enjoy discussing things. * **White Trash** now that is a term we all know, it is for poor shitty white people who suck at life. They live in trailers and enjoy collecting their welfare check and food stamps and holy fuck do they love their mac n Cheese * **Rednecks** Yep, those are those big truck, multiple shotgun owning idiots who have few more redeeming qualities than White Trash. Fucking **"White Trash**" or, those god damn **"rednecks"**... see white folks have a way of separating the crap in their "group". However minorities especially black people do not. Years ago Chris Rock made the point... "there are black people and there are niggers" A nigger is a blah blah blah (bad things) The problem is, society cannot/will not let that happen. Because of the history of the word it cannot be used to describe the "black trash" **OK, you still aren't convinced** When I say White person, what image do you think of? When I say Black person, what image do you think of? When I say White trash, what image do you think of? When I say redneck, what image do you think of? See White society names to describe the shitty parts of their subculture. Black people are stuck being all grouped together. The Fat cow of a white woman on a mini go-kart at walmart picking up her mac n cheese, we can all look at in disgust and say fucking white trash But the idiot black guy who has his pants below his ass, gold teeth shinning who is acting like a bully in line to spend his food stamps... well the brain only has "black guy" to categorizing him in. And IMO this is where modern racism comes from. The mind is going to stereotype, that is a reality. If society doesn't find a way to separate the shitty black people from the normal ones our opinion of them as a group will always be dragged down further than that of the white folks, because we don't categorize them as "white" in our head we categorize them as "white Trash" I do not see a flaw in this argument, maybe you can show me where I'm wrong **TL:DR**, Screw you, take 45 seconds and read it, I broke it up so it is easy on the eyes, my prose may be lacking but it is the internet deal with it

t3_3ftbzs

CMV: Current Title IX interpretations, in practical terms, means only the man can decide if she can say yes.

With responsibility, comes authority. Cases such as [this one](https://www.thefire.org/sexual-assault-injustice-at-occidental-college-railroads-accused-student/) at Occidental College. There are other example cases as well, but this one is relatively 'clean' in that there was considerable documentation/evidence that both parties consented (and both parties had been drinking). The man was expelled from school, the woman was not. With this as a cautionary-tale/backdrop to the male decision making process, I come up with the following logic being the only reasonable interpretation for men to consider in terms of governing sexual relationships with women in college. 1) If the woman says no, it means no, obviously. 2) If the woman says yes but has had a drink, it's up to the man to determine if she still has the authority to consent, the safe answer being 'no, she does not.' 3) If the woman says yes and has had **no** alcohol, it is up to the man to determine if she has the emotional maturity to consent at all (e.g., will she regret it). So, she can certainly say no, but only a man can determine if she has the right or agency to say yes, and women are under no reciprocal obligation. This doesn't feel like a very positive outcome for women, I feel it robs them of control over their bodies. It would also seem to rob a happy couple of the simple pleasure of an evening at home drinking with some sex before bed. However I am unable to arrive at another intepretation or approach that mitigates the risk to men given the current Title IX interpretation. **NOTE:** To be clear, I have no desire to undermine women's agency, and I am posting this in ernest with no ulterior motive, although I do recognize it may be a controversial subject. I hope there is an alternative view that makes sense to me. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Current Title IX interpretations, in practical terms, means only the man can decide if she can say yes. With responsibility, comes authority. Cases such as [this one](https://www.thefire.org/sexual-assault-injustice-at-occidental-college-railroads-accused-student/) at Occidental College. There are other example cases as well, but this one is relatively 'clean' in that there was considerable documentation/evidence that both parties consented (and both parties had been drinking). The man was expelled from school, the woman was not. With this as a cautionary-tale/backdrop to the male decision making process, I come up with the following logic being the only reasonable interpretation for men to consider in terms of governing sexual relationships with women in college. 1) If the woman says no, it means no, obviously. 2) If the woman says yes but has had a drink, it's up to the man to determine if she still has the authority to consent, the safe answer being 'no, she does not.' 3) If the woman says yes and has had **no** alcohol, it is up to the man to determine if she has the emotional maturity to consent at all (e.g., will she regret it). So, she can certainly say no, but only a man can determine if she has the right or agency to say yes, and women are under no reciprocal obligation. This doesn't feel like a very positive outcome for women, I feel it robs them of control over their bodies. It would also seem to rob a happy couple of the simple pleasure of an evening at home drinking with some sex before bed. However I am unable to arrive at another intepretation or approach that mitigates the risk to men given the current Title IX interpretation. **NOTE:** To be clear, I have no desire to undermine women's agency, and I am posting this in ernest with no ulterior motive, although I do recognize it may be a controversial subject. I hope there is an alternative view that makes sense to me.

t3_2b199t

CMV: Victims can (hypothetically) share blame (general case), and even when they don't - they may mitigate the blame we place on the perpetrator

I think that it is important to have a focussed and dignified debate here, so please try to maintain a civil atmosphere. A lot of the debate invariably turns to sex - but I think the problem is more general. Let us discuss some cases that I thought of: 1) Entrapment: In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a type of conduct that is generally frowned upon, and thus in many jurisdictions is a possible defense against criminal liability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment This is a special case, but it seems to imply that in some cases we accept the notion that people can be made to do things they otherwise wouldn't have, and we need to allay blame. The act of entrapment in and of itself also carries a threat of punishment. 2) Involving people of impaired mental ability: I think it is potentially unethical (as a person of sound mental ability) to engage in sexual relations with people with impaired mental ability. In many cases, these are people with the mental abilities of a child with only the body of an adult. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/arlington/headlines/20101207-high-court-denies-appeal-of-mentally-retarded-man-who-helped-rape-kill-arlington-teen.ece comes to mind. The particulars of this case are not especially pertinent to this discussion except in discussing how much blame we can assign. I think it is profoundly unfair to hold these people to the same standards we do people of sound mental ability, and people choosing to engage in certain interactions with them have a responsibility to take adequate precautions. 3) Willfully causing intoxication without consent Say someone is inexperienced with drink, and someone spikes their drink - I think they are doing something that is somewhat dangerous. In such a state - the person must accept some responsibility for what comes out of their action Please do not make a straw man out of me and call me a rape apologist. I am only interested in the ethics of blame here. In the three cases, if the victim is the one who chose to involve themselves in these interactions - that we should allay blame for the perpetrator, place some blame on the victim or both. I think the pertinent common factor in all of these is that *there is an expectation of certain behaviour* from these people. I think these cases are totally different from the usual "they shouldn't have drunk too much" because I don't think there ought to be such an expectation in the first place. Same with dressing slutty. I don't think there have been any ethical transgressions committed here. But in the cases I discussed, I think there is an appropriate way to act ethically, and the expectation that they *ought* to have behaved a certain way is well founded. 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: Victims can (hypothetically) share blame (general case), and even when they don't - they may mitigate the blame we place on the perpetrator. I think that it is important to have a focussed and dignified debate here, so please try to maintain a civil atmosphere. A lot of the debate invariably turns to sex - but I think the problem is more general. Let us discuss some cases that I thought of: 1) Entrapment: In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit. It is a type of conduct that is generally frowned upon, and thus in many jurisdictions is a possible defense against criminal liability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment This is a special case, but it seems to imply that in some cases we accept the notion that people can be made to do things they otherwise wouldn't have, and we need to allay blame. The act of entrapment in and of itself also carries a threat of punishment. 2) Involving people of impaired mental ability: I think it is potentially unethical (as a person of sound mental ability) to engage in sexual relations with people with impaired mental ability. In many cases, these are people with the mental abilities of a child with only the body of an adult. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/arlington/headlines/20101207-high-court-denies-appeal-of-mentally-retarded-man-who-helped-rape-kill-arlington-teen.ece comes to mind. The particulars of this case are not especially pertinent to this discussion except in discussing how much blame we can assign. I think it is profoundly unfair to hold these people to the same standards we do people of sound mental ability, and people choosing to engage in certain interactions with them have a responsibility to take adequate precautions. 3) Willfully causing intoxication without consent Say someone is inexperienced with drink, and someone spikes their drink - I think they are doing something that is somewhat dangerous. In such a state - the person must accept some responsibility for what comes out of their action Please do not make a straw man out of me and call me a rape apologist. I am only interested in the ethics of blame here. In the three cases, if the victim is the one who chose to involve themselves in these interactions - that we should allay blame for the perpetrator, place some blame on the victim or both. I think the pertinent common factor in all of these is that *there is an expectation of certain behaviour* from these people. I think these cases are totally different from the usual "they shouldn't have drunk too much" because I don't think there ought to be such an expectation in the first place. Same with dressing slutty. I don't think there have been any ethical transgressions committed here. But in the cases I discussed, I think there is an appropriate way to act ethically, and the expectation that they *ought* to have behaved a certain way is well founded. CMV

t3_59p1e8

CMV: Aircraft Line Service Personnel Are More Than Entry Level Workers.

This view is specific to a particular occupation, but I'm sure there are similar positions that others can draw parallels to and provide input based on those experiences.   **Background:** I'm a line tech, working at a busy private airport dealing with many corporate and personally owned aircraft. For those outside the aviation industry, we're the guys who wear yellow and wave our magic wands around to park planes. Additionally, we're responsible for every aspect of the aircraft, crew and passengers' well being. We're tasked with lavatory and potable water services, fueling, baggage, catering, chauffeuring and towing, to cover the basics.   **View:** This is a entry level job, but considering our work load, it pays better than most, with new guys starting around $11 or $12 dollars an hour. Shift leads, who are tow qualified, spend 6 months in supervised training to acquire their tow status and receive a 75 cent raise for this achievement. This is where the point of contention between myself and my managers (and others) comes into play. After two years with the company and extensive training, I am now making $16 an hour. Pretty good for what was an entry level position at first, but considering what I know now, I think that number should be adjusted.   **Daily Example:** Some days are slow, and some are busy. On a busy day, it's not unusual for me to have to move around a handful of aircraft. During rush hour, it's possible to have to relocate a Global Explorer, a Gulfstream or two and a few Citations. If I move those four airplanes, it will take 30 minutes, and I would have moved $100 million worth of metal. I would also have received about 8 bucks for my trouble.   The point I focus on is that we're responsible for way more property than our paychecks reflect. Perhaps the non-tow qualified guys are good at $14 an hour, pretty good pay for unloading bags, but the guys who spend 6 months in training in preparation for moving millions of dollars of aircraft everyday should be looking at more than a 75 cent raise. Especially when you consider one tiny mistake on the tower's end could result in thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands worth of damage.   I know nothing will change. It's a big franchise and any raises like I'm describing will hurt profits, but I just want to know if I'm crazy since I get a lot of friction on the matter. _____ > *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: Aircraft Line Service Personnel Are More Than Entry Level Workers. This view is specific to a particular occupation, but I'm sure there are similar positions that others can draw parallels to and provide input based on those experiences.   **Background:** I'm a line tech, working at a busy private airport dealing with many corporate and personally owned aircraft. For those outside the aviation industry, we're the guys who wear yellow and wave our magic wands around to park planes. Additionally, we're responsible for every aspect of the aircraft, crew and passengers' well being. We're tasked with lavatory and potable water services, fueling, baggage, catering, chauffeuring and towing, to cover the basics.   **View:** This is a entry level job, but considering our work load, it pays better than most, with new guys starting around $11 or $12 dollars an hour. Shift leads, who are tow qualified, spend 6 months in supervised training to acquire their tow status and receive a 75 cent raise for this achievement. This is where the point of contention between myself and my managers (and others) comes into play. After two years with the company and extensive training, I am now making $16 an hour. Pretty good for what was an entry level position at first, but considering what I know now, I think that number should be adjusted.   **Daily Example:** Some days are slow, and some are busy. On a busy day, it's not unusual for me to have to move around a handful of aircraft. During rush hour, it's possible to have to relocate a Global Explorer, a Gulfstream or two and a few Citations. If I move those four airplanes, it will take 30 minutes, and I would have moved $100 million worth of metal. I would also have received about 8 bucks for my trouble.   The point I focus on is that we're responsible for way more property than our paychecks reflect. Perhaps the non-tow qualified guys are good at $14 an hour, pretty good pay for unloading bags, but the guys who spend 6 months in training in preparation for moving millions of dollars of aircraft everyday should be looking at more than a 75 cent raise. Especially when you consider one tiny mistake on the tower's end could result in thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands worth of damage.   I know nothing will change. It's a big franchise and any raises like I'm describing will hurt profits, but I just want to know if I'm crazy since I get a lot of friction on the matter.

t3_4uzxlh

CMV: It was right for a judge to order a neo-nazi's face tattoos to be covered to prevent Jury bias.

The defendant is being charged of "robbery after he allegedly stole a man’s motorcycle at gunpoint. He also faces the death penalty in a different case he is accused of killing a 75-year-old woman days before the robbery." The idea of a fair trial is, in my opinion, an important one. For a trial to be fair the jury must have as a few preconceived notations about the defendant as possible. This is often used as motivation for not disclosing past offences. Knowledge of past crimes absolutely biases people. It's not unreasonable to think a Jury is more likely to convict a defendant who they believe has offended before - therefore making a trial less fair. One argument against covering up the tattoos is that he is chose to have these. Therefore, it is pertinent information as it speaks for the type of person the defendant is. I would argue that firstly it's not relevant to the crimes, and that is the only type of relevant information. Secondly, that the tattoos are so repugnant that they limit any further evaluation of the defendant. Yes, he's a racist shit-head, but does that also make him a thief? No. Does it make a jury more likely to convict him as thief? Yes. Another argument I've heard is that we should "trust the ability of the Jury to remain impartial". The key point of a Jury is that they made of your peers, i.e everyday people. People who are NOT impartial, who do not have training in how to overcome conscious and unconscious biases. A jury is important yes, but not infallible, therefore it is important to recognise the shortcomings of a jury and attempt to overcome them. I can see a few shortcomings with my point of view, and am completely open to it being changed. I do just want to emphasise that I do not support this bloke or neo-nazi's in any way, shape or form. I just think this is an interesting discussion topic. A photo of the neo-nazi in question and article discussing this can be found here: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/judge-orders-suspect-to-cover-his-tattoos-with-makeup-so-jurors-dont-know-he-is-a-neo-nazi/ **TL;DR:** The tattoos are not relevant to the crimes he is on trial for. I strongly believe a jury would be much more likely to convict a man with a swastika tattoo on his cheek. That runs contrary to the idea of a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty. So I believe it was the correct decision for the judge to hide the tattoos. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It was right for a judge to order a neo-nazi's face tattoos to be covered to prevent Jury bias. The defendant is being charged of "robbery after he allegedly stole a man’s motorcycle at gunpoint. He also faces the death penalty in a different case he is accused of killing a 75-year-old woman days before the robbery." The idea of a fair trial is, in my opinion, an important one. For a trial to be fair the jury must have as a few preconceived notations about the defendant as possible. This is often used as motivation for not disclosing past offences. Knowledge of past crimes absolutely biases people. It's not unreasonable to think a Jury is more likely to convict a defendant who they believe has offended before - therefore making a trial less fair. One argument against covering up the tattoos is that he is chose to have these. Therefore, it is pertinent information as it speaks for the type of person the defendant is. I would argue that firstly it's not relevant to the crimes, and that is the only type of relevant information. Secondly, that the tattoos are so repugnant that they limit any further evaluation of the defendant. Yes, he's a racist shit-head, but does that also make him a thief? No. Does it make a jury more likely to convict him as thief? Yes. Another argument I've heard is that we should "trust the ability of the Jury to remain impartial". The key point of a Jury is that they made of your peers, i.e everyday people. People who are NOT impartial, who do not have training in how to overcome conscious and unconscious biases. A jury is important yes, but not infallible, therefore it is important to recognise the shortcomings of a jury and attempt to overcome them. I can see a few shortcomings with my point of view, and am completely open to it being changed. I do just want to emphasise that I do not support this bloke or neo-nazi's in any way, shape or form. I just think this is an interesting discussion topic. A photo of the neo-nazi in question and article discussing this can be found here: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/judge-orders-suspect-to-cover-his-tattoos-with-makeup-so-jurors-dont-know-he-is-a-neo-nazi/ **TL;DR:** The tattoos are not relevant to the crimes he is on trial for. I strongly believe a jury would be much more likely to convict a man with a swastika tattoo on his cheek. That runs contrary to the idea of a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty. So I believe it was the correct decision for the judge to hide the tattoos.

t3_2monax

CMV: I dont believe being judgemental is wrong

While it may be wrong to judge someone too quickly, or make assumptions based on too little evidence, I think it is not only not wrong but actively sensible to judge someone based on factual knowledge of their actual decisions and actions. This is especially true when maintaining friendships - if your friend is, through what you consider to be bad decisions, actively causing a detriment to your life or those of others, judging them harshly (and as result ceasing to be their friend) is the sensible course of action. In fact, you had to judge them (positively) in order to become friends in the first place. A lot of people accept mistreatment in friendships or relationships because they have too low self-esteem to demand the treatment they deserve. They dont judge their friends/SO despite poor treatment, and as a result suffer. People SHOULD judge others based on their interactions, and then proceed accordingly. Being judgemental isnt wrong, its essential to live a healthy life. 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 dont believe being judgemental is wrong. While it may be wrong to judge someone too quickly, or make assumptions based on too little evidence, I think it is not only not wrong but actively sensible to judge someone based on factual knowledge of their actual decisions and actions. This is especially true when maintaining friendships - if your friend is, through what you consider to be bad decisions, actively causing a detriment to your life or those of others, judging them harshly (and as result ceasing to be their friend) is the sensible course of action. In fact, you had to judge them (positively) in order to become friends in the first place. A lot of people accept mistreatment in friendships or relationships because they have too low self-esteem to demand the treatment they deserve. They dont judge their friends/SO despite poor treatment, and as a result suffer. People SHOULD judge others based on their interactions, and then proceed accordingly. Being judgemental isnt wrong, its essential to live a healthy life. CMV

t3_3rbo85

CMV: spending $60 to $68 Billion dollars to build a fast train between LA and San Francisco is a huge waste of money.

spending $60 to $68 Billion dollars to build a fast train between LA and San Francisco is a huge waste of money. $68 Billion is a lot of money when it seems to me that there are far better ways to spend this money. You could buy 1.7 MIllion of the tesla e model that is expected to cost about $35,000 for example, or expand California's renewable energy, if the average cost of installing a 2kw solar panels on a home is $10,000 you could install solar power on almost 7 million homes as another example. Why spend $68 billion on 200 year old technology to connect LA and San Fran? _____ > *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: spending $60 to $68 Billion dollars to build a fast train between LA and San Francisco is a huge waste of money. spending $60 to $68 Billion dollars to build a fast train between LA and San Francisco is a huge waste of money. $68 Billion is a lot of money when it seems to me that there are far better ways to spend this money. You could buy 1.7 MIllion of the tesla e model that is expected to cost about $35,000 for example, or expand California's renewable energy, if the average cost of installing a 2kw solar panels on a home is $10,000 you could install solar power on almost 7 million homes as another example. Why spend $68 billion on 200 year old technology to connect LA and San Fran?

t3_220zzo

CMV: Health care lowers the quality of life and causes suffering

While some medical treatments prevent and cure illness, such as vaccination and antibiotics, the majority of health care simply extends life of poor quality. In the wild, animals that cannot support themselves die. But since we are so afraid of death, we extend the lives of people with a low quality of life, those unable to support themselves. We subject people to invasive procedures such as feeding tubes and ventilators. In the past, when people were severely injured they would die. But with modern medicine we force people with a low quality of life to live as disabled and dependant on others. **EDIT**: People are confusing how medical care affects individuals compared to the population. While medical care improves the quality of life of indivuals, it allows the sick to live longer reducing average quality of life. As a hypothetical but unethical health care policy, if the sick were killed then the average health of the surviving population would be higher. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Health care lowers the quality of life and causes suffering. While some medical treatments prevent and cure illness, such as vaccination and antibiotics, the majority of health care simply extends life of poor quality. In the wild, animals that cannot support themselves die. But since we are so afraid of death, we extend the lives of people with a low quality of life, those unable to support themselves. We subject people to invasive procedures such as feeding tubes and ventilators. In the past, when people were severely injured they would die. But with modern medicine we force people with a low quality of life to live as disabled and dependant on others. **EDIT**: People are confusing how medical care affects individuals compared to the population. While medical care improves the quality of life of indivuals, it allows the sick to live longer reducing average quality of life. As a hypothetical but unethical health care policy, if the sick were killed then the average health of the surviving population would be higher.

t3_4ahr81

CMV: Total diversity is not a great end goal for America

Please note that by this I'm not talking about limiting opportunities for anyone, or anything of that sort. I mean in a hypothetical situation, where the racial diversity of suburban areas or cities would be extended over the entire country, and the potential hazard with something like that. Racially homogeneous communities are often seen as "limited in scope" in their perception of people less privileged than them, but in my experience, being in a fully integrated society makes you more prone to misunderstandings and miscommunications about things pertaining to race. While diversity from many backgrounds does strengthen economies and usher forward new ideas, it can also isolate and draw barriers between people due to a link that is no longer there. It's a fact that I can relate better to people of my own race, even as I treat everyone around me exactly the same. Most of my argument is based off of the ideas in this paper: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full I've tried to summarize the relevant bits above, but if I did a poor job it wouldn't hurt to skim it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Total diversity is not a great end goal for America. Please note that by this I'm not talking about limiting opportunities for anyone, or anything of that sort. I mean in a hypothetical situation, where the racial diversity of suburban areas or cities would be extended over the entire country, and the potential hazard with something like that. Racially homogeneous communities are often seen as "limited in scope" in their perception of people less privileged than them, but in my experience, being in a fully integrated society makes you more prone to misunderstandings and miscommunications about things pertaining to race. While diversity from many backgrounds does strengthen economies and usher forward new ideas, it can also isolate and draw barriers between people due to a link that is no longer there. It's a fact that I can relate better to people of my own race, even as I treat everyone around me exactly the same. Most of my argument is based off of the ideas in this paper: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full I've tried to summarize the relevant bits above, but if I did a poor job it wouldn't hurt to skim it.

t3_1z6iha

Other people must fail in order for an individual to succeed. CMV

I believe others must fail in order for me to succeed. Although by social standards I am considered an insensible asshole, I truly believe others must fail in order for me to succeed. Me being great is not enough to succeed, I must be better then the rest. In every race there is a winner and a loser , and I believe this translates to everyday life to such as business and career. So if there is ever a situation where you are not competing as a team , everybody else is an "enemy". I think cooperation is only useful when "you are on the same team" but that is rarely the case. Even when working in the same company and have similar goals you are still competing with your peers to reach the top. I know this is a "bad view" of the world and I want to change it but I can't quite see when it would ever beneficial to help others. Please change my view

Other people must fail in order for an individual to succeed. CMV. I believe others must fail in order for me to succeed. Although by social standards I am considered an insensible asshole, I truly believe others must fail in order for me to succeed. Me being great is not enough to succeed, I must be better then the rest. In every race there is a winner and a loser , and I believe this translates to everyday life to such as business and career. So if there is ever a situation where you are not competing as a team , everybody else is an "enemy". I think cooperation is only useful when "you are on the same team" but that is rarely the case. Even when working in the same company and have similar goals you are still competing with your peers to reach the top. I know this is a "bad view" of the world and I want to change it but I can't quite see when it would ever beneficial to help others. Please change my view

t3_4xliq3

CMV: We should remove (slower) variations of sports from the Olympics

In the Olympics we have at least 2 sports that seem to be a variation of a faster activity. First sport is race walking, where athletes are required to walk really fast, but not run. I don't have any numbers for this sport, but it feels like running would be faster than race walking, so why do we intentionally watch a "slower" race? The second, and possibly more prominent sport is swimming, which comes in several variations (i will use the 200m races since they seem to be available on every "style"): * 200m freestyle, WR: 1:42.96 * 200m backstroke, WR: 1:53.41 * 200m breaststroke, WR: 2:07.22 * 200m butterfly, WR: 1:52.03 * 200m individual medley (combination of all styles), WR: 1:54.23 Source: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_swimming) As shown above, clearly the freestyle is the fastest one and isn't the point of the sport to demonstrate who can swim the fastest with any means / style necessary (provided we don't break the rules)? I am in no way doubting the athletic abilities of the people who compete in the "other styles", but what is the point of having the styles? In my mind this seems as absurd as having a 100m race where the athletes run backwards... So, please, CMV _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We should remove (slower) variations of sports from the Olympics. In the Olympics we have at least 2 sports that seem to be a variation of a faster activity. First sport is race walking, where athletes are required to walk really fast, but not run. I don't have any numbers for this sport, but it feels like running would be faster than race walking, so why do we intentionally watch a "slower" race? The second, and possibly more prominent sport is swimming, which comes in several variations (i will use the 200m races since they seem to be available on every "style"): * 200m freestyle, WR: 1:42.96 * 200m backstroke, WR: 1:53.41 * 200m breaststroke, WR: 2:07.22 * 200m butterfly, WR: 1:52.03 * 200m individual medley (combination of all styles), WR: 1:54.23 Source: [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_swimming) As shown above, clearly the freestyle is the fastest one and isn't the point of the sport to demonstrate who can swim the fastest with any means / style necessary (provided we don't break the rules)? I am in no way doubting the athletic abilities of the people who compete in the "other styles", but what is the point of having the styles? In my mind this seems as absurd as having a 100m race where the athletes run backwards... So, please, CMV

t3_1etz2h

Genetically modified foods with more nutrients etc. should replace non-GMO foods and should be the only type of food available for purchase (where possible). CMV

I think that if GM foods that have only been altered to have better qualities such as to have more nutrients, they should replace non-GMO foods and be the only type of food available for purchase and consumption (where a GM type is available - this means that if a GM type of food has not been developed, then obviously you can't replace the non-GM food) Obviously, these foods have to have been tested rigorously and are fit for human consumption.

Genetically modified foods with more nutrients etc. should replace non-GMO foods and should be the only type of food available for purchase (where possible). CMV. I think that if GM foods that have only been altered to have better qualities such as to have more nutrients, they should replace non-GMO foods and be the only type of food available for purchase and consumption (where a GM type is available - this means that if a GM type of food has not been developed, then obviously you can't replace the non-GM food) Obviously, these foods have to have been tested rigorously and are fit for human consumption.

t3_1y0z80

I believe that you should be allowed to drive at whatever speed you wish as long as you aren't driving recklessly or under extenuating circumstances CMV

I think that if you feel comfortable driving 80 mph or 40 mph you should be allowed to do so, as long as you aren't in a school or work zone, etc. because there are a lot more risks in those areas. I think when you're comfortable driving you will be a better driver, and if you aren't worrying about the speed limit or cops you are going to be more comfortable. However, I think that you should only be allowed to drive at whatever speed you wish as long as you aren't driving recklessly. If you're weaving in and out of traffic at 90, you probably shouldn't be allowed to go 90, but if you just stay in the fast lane and pass the occasional person I don't think there is a problem. CMV.

I believe that you should be allowed to drive at whatever speed you wish as long as you aren't driving recklessly or under extenuating circumstances CMV. I think that if you feel comfortable driving 80 mph or 40 mph you should be allowed to do so, as long as you aren't in a school or work zone, etc. because there are a lot more risks in those areas. I think when you're comfortable driving you will be a better driver, and if you aren't worrying about the speed limit or cops you are going to be more comfortable. However, I think that you should only be allowed to drive at whatever speed you wish as long as you aren't driving recklessly. If you're weaving in and out of traffic at 90, you probably shouldn't be allowed to go 90, but if you just stay in the fast lane and pass the occasional person I don't think there is a problem. CMV.

t3_6mfwd4

CMV: Life is Infinitely Short

This may sound a bit mind boggling and horrifying, yet is seems like a plausible theory I have come up with in my free time. Life is infinitely short. My reasoning for this is the following: The span of life is infinitely small. The present is infinitely small, and us humans have a infinitely small time in which we live in called the present. If you take the moment called the present and convert it into time, it gives you 1/infinity. The present is infinitely small, and if you multiply it by however many numbers it will either turn out to be infinitely large or infinitely small. However, we do know that life is terminal, so it can't be infinitely large therefore it is infinitely small. The most important part of this argument is the reasoning," the present is infinitely small". The present is infinitely small because it is of a time length so small that every moment we recall the present, is is already the past. CMV!!

CMV: Life is Infinitely Short. This may sound a bit mind boggling and horrifying, yet is seems like a plausible theory I have come up with in my free time. Life is infinitely short. My reasoning for this is the following: The span of life is infinitely small. The present is infinitely small, and us humans have a infinitely small time in which we live in called the present. If you take the moment called the present and convert it into time, it gives you 1/infinity. The present is infinitely small, and if you multiply it by however many numbers it will either turn out to be infinitely large or infinitely small. However, we do know that life is terminal, so it can't be infinitely large therefore it is infinitely small. The most important part of this argument is the reasoning," the present is infinitely small". The present is infinitely small because it is of a time length so small that every moment we recall the present, is is already the past. CMV!!

t3_1eiika

I believe that between 1969-1972 NASA conducted six successful moon landings. CMV

I base this on: - The wealth of science we gained from these missions - The footage - Occum's Razor - It seems too difficult to fake something on that scale - A moon rock I touched at the Smithsonian However, I get the *motives* behind faking a moon landing, and there seems to be the occasional intelligent person that really believes they were faked. Why? What've you got?

I believe that between 1969-1972 NASA conducted six successful moon landings. CMV. I base this on: - The wealth of science we gained from these missions - The footage - Occum's Razor - It seems too difficult to fake something on that scale - A moon rock I touched at the Smithsonian However, I get the *motives* behind faking a moon landing, and there seems to be the occasional intelligent person that really believes they were faked. Why? What've you got?

t3_4uv6nc

CMV: Criticizing Trump over his plan to build a wall at the border while ignoring both Clinton and Obama's votes for the Secure Fence Act of 2008 is hypocritical.

Trump has been heavily criticized for his statements about wanting to build a 1,000 mile wall across the Mexican border. What has gotten almost no attention at all, especially from Democrats and the media, is both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in favor to build a 700 mile fence across the Mexican border. IMO, if you're going to criticize Trump and call him a racist for wanting to build a 1,000 mile wall across the Mexican border then both Clinton and Obama should be seen as racists and heavily criticized for succeeded in building a 700 mile fence across the Mexican border. That Trump's wall would be 30% longer than Clinton and Obama's is hardly a reason for one to be criticized and called a racist but not the other. I also object to the idea that there's a significant difference between "wall" and "fence". [This is what Clinton and Obama's fence](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160304-us-mexico-border-fence-wall-photos-immigration/) looks like. I think arguing that there's is a fence and not a wall is nothing more than semantics. CMV! EDIT: As pointed out by /u/phcullen, it's the Secure Fence Act of 200*6* - not 2008. _____ > *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: Criticizing Trump over his plan to build a wall at the border while ignoring both Clinton and Obama's votes for the Secure Fence Act of 2008 is hypocritical. Trump has been heavily criticized for his statements about wanting to build a 1,000 mile wall across the Mexican border. What has gotten almost no attention at all, especially from Democrats and the media, is both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in favor to build a 700 mile fence across the Mexican border. IMO, if you're going to criticize Trump and call him a racist for wanting to build a 1,000 mile wall across the Mexican border then both Clinton and Obama should be seen as racists and heavily criticized for succeeded in building a 700 mile fence across the Mexican border. That Trump's wall would be 30% longer than Clinton and Obama's is hardly a reason for one to be criticized and called a racist but not the other. I also object to the idea that there's a significant difference between "wall" and "fence". [This is what Clinton and Obama's fence](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160304-us-mexico-border-fence-wall-photos-immigration/) looks like. I think arguing that there's is a fence and not a wall is nothing more than semantics. CMV! EDIT: As pointed out by /u/phcullen, it's the Secure Fence Act of 200*6* - not 2008.

t3_1eal0q

I think neuroenhancers (ie adderall) that are typically abused (mostly by college students) should be allowed. CMV

As a species we should seek to improve ourselves. If we can enhance our focus a bit with certain drugs, we should not only allow it, but we should make it easy for people to acquire it. It does not make sense to me that it is "bad" that college kids do this. If anything, we'd be able to condense education and cut off a few years, provided we make the drugs available to anyone who wants it. The health risks have not been completely proven to be greater for those who take it over those who don't. Why shouldn't they be allowed then? (from the US)

I think neuroenhancers (ie adderall) that are typically abused (mostly by college students) should be allowed. CMV. As a species we should seek to improve ourselves. If we can enhance our focus a bit with certain drugs, we should not only allow it, but we should make it easy for people to acquire it. It does not make sense to me that it is "bad" that college kids do this. If anything, we'd be able to condense education and cut off a few years, provided we make the drugs available to anyone who wants it. The health risks have not been completely proven to be greater for those who take it over those who don't. Why shouldn't they be allowed then? (from the US)

t3_1zp68w

I still think I can use the Windows XP SP3 after next month. CMV

I don't get how my system is going to attacked if I have a good Internet security and firewall. Much of this stems from the really old motherboard I have for my desktop PC that works only with windows XP and it is dreadfully slow if I install the Windows 7 or 8. I also don't get the "your system is still vulnerable even if you have anti virus software'' How do you even get attacked if you have a live protection up and running that gets updated everyday? So please try to change my view if possible with a much more technical viewpoint. Logically I get that it is not secure because of updates but I just don't feel the same way. Thanks in advance!

I still think I can use the Windows XP SP3 after next month. CMV. I don't get how my system is going to attacked if I have a good Internet security and firewall. Much of this stems from the really old motherboard I have for my desktop PC that works only with windows XP and it is dreadfully slow if I install the Windows 7 or 8. I also don't get the "your system is still vulnerable even if you have anti virus software'' How do you even get attacked if you have a live protection up and running that gets updated everyday? So please try to change my view if possible with a much more technical viewpoint. Logically I get that it is not secure because of updates but I just don't feel the same way. Thanks in advance!

t3_1ypcst

I do not think it makes sense to tie the salary of a university president to the salary of the lowest paid worker. CMV

There was a recent story about how St. Mary's College is considering a policy that would limit the salary of the president to ten times that of the lowest paid worker on campus. While this sounds nice in theory, it does not make sense from a practical standpoint to keep the college competitive, and for larger and more prestigious colleges (nothing against St. Mary's) it would be a *major* mistake to implement this. Why should the president of a large university make a million bucks? Because it keeps them at the University. Private sector businesses can pay a *lot* more for skilled managers, and while working at a university should not be just for the money, having a reasonable financial incentive to attract the best presidents makes sense. If you are not offering somewhere in the neighborhood of what these people would be making elsewhere (or even at another university), you are going to lose your prestige and edge (which is really what most universities care about the most).

I do not think it makes sense to tie the salary of a university president to the salary of the lowest paid worker. CMV. There was a recent story about how St. Mary's College is considering a policy that would limit the salary of the president to ten times that of the lowest paid worker on campus. While this sounds nice in theory, it does not make sense from a practical standpoint to keep the college competitive, and for larger and more prestigious colleges (nothing against St. Mary's) it would be a *major* mistake to implement this. Why should the president of a large university make a million bucks? Because it keeps them at the University. Private sector businesses can pay a *lot* more for skilled managers, and while working at a university should not be just for the money, having a reasonable financial incentive to attract the best presidents makes sense. If you are not offering somewhere in the neighborhood of what these people would be making elsewhere (or even at another university), you are going to lose your prestige and edge (which is really what most universities care about the most).

t3_1ccn1f

Division of Labor and specialization stifle self-sustainability and creative problem-solving, resulting in decay and collapse of society. CMW.

I believe that division of labor and specialization is the root of society's problems. Both are interdependent, and they stifle self-sustainability and creative problem-solving in society. Eventually what follows is collapse. I believe that a hybrid of Anarcho-primitivism and Libertarian socialism would benefit society. If everyone focused on becoming a generalist, as opposed to a specialist, and shared the work (including abolishing full time schedules) - everyone would have a basic income with plenty of leisure time. With plenty of leisure comes more self-sustainability and creativity, which then results in less dependence on basic income. >In his 1973 book For Reasons of State, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or other authoritarian institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone. *** >Toynbee argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside. Rather, ironically, societies that develop great expertise in problem solving become incapable of solving new problems by overdeveloping their structures for solving old ones. >The fixation on the old methods of the "Creative Minority" leads it to eventually cease to be creative and degenerates into merely a "Dominant minority" (that forces the majority to obey without meriting obedience), failing to recognize new ways of thinking. He argues that creative minorities deteriorate due to a worship of their "former self," by which they become prideful, and fail to adequately address the next challenge they face. >He argues that in this environment, people resort to archaism (idealization of the past), futurism (idealization of the future), detachment (removal of oneself from the realities of a decaying world), and transcendence (meeting the challenges of the decaying civilization with new insight, as a Prophet). He argues that those who Transcend during a period of social decay give birth to a new Church with new and stronger spiritual insights, around which a subsequent civilization may begin to form after the old has died. >Toynbee's use of the word 'church' refers to the collective spiritual bond of a common worship, or the same unity found in some kind of social order. >The great irony expressed by these and others like them is that civilizations that seem ideally designed to creatively solve problems find themselves doing so self-destructively. On a personal level, these views that I hold, make me lax when it comes to "contributing to society", or to rephrase: I am resistant to finding a career and becoming independent, yet perpetually dependent on an institution/structure that has highs-and-lows and will eventually collapse. Combined with my mental health, it's difficult to force myself physically to adapt to what already exists, rather than what I think *should* exist. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" is something I have trouble saying because of my beliefs. I seek to less externalize my views, and keep them from interfering with my well-being. Change my views?

Division of Labor and specialization stifle self-sustainability and creative problem-solving, resulting in decay and collapse of society. CMW. I believe that division of labor and specialization is the root of society's problems. Both are interdependent, and they stifle self-sustainability and creative problem-solving in society. Eventually what follows is collapse. I believe that a hybrid of Anarcho-primitivism and Libertarian socialism would benefit society. If everyone focused on becoming a generalist, as opposed to a specialist, and shared the work (including abolishing full time schedules) - everyone would have a basic income with plenty of leisure time. With plenty of leisure comes more self-sustainability and creativity, which then results in less dependence on basic income. >In his 1973 book For Reasons of State, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or other authoritarian institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone. *** >Toynbee argues that the breakdown of civilizations is not caused by loss of control over the environment, over the human environment, or attacks from outside. Rather, ironically, societies that develop great expertise in problem solving become incapable of solving new problems by overdeveloping their structures for solving old ones. >The fixation on the old methods of the "Creative Minority" leads it to eventually cease to be creative and degenerates into merely a "Dominant minority" (that forces the majority to obey without meriting obedience), failing to recognize new ways of thinking. He argues that creative minorities deteriorate due to a worship of their "former self," by which they become prideful, and fail to adequately address the next challenge they face. >He argues that in this environment, people resort to archaism (idealization of the past), futurism (idealization of the future), detachment (removal of oneself from the realities of a decaying world), and transcendence (meeting the challenges of the decaying civilization with new insight, as a Prophet). He argues that those who Transcend during a period of social decay give birth to a new Church with new and stronger spiritual insights, around which a subsequent civilization may begin to form after the old has died. >Toynbee's use of the word 'church' refers to the collective spiritual bond of a common worship, or the same unity found in some kind of social order. >The great irony expressed by these and others like them is that civilizations that seem ideally designed to creatively solve problems find themselves doing so self-destructively. On a personal level, these views that I hold, make me lax when it comes to "contributing to society", or to rephrase: I am resistant to finding a career and becoming independent, yet perpetually dependent on an institution/structure that has highs-and-lows and will eventually collapse. Combined with my mental health, it's difficult to force myself physically to adapt to what already exists, rather than what I think *should* exist. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" is something I have trouble saying because of my beliefs. I seek to less externalize my views, and keep them from interfering with my well-being. Change my views?

t3_29p50i

CMV: Transexual/Transgendered people should not be lumped together with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people (LGB/T)

I'm not sure exactly whether this is considered offensive, but I'll try my best to defend my point and concede to others if appropriate. I'm bisexual, and I couldn't be more understanding of what it feels like to be under the LGBT microscope. I'm really just a normal guy, most people would say 'straight-acting' although I hate what that phrase means so much lol. The way I see it, there are struggles with your **sexuality**, and then there are struggles with your **gender identity**. I don't understand why the T is in LGBT - because trans people are often outcasts like other 'non-heteros' such as myself? To the majority of transexuals, they ARE straight and their body simply doesn't reflect that! If sexuality is associated with gender identity, then it can be retroactively implied that gay men are actually fantasizing about being women on the inside - which is *ridiculously* wrong. I'm not saying that there's anything bad about trans people, that they should be excluded from things like pride or segregated in any way. I'm a huge sympathizer, in the sense that if I was THIS confused about my own sexuality before, I couldn't even begin to imagine the pain a person might feel if they were a different gender on the inside than they were on the outside. It's in a class of its own, and little do most people realise that it's a completely different thing from transvestites/cross dressing. When uneducated people think 'gay', they jump to an image of some bulky dude dressed in drag on a cheap karaoke stage. None of this applies to sexuality in any way, and having all trans things in the same group as LGBT is causing more confusion when we should be fighting our separate battles for acceptance and equality. I'll say it again, to really *stress* this point: **Sexuality =/= Gender Identity**. Linking the two would be like putting pizza in the burger section of the menu - it just doesn't fit in with the section's whole point. You can see that I'm not trying to be mean, even if I think I sound like it right now lol. They're just two entirely different things, and there's no reason to spread confusion among an already-blurry subject. _____ > *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: Transexual/Transgendered people should not be lumped together with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people (LGB/T). I'm not sure exactly whether this is considered offensive, but I'll try my best to defend my point and concede to others if appropriate. I'm bisexual, and I couldn't be more understanding of what it feels like to be under the LGBT microscope. I'm really just a normal guy, most people would say 'straight-acting' although I hate what that phrase means so much lol. The way I see it, there are struggles with your **sexuality**, and then there are struggles with your **gender identity**. I don't understand why the T is in LGBT - because trans people are often outcasts like other 'non-heteros' such as myself? To the majority of transexuals, they ARE straight and their body simply doesn't reflect that! If sexuality is associated with gender identity, then it can be retroactively implied that gay men are actually fantasizing about being women on the inside - which is *ridiculously* wrong. I'm not saying that there's anything bad about trans people, that they should be excluded from things like pride or segregated in any way. I'm a huge sympathizer, in the sense that if I was THIS confused about my own sexuality before, I couldn't even begin to imagine the pain a person might feel if they were a different gender on the inside than they were on the outside. It's in a class of its own, and little do most people realise that it's a completely different thing from transvestites/cross dressing. When uneducated people think 'gay', they jump to an image of some bulky dude dressed in drag on a cheap karaoke stage. None of this applies to sexuality in any way, and having all trans things in the same group as LGBT is causing more confusion when we should be fighting our separate battles for acceptance and equality. I'll say it again, to really *stress* this point: **Sexuality =/= Gender Identity**. Linking the two would be like putting pizza in the burger section of the menu - it just doesn't fit in with the section's whole point. You can see that I'm not trying to be mean, even if I think I sound like it right now lol. They're just two entirely different things, and there's no reason to spread confusion among an already-blurry subject.

t3_2ng16v

CMV: I believe that there is nothing that happens after death, that the previous statement sucks, and that technology won't help us out of it.

Dear r/changemyview, I don't expect this to be the usual fare for your sub as I actively want my view changed, as opposed to it being a challenge to change my view. I was raised religious (Catholic) but got out of it in college as its policies made little sense to me and I never felt a connection with anything divine. I have never had a “spiritual experience”, nor have I ever found anything satisfying about the paranormal. I get anxious at times about my own mortality, as I've never run across enough proof to believe that anything happens after death. I've heard the “unaccounted post mortem weight” (gas) the “near death experiences” (brains do weird things when we're dying) even the “seeing family members on the other side of a river” (coping mechanism developed by the brain to handle dying) and all of them have non-paranormal explanations. I mostly assuage my fear with the thought that within my lifetime (I'm 26 now) there's the possibility of discovering immortality, as we know what causes humans to break down with age. That, and the onset of lab grown organs hopefully allowing the individual to live significantly longer than a typical human lifespan. That or with the way technology is progressing with reading brain signals (they even have those toy cat ears that read moods and react accordingly, and the emotiv, which is a brain to computer interface) that potentially writing and/or moving the brain's data isn't as farfetched an idea as once thought. However, I'm not 100% willing to bet that I'll live to see that day in my lifetime. As such, please change my view. Either A: prove to me that mortality isn't that bad B that there is some form of afterlife (I don't care what from what religion or whatever just that it's not oblivion post mortem) or C that we're closer to cracking the secret of immortality than I think. You have no idea how much peace of mind this will bring me. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that there is nothing that happens after death, that the previous statement sucks, and that technology won't help us out of it. Dear r/changemyview, I don't expect this to be the usual fare for your sub as I actively want my view changed, as opposed to it being a challenge to change my view. I was raised religious (Catholic) but got out of it in college as its policies made little sense to me and I never felt a connection with anything divine. I have never had a “spiritual experience”, nor have I ever found anything satisfying about the paranormal. I get anxious at times about my own mortality, as I've never run across enough proof to believe that anything happens after death. I've heard the “unaccounted post mortem weight” (gas) the “near death experiences” (brains do weird things when we're dying) even the “seeing family members on the other side of a river” (coping mechanism developed by the brain to handle dying) and all of them have non-paranormal explanations. I mostly assuage my fear with the thought that within my lifetime (I'm 26 now) there's the possibility of discovering immortality, as we know what causes humans to break down with age. That, and the onset of lab grown organs hopefully allowing the individual to live significantly longer than a typical human lifespan. That or with the way technology is progressing with reading brain signals (they even have those toy cat ears that read moods and react accordingly, and the emotiv, which is a brain to computer interface) that potentially writing and/or moving the brain's data isn't as farfetched an idea as once thought. However, I'm not 100% willing to bet that I'll live to see that day in my lifetime. As such, please change my view. Either A: prove to me that mortality isn't that bad B that there is some form of afterlife (I don't care what from what religion or whatever just that it's not oblivion post mortem) or C that we're closer to cracking the secret of immortality than I think. You have no idea how much peace of mind this will bring me.

t3_2nthvd

CMV: College history courses have no place as a required course in most major curriculum.

EDIT: Thank you to those of you who put thought into your responses and pushed me to consider another outlook. However, It would seem that a couple of the rest of you have chosen to personally attack me for the view that I held. The truth of the matter is that I actually held this view, knew that many people would disagree with my view, and I saw an opportunity on this sub for having that view changed. Is that not the purpose of this sub? I realize now that I should have searched the subreddit for similar posts before I made a submission, but I consider that a minor mistake. I'm honestly kind of hesitant to make another post in this sub in the foreseeable future. ORIGINAL POST: It seems to me that history courses are taught by history professors primarily so that history students can go on and become history professors themselves; further saturating the job market for educators that serve no purpose other than to self-depreciate. For the vast majority of students, History courses will have no applicable worth to them post-graduation. Almost no employer is going to care that you can list the reasons that the Roman Empire fell. So, why then, should I be required to pay thousands of dollars to take a course that has no real value to anybody with job aspirations? Please CMV so that I can find the motivation to actually spend some of my time writing papers for this worthless class. _____ > *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: College history courses have no place as a required course in most major curriculum. EDIT: Thank you to those of you who put thought into your responses and pushed me to consider another outlook. However, It would seem that a couple of the rest of you have chosen to personally attack me for the view that I held. The truth of the matter is that I actually held this view, knew that many people would disagree with my view, and I saw an opportunity on this sub for having that view changed. Is that not the purpose of this sub? I realize now that I should have searched the subreddit for similar posts before I made a submission, but I consider that a minor mistake. I'm honestly kind of hesitant to make another post in this sub in the foreseeable future. ORIGINAL POST: It seems to me that history courses are taught by history professors primarily so that history students can go on and become history professors themselves; further saturating the job market for educators that serve no purpose other than to self-depreciate. For the vast majority of students, History courses will have no applicable worth to them post-graduation. Almost no employer is going to care that you can list the reasons that the Roman Empire fell. So, why then, should I be required to pay thousands of dollars to take a course that has no real value to anybody with job aspirations? Please CMV so that I can find the motivation to actually spend some of my time writing papers for this worthless class.

t3_2yt5rb

CMV: Flo from the Progressive commercials doesn't need an apron on to sell car insurance

- She's always wearing white anyway, and has never gotten dirty. There is nothing for the apron to "protect". - She isn't using the apron pockets, they are empty in every scene she's in. - No one else selling insurance is wearing an apron. It seems to just be Flo that does this. - The pins/buttons/tags/flare could just as easily attach to her shirt. - The apron is just taking up more time to get dressed every day. - She isn't doing anything like changing tires, looking at engines, or some other activity that would make wearing an apron relevant. In conclusion, I feel that the apron serves no important function for the character's role and responsibilities. _____ > *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: Flo from the Progressive commercials doesn't need an apron on to sell car insurance. - She's always wearing white anyway, and has never gotten dirty. There is nothing for the apron to "protect". - She isn't using the apron pockets, they are empty in every scene she's in. - No one else selling insurance is wearing an apron. It seems to just be Flo that does this. - The pins/buttons/tags/flare could just as easily attach to her shirt. - The apron is just taking up more time to get dressed every day. - She isn't doing anything like changing tires, looking at engines, or some other activity that would make wearing an apron relevant. In conclusion, I feel that the apron serves no important function for the character's role and responsibilities.

t3_6uodiy

CMV: The death penalty for terror offences will only cause more acts of terrorism.

You cannot give terrorists an excuse for martyrdom. Signing a law that punishes terrorists by death only gives them a reason to go out and do it. In my opinion, a punishing amount of solitary confinement in a dark cell is the only way, allowing them human interaction only gives them a chance to convert more terrorists. I don't think the death penalty is the answer for these kinds of crimes, it only serves as a coupon for martyrdom. I am unsure about a definitive deterrent for acts of terrorism but I do not believe the answer lies in acts of violent torture or capital punishment. _____ > *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 death penalty for terror offences will only cause more acts of terrorism. You cannot give terrorists an excuse for martyrdom. Signing a law that punishes terrorists by death only gives them a reason to go out and do it. In my opinion, a punishing amount of solitary confinement in a dark cell is the only way, allowing them human interaction only gives them a chance to convert more terrorists. I don't think the death penalty is the answer for these kinds of crimes, it only serves as a coupon for martyrdom. I am unsure about a definitive deterrent for acts of terrorism but I do not believe the answer lies in acts of violent torture or capital punishment.

t3_23ybkn

CMV: Multi-Level Marketing is an industry inherently based on manipulation

With all of the extensive research I've done about MLM's, it seems very clear to me that the core value of this industry is one thing: opulence. The imagery and rhetoric of the typical sales pitch minimizes the value of the product being sold and instead promises wealth as the benefit. In my experience interfacing with those who participate in these programs, I feel that there is a tendency to focus on the uneducated and those in lower socioeconomic communities. One argument would be that "all sales is inherently based on manipulation in one way or another" but in MLM's I think it is systematic. The common translation of money invested by the MLM Rep to "Points" or "Levels" within their own internal scoring system serves as a way of translating dollars into some other unit that makes it more difficult for the MLM rep to truly understand what the cost of their participation is. Hearing from my friends experience "working for" Vemma, it seems that there is also a very strong push in manipulating the mindset of their members too – to have them truly believe that they're starting some type of revolution in what work really is. It is, from my point of view, a predatory approach that aims to take the financial hardships and burdens of others and, through promised opulence, convince them to make a "small investment" that adds up quickly – especially if you take opportunity cost into account. **TL;DR: MLM's have an extremely low success rate, and I believe that the measures taken by companies who conduct MLM programs design it to systematically ensure that this success rate stays low.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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: Multi-Level Marketing is an industry inherently based on manipulation. With all of the extensive research I've done about MLM's, it seems very clear to me that the core value of this industry is one thing: opulence. The imagery and rhetoric of the typical sales pitch minimizes the value of the product being sold and instead promises wealth as the benefit. In my experience interfacing with those who participate in these programs, I feel that there is a tendency to focus on the uneducated and those in lower socioeconomic communities. One argument would be that "all sales is inherently based on manipulation in one way or another" but in MLM's I think it is systematic. The common translation of money invested by the MLM Rep to "Points" or "Levels" within their own internal scoring system serves as a way of translating dollars into some other unit that makes it more difficult for the MLM rep to truly understand what the cost of their participation is. Hearing from my friends experience "working for" Vemma, it seems that there is also a very strong push in manipulating the mindset of their members too – to have them truly believe that they're starting some type of revolution in what work really is. It is, from my point of view, a predatory approach that aims to take the financial hardships and burdens of others and, through promised opulence, convince them to make a "small investment" that adds up quickly – especially if you take opportunity cost into account. **TL;DR: MLM's have an extremely low success rate, and I believe that the measures taken by companies who conduct MLM programs design it to systematically ensure that this success rate stays low.**

t3_4zqe6i

CMV: Chihuahuas are hideous animals

I am generally a big lover of animals. I can hardly meet a dog, cat, goat or any other critter without petting it, scratching its' ear, finding the thing that makes it happy and making a friend. Terriers are cool. Pit bulls are big softies. Basset Hounds? fine. Pyrenees shepherd dog? majestic. Lab? my bro. Most mixed-breeds are cool, too. It's fun to make friends, to get them wagging their tail or pounding their leg, rolling over for belly rubs. I do it without thinking, almost like fidgeting, it comes so naturally. But chihuahuas *really get on my nerves*. They have this high pitched yappy bark, and their eyes are bulging out, and they have these big round heads and this constantly-jittery presentation that just .... *shudder* it is like some over-caffienated alien rodent, only louder. A friend of mine needs a keeper for his dogs and I want to help him--I have the room, the support structure (I already have a dog, cat, birds, everything--like I said, generally an animal lover)--but I really just don't ... I don't like those type of dogs, and I have met these specific dogs and I do not really like them either. I have petted them, and picked them up, and they're kind of sweet in a "bless their tiny, hideously ugly, annoying little heart" kind of way, but not in a "this is a creature I am drawn to care for" kind of way. I am, however, open to discussion on why I should like these shrill, jittery bug-eyed pups. Change my view, and help me to be a better helper for my friend in need and his pets. _____ > *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: Chihuahuas are hideous animals. I am generally a big lover of animals. I can hardly meet a dog, cat, goat or any other critter without petting it, scratching its' ear, finding the thing that makes it happy and making a friend. Terriers are cool. Pit bulls are big softies. Basset Hounds? fine. Pyrenees shepherd dog? majestic. Lab? my bro. Most mixed-breeds are cool, too. It's fun to make friends, to get them wagging their tail or pounding their leg, rolling over for belly rubs. I do it without thinking, almost like fidgeting, it comes so naturally. But chihuahuas *really get on my nerves*. They have this high pitched yappy bark, and their eyes are bulging out, and they have these big round heads and this constantly-jittery presentation that just .... *shudder* it is like some over-caffienated alien rodent, only louder. A friend of mine needs a keeper for his dogs and I want to help him--I have the room, the support structure (I already have a dog, cat, birds, everything--like I said, generally an animal lover)--but I really just don't ... I don't like those type of dogs, and I have met these specific dogs and I do not really like them either. I have petted them, and picked them up, and they're kind of sweet in a "bless their tiny, hideously ugly, annoying little heart" kind of way, but not in a "this is a creature I am drawn to care for" kind of way. I am, however, open to discussion on why I should like these shrill, jittery bug-eyed pups. Change my view, and help me to be a better helper for my friend in need and his pets.

t3_1ew6pe

I believe that economists are given too much credit. CMV.

From a mathematical background, I think predicting the future is inherently unstable and that attempting to do so while hiding behind the veneer of quantification is dishonest. Long term economic trends pass tipping points unpredictably, and if big events can't be predicted by consensus then whats the point? Like history, those who ignore the lessons of economics are doomed to repeat past mistakes, but I think if we industrialised historians to the same degree as we do economists and marginalised economics to academia, we would end up with a similar success rate at predicting the future and the workings of governance and enterprise would be much more engaging to the general populace, and therefore society would be more democratic. I'm from Australia if that matters.

I believe that economists are given too much credit. CMV. From a mathematical background, I think predicting the future is inherently unstable and that attempting to do so while hiding behind the veneer of quantification is dishonest. Long term economic trends pass tipping points unpredictably, and if big events can't be predicted by consensus then whats the point? Like history, those who ignore the lessons of economics are doomed to repeat past mistakes, but I think if we industrialised historians to the same degree as we do economists and marginalised economics to academia, we would end up with a similar success rate at predicting the future and the workings of governance and enterprise would be much more engaging to the general populace, and therefore society would be more democratic. I'm from Australia if that matters.

t3_6oyhis

CMV: We should strengthen our immigration restriction law, but not total ban.

It is not because Islam is in fact inherently a good religion, but because despite potential defaults in Quran, like other bibles, we simply should not ban people just based on their religion; Those conceptions are ridiculously ignorant. I am claiming this for two following reasons First, Every faith has some kind of default; Islam, I believe, could potentially inspire violence for some degree, and while I am no expert on any kind of religion by no mean, and most Muslim scholars do no agree with me for various reasons, at least, Quran could be interpreted in a way to justify violence against pagans; Probably, that's the reason ISIS and other terrorists exploit their religion, Islam. However, I need to make it sure that not only Islam has done such terrors, but also other faiths had been used as a base or an excuse for violence in anyway. Catholic, for example, was cooperated with an incompatible belief of skin superiority to justify racism; Catholic was the justification of colonization, to enlighten the people, in so-called "Imperial Era" Still, we are not claiming to ban on Catholics. The way in which we should treat Muslims is not to exclude them from Western society, but to cooperate with them to change their point of views, as well as to fix our biases. Second, it could remain as an unacceptable precedent; If you ban someone just based on the religion, that would entitle any following administration to do the same thing on just other groups; Unless Islam is inherently an evil faith, which is not true by the way, you could ban everyone for entering USA; We need to ban Whites, because a few believe they are superior to other races; We need to ban Blacks, because they commit to a crime the most among other races; We need to ban Asians, because a few have a perspective of racist, which I can say with a credit. I am Asian myself, and was raised over there for 15 years. Edit: I should have changed the title, since it is all about why banning Muslim is stupud, not why we should strengthen the bar. Sorry about that! Also, my English is bad, because it's not my first language. Please forgive my lagging languistic skill! _____ > *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: We should strengthen our immigration restriction law, but not total ban. It is not because Islam is in fact inherently a good religion, but because despite potential defaults in Quran, like other bibles, we simply should not ban people just based on their religion; Those conceptions are ridiculously ignorant. I am claiming this for two following reasons First, Every faith has some kind of default; Islam, I believe, could potentially inspire violence for some degree, and while I am no expert on any kind of religion by no mean, and most Muslim scholars do no agree with me for various reasons, at least, Quran could be interpreted in a way to justify violence against pagans; Probably, that's the reason ISIS and other terrorists exploit their religion, Islam. However, I need to make it sure that not only Islam has done such terrors, but also other faiths had been used as a base or an excuse for violence in anyway. Catholic, for example, was cooperated with an incompatible belief of skin superiority to justify racism; Catholic was the justification of colonization, to enlighten the people, in so-called "Imperial Era" Still, we are not claiming to ban on Catholics. The way in which we should treat Muslims is not to exclude them from Western society, but to cooperate with them to change their point of views, as well as to fix our biases. Second, it could remain as an unacceptable precedent; If you ban someone just based on the religion, that would entitle any following administration to do the same thing on just other groups; Unless Islam is inherently an evil faith, which is not true by the way, you could ban everyone for entering USA; We need to ban Whites, because a few believe they are superior to other races; We need to ban Blacks, because they commit to a crime the most among other races; We need to ban Asians, because a few have a perspective of racist, which I can say with a credit. I am Asian myself, and was raised over there for 15 years. Edit: I should have changed the title, since it is all about why banning Muslim is stupud, not why we should strengthen the bar. Sorry about that! Also, my English is bad, because it's not my first language. Please forgive my lagging languistic skill!

t3_2jskxj

CMV: There is nothing wrong about not having nor wanting to have friends

I believe it is okay to not have and not want friends. I'm really close to my boyfriend and my mom, and have one good (online) friend who I know for 10+ years. We used to talk every day until about 2011 but as life went on for us both, it narrowed down to maybe 3 or 4 emails per month. I should say I'm totally cool with that. I don't usually talk about my personal things with anyone aside from those 3 people. I have no interest in meeting new people or forming friendships with those I know. I am not snobby ou douchey, I am actually quite friendly with everyone who wishes to speak to me, but I will often get bored and anxious to leave the conversation as soon as possible and then be on my own. I wish to change my view basically because my boyfriend keeps saying that this is not normal and is a problem I should take care of. I understand this may not be normal since it doesn't appear to be very common, but I believe that this is a personality trait like any other and should be viewed and respected as such. I think that having friends when you enjoy spending time with other people and/or feel lonely without them is a healthy thing. I also think that for people who don't enjoy being around other people much - or at all - it is a burden to be forced to engage in this kind of interaction just for the sake of looking normal. The boyfriend says that when my mother or himself are not around anymore I will feel sorry I didn't make any friends, but I don't think that will make me regret not having friends because I think the bad aspects of friendship outweigh the good. By bad aspects I mean: * Having to hang out when I don't feel like it (almost always) or decline and feel bad after (I have absolutely no intention of hurting others); * Having to talk about myself; * Having to engage in meaningless conversations about stuff I don't care about (small talk in general); * Being noticed in general, as in when I get new shoes, new haircut etc. When I was younger I used to avoid showing up any different because I didn't want to talk about whatever change I made to my appearance. Maybe I should add that I moved cities a lot (every two years average) during my lifetime and I love the feeling of not being known by anyone and being left alone. These are pretty much all my reasons to hold my view. TL;DR: I see no reason why not having friends when you don't want them is bad. 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: There is nothing wrong about not having nor wanting to have friends. I believe it is okay to not have and not want friends. I'm really close to my boyfriend and my mom, and have one good (online) friend who I know for 10+ years. We used to talk every day until about 2011 but as life went on for us both, it narrowed down to maybe 3 or 4 emails per month. I should say I'm totally cool with that. I don't usually talk about my personal things with anyone aside from those 3 people. I have no interest in meeting new people or forming friendships with those I know. I am not snobby ou douchey, I am actually quite friendly with everyone who wishes to speak to me, but I will often get bored and anxious to leave the conversation as soon as possible and then be on my own. I wish to change my view basically because my boyfriend keeps saying that this is not normal and is a problem I should take care of. I understand this may not be normal since it doesn't appear to be very common, but I believe that this is a personality trait like any other and should be viewed and respected as such. I think that having friends when you enjoy spending time with other people and/or feel lonely without them is a healthy thing. I also think that for people who don't enjoy being around other people much - or at all - it is a burden to be forced to engage in this kind of interaction just for the sake of looking normal. The boyfriend says that when my mother or himself are not around anymore I will feel sorry I didn't make any friends, but I don't think that will make me regret not having friends because I think the bad aspects of friendship outweigh the good. By bad aspects I mean: * Having to hang out when I don't feel like it (almost always) or decline and feel bad after (I have absolutely no intention of hurting others); * Having to talk about myself; * Having to engage in meaningless conversations about stuff I don't care about (small talk in general); * Being noticed in general, as in when I get new shoes, new haircut etc. When I was younger I used to avoid showing up any different because I didn't want to talk about whatever change I made to my appearance. Maybe I should add that I moved cities a lot (every two years average) during my lifetime and I love the feeling of not being known by anyone and being left alone. These are pretty much all my reasons to hold my view. TL;DR: I see no reason why not having friends when you don't want them is bad. Change my view. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_4n0ifv

CMV: As a lifelong Republican opposed to Trump, I cannot vote Clinton

Lifelong, and self-admittedly further right, Republican voter here trying to think tactically for 2020. Trump scares the shit out of me because I'm convinced he's a liberal feigning conservatism in order to get elected. The only thing he is all that conservative about is the wall, and we don't really have an issue with illegal immigration in Wisconsin, so it really doesn't bother me. His election, I believe, would derail our party and change us fundamentally for the worse, possibly for decades. I am a Scott Walker supporter and, barring Walker or the Pope explicitly saying "Ralph, vote for Trump," I'm not about to ignore what Trump said about our state or my governor during the campaign. I had thought about voting Libertarian and was going to do so, but then I realized that, if they do well enough to get 5%, that'll hurt us in the 2020 general. The only time a liberal won our governor's office since the early 80's in Wisconsin was because a Libertarian stole otherwise rightfully Republican votes. I don't want a repeat of that nationally, but I can't in good conscience vote for a man who will ruin our party. As sickening as it sounds, my only real option aside from my voting might be to vote for a Democrat, but I'm having trouble with that. On to my big questions then. Will Clinton be okay with not getting any Supreme Court picks through, or would she try to pull a FDR? I refuse to hand our state back over to the Democrats and we have several cases in the legal system that could do just that. Will Clinton find some way to end the Second Amendment? What are her plans to do so? How long would they take? Would states have a chance to act independently or would she try taking our guns away at the national level? Is she actually Christian? I've heard conflicting reports on her stance on abortion. Would she allow us to place our own state level restrictions and bans, or will she try to expand it? Would she sign a repeal of Obamacare? As long as we retain control of the Courts, I think can tolerate 4 years in exchange for hopefully Scott Walker or Paul Ryan for 8. Ideally, we'd see another Tea Party style surge in 2018 which would help us take/keep more states going into redistricting. The last thing we need is Trump causing a reverse wave and putting Democrats in Governorship positions in the states we took in 2010. If we might lose the Court/Wisconsin, I don't really know what to do. I apologize if any of this sounds rude. I honestly can't stand the fact that I'm even THINKING of voting for a lib, let alone a Clinton, so it's hard to keep my language clean. Thanks for any clarification you can give in advance! Edit: I guess I'll be hesitantly waiting until the election and, in a worst case scenario, voting for Clinton. Thanks for helping me talk this out. I sure as hell don't like her and I'll ideally be voting for Scott Walker as a write in, but it's good to know a lot of my worries aren't completely justified. They are justified, but not to their fullest worst case levels.

CMV: As a lifelong Republican opposed to Trump, I cannot vote Clinton. Lifelong, and self-admittedly further right, Republican voter here trying to think tactically for 2020. Trump scares the shit out of me because I'm convinced he's a liberal feigning conservatism in order to get elected. The only thing he is all that conservative about is the wall, and we don't really have an issue with illegal immigration in Wisconsin, so it really doesn't bother me. His election, I believe, would derail our party and change us fundamentally for the worse, possibly for decades. I am a Scott Walker supporter and, barring Walker or the Pope explicitly saying "Ralph, vote for Trump," I'm not about to ignore what Trump said about our state or my governor during the campaign. I had thought about voting Libertarian and was going to do so, but then I realized that, if they do well enough to get 5%, that'll hurt us in the 2020 general. The only time a liberal won our governor's office since the early 80's in Wisconsin was because a Libertarian stole otherwise rightfully Republican votes. I don't want a repeat of that nationally, but I can't in good conscience vote for a man who will ruin our party. As sickening as it sounds, my only real option aside from my voting might be to vote for a Democrat, but I'm having trouble with that. On to my big questions then. Will Clinton be okay with not getting any Supreme Court picks through, or would she try to pull a FDR? I refuse to hand our state back over to the Democrats and we have several cases in the legal system that could do just that. Will Clinton find some way to end the Second Amendment? What are her plans to do so? How long would they take? Would states have a chance to act independently or would she try taking our guns away at the national level? Is she actually Christian? I've heard conflicting reports on her stance on abortion. Would she allow us to place our own state level restrictions and bans, or will she try to expand it? Would she sign a repeal of Obamacare? As long as we retain control of the Courts, I think can tolerate 4 years in exchange for hopefully Scott Walker or Paul Ryan for 8. Ideally, we'd see another Tea Party style surge in 2018 which would help us take/keep more states going into redistricting. The last thing we need is Trump causing a reverse wave and putting Democrats in Governorship positions in the states we took in 2010. If we might lose the Court/Wisconsin, I don't really know what to do. I apologize if any of this sounds rude. I honestly can't stand the fact that I'm even THINKING of voting for a lib, let alone a Clinton, so it's hard to keep my language clean. Thanks for any clarification you can give in advance! Edit: I guess I'll be hesitantly waiting until the election and, in a worst case scenario, voting for Clinton. Thanks for helping me talk this out. I sure as hell don't like her and I'll ideally be voting for Scott Walker as a write in, but it's good to know a lot of my worries aren't completely justified. They are justified, but not to their fullest worst case levels.

t3_5rvt2e

CMV: This current election had one positive effect: It created a much more natural political spectrum from a philosophical standpoint.

The general consensus, seemingly, is that the way the parties were positioned before the election of Donald Trump was in a horseshoe-shaped spectrum. On one end of the horseshoe were libertarians, and on the other, communists. This is true from my own experience. The extremes on this spectrum wanted to ignore the idea that Communism naturally begot a strongman at the top, and libertarianism naturally begot cartels which act as a strongman at the top. Nevertheless, these were the extremes and depending on level of education of history or economics, would jump back and forth between them. For example, this produced a philosophy like anarcho-capitalism and (much rarer) enlightened dictatorship. This election has really made it clear to me that the election of Donald J Trump has straightened that U out. What had been a horseshoe is now a traditional spectrum. On one hand, we have anarchists, who (to say it as concisely as possible) believe no person deserves more power (economic/political) than another unless freely given, and fascists, who believe that some people naturally deserve more power because [reasons(?)]. Both of these beget strongmen as well, of course. While I think both have the same lack of awareness of history or law to judge the negative outcomes of their philosophies, it makes for a much easier conversation because both of these philosophies (when taken to the extreme) have directly led to large scale death, whereas ancaps could say "Well we really haven't tried it yet, so how do you know?" and using U.S. economic history as support (usually wrongly) - and people supporting enlightened dictatorships saying "Well those last ones didn't have the benefit of modern science, so how do you know?" using some enlightened monarch (usually wrongly). The current extremes are MUCH harder to defend, which I think makes everything a little clearer and pushes people towards the center where we can discuss what type of policies do what, why, and how. I think we are seeing that happen right now. Rick Perry just found out why we have the Department of Energy. Republicans are figuring out that some type of public healthcare is the only way to protect those with poor health. Democrats are figuring out how silencing speech verges dangerously close and across the line of violence. I can go on, but I think its really cool that we see this growth happen and makes the bounds of the debate much clearer.

CMV: This current election had one positive effect: It created a much more natural political spectrum from a philosophical standpoint. The general consensus, seemingly, is that the way the parties were positioned before the election of Donald Trump was in a horseshoe-shaped spectrum. On one end of the horseshoe were libertarians, and on the other, communists. This is true from my own experience. The extremes on this spectrum wanted to ignore the idea that Communism naturally begot a strongman at the top, and libertarianism naturally begot cartels which act as a strongman at the top. Nevertheless, these were the extremes and depending on level of education of history or economics, would jump back and forth between them. For example, this produced a philosophy like anarcho-capitalism and (much rarer) enlightened dictatorship. This election has really made it clear to me that the election of Donald J Trump has straightened that U out. What had been a horseshoe is now a traditional spectrum. On one hand, we have anarchists, who (to say it as concisely as possible) believe no person deserves more power (economic/political) than another unless freely given, and fascists, who believe that some people naturally deserve more power because [reasons(?)]. Both of these beget strongmen as well, of course. While I think both have the same lack of awareness of history or law to judge the negative outcomes of their philosophies, it makes for a much easier conversation because both of these philosophies (when taken to the extreme) have directly led to large scale death, whereas ancaps could say "Well we really haven't tried it yet, so how do you know?" and using U.S. economic history as support (usually wrongly) - and people supporting enlightened dictatorships saying "Well those last ones didn't have the benefit of modern science, so how do you know?" using some enlightened monarch (usually wrongly). The current extremes are MUCH harder to defend, which I think makes everything a little clearer and pushes people towards the center where we can discuss what type of policies do what, why, and how. I think we are seeing that happen right now. Rick Perry just found out why we have the Department of Energy. Republicans are figuring out that some type of public healthcare is the only way to protect those with poor health. Democrats are figuring out how silencing speech verges dangerously close and across the line of violence. I can go on, but I think its really cool that we see this growth happen and makes the bounds of the debate much clearer.

t3_1ufz8i

I think the younger generation are experiencing the death of real face-to-face interaction and it will hurt them as a whole. CMV

As a preface, my sentiments merely come from my personal observations, so I don't have figures and stats to back them up (hence the desire for the CMV). When I spend time with a vast majority of my friends (aged 20-24), I find that they spend most of their time together on their phones talking, snapchatting, tweeting, what have you, to people that aren't in the room. Aside from being rude, I think the prevalence of this phenomenon is a force to be reckoned with. I find that my generation's obsessions with their social media (myself included) is diminishing our ability to have real conversations with other people and express how we feel genuinely to them. Our cell phones dilute emotion to a point where so much gets lost in translation whereas a real conversation would clear up most confusion. It scares me because it is much easier to Facebook unrelated people and avert the issue rather than confront issues or people in person. This to me seems like a numbing addiction. I might be rambling, but I fear for the day when having actual conversations becomes passe; as if it were an outdated way of communication, and when we then lose the ability to connect with the people around us on a real emotional level. CMV

I think the younger generation are experiencing the death of real face-to-face interaction and it will hurt them as a whole. CMV. As a preface, my sentiments merely come from my personal observations, so I don't have figures and stats to back them up (hence the desire for the CMV). When I spend time with a vast majority of my friends (aged 20-24), I find that they spend most of their time together on their phones talking, snapchatting, tweeting, what have you, to people that aren't in the room. Aside from being rude, I think the prevalence of this phenomenon is a force to be reckoned with. I find that my generation's obsessions with their social media (myself included) is diminishing our ability to have real conversations with other people and express how we feel genuinely to them. Our cell phones dilute emotion to a point where so much gets lost in translation whereas a real conversation would clear up most confusion. It scares me because it is much easier to Facebook unrelated people and avert the issue rather than confront issues or people in person. This to me seems like a numbing addiction. I might be rambling, but I fear for the day when having actual conversations becomes passe; as if it were an outdated way of communication, and when we then lose the ability to connect with the people around us on a real emotional level. CMV

t3_4tlzga

CMV: It's arbitrary and hypocritical to judge people who get dogs from breeders, but hold a different opinion about adopting human infants.

My wife and I are considering purchasing a dog from a breeder. We knew this would be a contentious issue among our friends and as predicted, we've encountered a lot of criticism from friends saying that we should adopt. It has occurred to me that this conversation would lead to far less criticism (if any) if it surrounded a human child. If the choice was between having our own baby VS adopting or even adoption via agency/lawyer VS adoption via foster system, nobody gives a shit. The minute it becomes about a dog everyone becomes so outspoken about how you should adopt from a shelter. I understand there are some differences to discuss and valid arguments on both sides, but I believe it's hypocritical to be judgmental towards people who get dogs from breeders yet praise the adoption of human infants through a lawyer or agency.

CMV: It's arbitrary and hypocritical to judge people who get dogs from breeders, but hold a different opinion about adopting human infants. My wife and I are considering purchasing a dog from a breeder. We knew this would be a contentious issue among our friends and as predicted, we've encountered a lot of criticism from friends saying that we should adopt. It has occurred to me that this conversation would lead to far less criticism (if any) if it surrounded a human child. If the choice was between having our own baby VS adopting or even adoption via agency/lawyer VS adoption via foster system, nobody gives a shit. The minute it becomes about a dog everyone becomes so outspoken about how you should adopt from a shelter. I understand there are some differences to discuss and valid arguments on both sides, but I believe it's hypocritical to be judgmental towards people who get dogs from breeders yet praise the adoption of human infants through a lawyer or agency.

t3_1c38cw

I think that Half-Life was a bad game. CMV

Seeing so much enthusiasm for Half-Life 1, 2, and 3, I tried to play Half-Life years after its release and I found it really boring and badly designed. I literally can't think of any redeeming values it had, compared with just about any other FPS. What did people see it in? I haven't even tried Half-Life 2, due to my disappointment with Half-Life 1.

I think that Half-Life was a bad game. CMV. Seeing so much enthusiasm for Half-Life 1, 2, and 3, I tried to play Half-Life years after its release and I found it really boring and badly designed. I literally can't think of any redeeming values it had, compared with just about any other FPS. What did people see it in? I haven't even tried Half-Life 2, due to my disappointment with Half-Life 1.

t3_264n1y

CMV: if we rely on experts for the Climate Change debate, we should rely on experts for the Minimum Wage debate.

**Edit**: /u/ASniffInTheWind has stated the relation between the position of eliminating Minimum Wage and economics experts better than I could. __[Please read his/her response before you continue reading my post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/264n1y/cmv_if_we_rely_on_experts_for_the_climate_change/chnnr7x). With the consensus that he/she provides in mind, please continue reading:__ ---- Overwhelmingly, climate change experts agree that Earth's climate is changing and they have attempted to explain to the rest of us that we are causing it. Very few people in the mainstream debate have a problem with relying on those experts regarding that incredibly complex topic. However, within the same journals, magazines, news programs, etc., when I see any article regarding minimum wage laws there is almost never a survey of economics experts. The only surveys I see are saying "X% of workers want a higher minimum wage!" Well... translating that to the climate change issue, that would be like polling oil companies... I think we can agree that is a useless statistic! Of course workers want higher wages, so? Economics is incredibly complicated and I would say it is more complicated than the climate change "debate" (it isn't a debate) because there are so many variables among human action whereas with climate change, there are many constants that are scientifically proved. Just as it is a fact that the climate is changing, it is a fact that minimum wage harms the poor; I believe we should rely on experts in both circumstances instead of polling laypersons' views or interested party's views on the topic. **I'm not necessarily looking to have a conversation on the substantive topics at hand, I just believe that if popular consensus among experts is dispositive of the climate change debate, it should be dispositive of the minimum wage debate, too.** Caveat: I know that there are a few economics experts who believe MW can help the poor but that is like saying some scientists believe climate change is a hoax or is not man made. The vast majority of economists will agree with the following: as the cost of a good or service is increased above its market rate, putative consumers of that good or service will be less willing to consume it after the cost increase than before the increase. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: if we rely on experts for the Climate Change debate, we should rely on experts for the Minimum Wage debate. **Edit**: /u/ASniffInTheWind has stated the relation between the position of eliminating Minimum Wage and economics experts better than I could. __[Please read his/her response before you continue reading my post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/264n1y/cmv_if_we_rely_on_experts_for_the_climate_change/chnnr7x). With the consensus that he/she provides in mind, please continue reading:__ ---- Overwhelmingly, climate change experts agree that Earth's climate is changing and they have attempted to explain to the rest of us that we are causing it. Very few people in the mainstream debate have a problem with relying on those experts regarding that incredibly complex topic. However, within the same journals, magazines, news programs, etc., when I see any article regarding minimum wage laws there is almost never a survey of economics experts. The only surveys I see are saying "X% of workers want a higher minimum wage!" Well... translating that to the climate change issue, that would be like polling oil companies... I think we can agree that is a useless statistic! Of course workers want higher wages, so? Economics is incredibly complicated and I would say it is more complicated than the climate change "debate" (it isn't a debate) because there are so many variables among human action whereas with climate change, there are many constants that are scientifically proved. Just as it is a fact that the climate is changing, it is a fact that minimum wage harms the poor; I believe we should rely on experts in both circumstances instead of polling laypersons' views or interested party's views on the topic. **I'm not necessarily looking to have a conversation on the substantive topics at hand, I just believe that if popular consensus among experts is dispositive of the climate change debate, it should be dispositive of the minimum wage debate, too.** Caveat: I know that there are a few economics experts who believe MW can help the poor but that is like saying some scientists believe climate change is a hoax or is not man made. The vast majority of economists will agree with the following: as the cost of a good or service is increased above its market rate, putative consumers of that good or service will be less willing to consume it after the cost increase than before the increase.

t3_2a72qk

CMV: By having welfare as accessible as it is in the US, we're essentially letting large corporations get away with paying employees below cost of living wages

We should make welfare much harder to get because it is allowing large corporations to pay their employees $7 an hour because they can go out and get welfare to supplement their income. I do think that it would get pretty bad for those people for a couple of years, as businesses would be reluctant to raise wages, but if we made welfare much much harder to be eligible for, businesses would be forced to pay their employees more because without any kind of social programs to fall back on, people simply couldn't work for the amount they are currently being paid. When I say that "Welfare" should be much harder to get, I'm talking about supplemental help, not disability or anything like that. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: By having welfare as accessible as it is in the US, we're essentially letting large corporations get away with paying employees below cost of living wages. We should make welfare much harder to get because it is allowing large corporations to pay their employees $7 an hour because they can go out and get welfare to supplement their income. I do think that it would get pretty bad for those people for a couple of years, as businesses would be reluctant to raise wages, but if we made welfare much much harder to be eligible for, businesses would be forced to pay their employees more because without any kind of social programs to fall back on, people simply couldn't work for the amount they are currently being paid. When I say that "Welfare" should be much harder to get, I'm talking about supplemental help, not disability or anything like that.

t3_1ta5kc

Phil Robertson's character getting banned from Duck Dynasty is a network mistake. CMV

I vote Democratic, and am firmly liberal on every social issue, *but* Sarah PALIN IS RIGHT this time in my opinion. It's isn't news to anyone what the Old Testament says about gays, and plenty other things everyone else does to deserve immediate execution. The Nation's beloved Duck Dynasty star subscribes to a pretty common set of religious tenets that he merely held fast to in public. "The Bible says homosexual sex is a sin." OMG how could anyone state that fact?!? I'll tell you what Phil Robertson didn't say: "We should jail those who commit sodomy. All gays should be forced into conversion therapy. Gays should be treated as lesser human beings and I refuse to associate with them. I am Anti-Gay." Phil Robertson should probably stone himself for committing adultery, but I digress. Religion doesn't have to make sense. Still, the man was essentially put on the spot to be publicly ostracized intentionally. This IS actually an attack on religious freedom and the freedom of speech. The only thing threatened by his statement was his own ability to speak the actual facts about what the Bible says. This hurts no one. Less people even care what the Old Testament says every day anyway. If we're going to let Westboro Baptist Church speak their minds, Phil Robertson sounds pretty tame. Maybe he could have avoided the question, but he ought not be FORCED to pipe down. It's irrelevant to the show anyway. I'm not saying I would ever sit through one single episode of Duck Dynasty. I'm not even saying Phil Robertson is a nice guy necessarily. I'm certainly not a duck hunting fanatic, and the Biblical stance on homosexuality carries no weight in my opinion. That doesn't change the (Constitutional Right) that Phil Robertson has to freely express his own faith and agreement with his own religious text. (Quick reminder, it's the SAME RELIGION the current President practices) I don't want to live in a nation where we push people on facets of their religion we find unpleasant so we can penalize them, until it's essentially illegal to express non-invasive faiths. The guy's making money for a network because people like his fake-ass moronic show. He's not a terrorist. If people thought this was outrageous enough the viewership would decline. It accomplishes nothing to ban the "TV character" from the show. This will only hurt A&E because their viewership likely agrees with real-life Phil. *So from a financial standpoint, this is a mistake.* Let's also be clear that their viewership has that right, even if I don't agree with them. Yeah, Sarah Palin is pretty dumb, but she's right to assess this scenario as a 1st Amendment issue. Can we stop PUSHING people to make controversial statements that only demonstrate the difference between logical outrage and **manufactured controversy.** Come on, this whole situation was planned sabotage. No gays were injured in the writing of this statement, or Phil's. I am not friends with Phil Robertson and we probably have nothing in common accept that we're both free Americans. My goal is only to keep it that way. TL;DR: *A&E shouldn't feel obligated to suspend Phil Robertson to protect some imaginary "politically correctness" they should have known the Duck Dynasty fucks would never adhere to anyway. By doing it, they are picking the wrong side demographically.* CMV edit: Thanks to those of you who have responded so far. I seem to have muddled two separate issues and failed to clarify the difference. A) A&E may have made a business mistake based on demographics B) I don't like pushing people in public interviews to open up about the silly parts of their religion so we can intentionally vilify them for it, unrelated to their value as an entertainer. EDIT 2: Delta: /u/Nerdlinger Bill O'Reilly is secretly a liberal and FOX news makes bank. Rush Limbaugh's sponsors pulled out but his listenership hasn't dropped. These are my views being changed. A&E made an advertising decision.

Phil Robertson's character getting banned from Duck Dynasty is a network mistake. CMV. I vote Democratic, and am firmly liberal on every social issue, *but* Sarah PALIN IS RIGHT this time in my opinion. It's isn't news to anyone what the Old Testament says about gays, and plenty other things everyone else does to deserve immediate execution. The Nation's beloved Duck Dynasty star subscribes to a pretty common set of religious tenets that he merely held fast to in public. "The Bible says homosexual sex is a sin." OMG how could anyone state that fact?!? I'll tell you what Phil Robertson didn't say: "We should jail those who commit sodomy. All gays should be forced into conversion therapy. Gays should be treated as lesser human beings and I refuse to associate with them. I am Anti-Gay." Phil Robertson should probably stone himself for committing adultery, but I digress. Religion doesn't have to make sense. Still, the man was essentially put on the spot to be publicly ostracized intentionally. This IS actually an attack on religious freedom and the freedom of speech. The only thing threatened by his statement was his own ability to speak the actual facts about what the Bible says. This hurts no one. Less people even care what the Old Testament says every day anyway. If we're going to let Westboro Baptist Church speak their minds, Phil Robertson sounds pretty tame. Maybe he could have avoided the question, but he ought not be FORCED to pipe down. It's irrelevant to the show anyway. I'm not saying I would ever sit through one single episode of Duck Dynasty. I'm not even saying Phil Robertson is a nice guy necessarily. I'm certainly not a duck hunting fanatic, and the Biblical stance on homosexuality carries no weight in my opinion. That doesn't change the (Constitutional Right) that Phil Robertson has to freely express his own faith and agreement with his own religious text. (Quick reminder, it's the SAME RELIGION the current President practices) I don't want to live in a nation where we push people on facets of their religion we find unpleasant so we can penalize them, until it's essentially illegal to express non-invasive faiths. The guy's making money for a network because people like his fake-ass moronic show. He's not a terrorist. If people thought this was outrageous enough the viewership would decline. It accomplishes nothing to ban the "TV character" from the show. This will only hurt A&E because their viewership likely agrees with real-life Phil. *So from a financial standpoint, this is a mistake.* Let's also be clear that their viewership has that right, even if I don't agree with them. Yeah, Sarah Palin is pretty dumb, but she's right to assess this scenario as a 1st Amendment issue. Can we stop PUSHING people to make controversial statements that only demonstrate the difference between logical outrage and **manufactured controversy.** Come on, this whole situation was planned sabotage. No gays were injured in the writing of this statement, or Phil's. I am not friends with Phil Robertson and we probably have nothing in common accept that we're both free Americans. My goal is only to keep it that way. TL;DR: *A&E shouldn't feel obligated to suspend Phil Robertson to protect some imaginary "politically correctness" they should have known the Duck Dynasty fucks would never adhere to anyway. By doing it, they are picking the wrong side demographically.* CMV edit: Thanks to those of you who have responded so far. I seem to have muddled two separate issues and failed to clarify the difference. A) A&E may have made a business mistake based on demographics B) I don't like pushing people in public interviews to open up about the silly parts of their religion so we can intentionally vilify them for it, unrelated to their value as an entertainer. EDIT 2: Delta: /u/Nerdlinger Bill O'Reilly is secretly a liberal and FOX news makes bank. Rush Limbaugh's sponsors pulled out but his listenership hasn't dropped. These are my views being changed. A&E made an advertising decision.

t3_2unrvq

CMV: Fireworks should be socially unacceptable

Fireworks pollute the air and water with carcinogenic sulphur compounds and arsenic. They can cause property damage and injury, especially when handled by amateurs. In 2012, U.S. hospital emergency rooms treated an estimated 8,700 people for fireworks related injuries [source](http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/holidays/fireworks/reports-and-statistics-about-fireworks). They scare nearby pets, as dogs and other animals have much more sensitive hearing than us. They are obnoxious due to noise, odor, and aforementioned pollution. Their main appeals are tradition and danger, so I don't think making them illegal would get rid of them, as the backlash would shadow the normal use. I don't see, however, why society disregards their negative consequences. _____ > *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: Fireworks should be socially unacceptable. Fireworks pollute the air and water with carcinogenic sulphur compounds and arsenic. They can cause property damage and injury, especially when handled by amateurs. In 2012, U.S. hospital emergency rooms treated an estimated 8,700 people for fireworks related injuries [source](http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/holidays/fireworks/reports-and-statistics-about-fireworks). They scare nearby pets, as dogs and other animals have much more sensitive hearing than us. They are obnoxious due to noise, odor, and aforementioned pollution. Their main appeals are tradition and danger, so I don't think making them illegal would get rid of them, as the backlash would shadow the normal use. I don't see, however, why society disregards their negative consequences.

t3_1jk8j0

Fewer jobs available (e.g. More unemployment) in the world is a good thing and we will prosper once we accept that as fact. CMV.

Fewer jobs available, created by more automation and more activities being handled by software that only takes a small team to create is the greatest thing that could happen to this world. Working 9-5 is not inherently a good thing and people could be free to spend that time learning and reading and creating art if we stopped thinking about jobs being the means to survival. There is more than one way to implement a system where baseline prosperity does not rely on employment, but the bottom line is embracing the fact that we are better off not requiring jobs for survival. Please change my view if you will.

Fewer jobs available (e.g. More unemployment) in the world is a good thing and we will prosper once we accept that as fact. CMV. Fewer jobs available, created by more automation and more activities being handled by software that only takes a small team to create is the greatest thing that could happen to this world. Working 9-5 is not inherently a good thing and people could be free to spend that time learning and reading and creating art if we stopped thinking about jobs being the means to survival. There is more than one way to implement a system where baseline prosperity does not rely on employment, but the bottom line is embracing the fact that we are better off not requiring jobs for survival. Please change my view if you will.

t3_53pxha

CMV: Non-Academic Feminism as embodied by most activists doesn't have a problem with generalizations about systemic gender behaviors, it has a problem with generalizations about intrinsic motivations and moral culpability.

I'm not quite sure how to elaborate on this any further than the post title. Basically, the way I see it is that Activist-oriented Feminism has a problem when it comes to normative ethical statements made by members of the group who use purely descriptive data to back up their arguments/assertions. The movement has a problem that doesn't deligitamize the core ethical principle of it all, but rather deligitamizes the actions and efforts of a very large subset of its vocal proponents. In step-by-step form: 1) Many feminists propose "Men do X because of Y" where X is a behavior (descriptive) and Y is a motivation (descriptive with an inherent normative component). 2) There is very little to no evidence supporting Y, but there is plenty of evidence supporting X. 3) When pressured, they prop up their argument for Y by pointing to X. 4a) When pressured further to provide proof for Y, they conflate the two and claim that rejection of Y is rejection of X, or (all too commonly) 4b) They focus on the modal aspect of the argument rather than the predicate: "Stop saying Not All Men!" when the issue isn't really about how many men do it, but rather why they do it. This isn't really an exclusive issue with Feminism as an ideology of course considering every social or political ideology falls prey to demonizing some group or another and mixing up what is and what ought to be. What really is the issue is that they all refuse to see it as a problem, period. Any time it is brought up, charges of hatred or bigotry are leveled to shut down discourse. The (un)ethical implications of their arguments are left standing, uncontested, propped up by bigotry itself. Things that can change my view: - Research demonstrating intrinsic motivations lead to malicious behavior by men. Misogyny as a term doesn't describe nearly 1% of ill social behaviors if my skepticism is correct. - A good moral argument demonstrating men as a group are culpable for these motivations or actions as described. You would have to basically show me that the motivations were not deeply rooted in the subconscious, were unequivocally socially-derived and not innate, and that they were the direct result of synthetic social organization rather than natural products of innate gendered differences in men and women. If you think either of those is unreasonable, please let me know why. I'm trying to understand why the other side here is so damn adamant about ignoring this. Edit: tried to clean up formatting

CMV: Non-Academic Feminism as embodied by most activists doesn't have a problem with generalizations about systemic gender behaviors, it has a problem with generalizations about intrinsic motivations and moral culpability. I'm not quite sure how to elaborate on this any further than the post title. Basically, the way I see it is that Activist-oriented Feminism has a problem when it comes to normative ethical statements made by members of the group who use purely descriptive data to back up their arguments/assertions. The movement has a problem that doesn't deligitamize the core ethical principle of it all, but rather deligitamizes the actions and efforts of a very large subset of its vocal proponents. In step-by-step form: 1) Many feminists propose "Men do X because of Y" where X is a behavior (descriptive) and Y is a motivation (descriptive with an inherent normative component). 2) There is very little to no evidence supporting Y, but there is plenty of evidence supporting X. 3) When pressured, they prop up their argument for Y by pointing to X. 4a) When pressured further to provide proof for Y, they conflate the two and claim that rejection of Y is rejection of X, or (all too commonly) 4b) They focus on the modal aspect of the argument rather than the predicate: "Stop saying Not All Men!" when the issue isn't really about how many men do it, but rather why they do it. This isn't really an exclusive issue with Feminism as an ideology of course considering every social or political ideology falls prey to demonizing some group or another and mixing up what is and what ought to be. What really is the issue is that they all refuse to see it as a problem, period. Any time it is brought up, charges of hatred or bigotry are leveled to shut down discourse. The (un)ethical implications of their arguments are left standing, uncontested, propped up by bigotry itself. Things that can change my view: - Research demonstrating intrinsic motivations lead to malicious behavior by men. Misogyny as a term doesn't describe nearly 1% of ill social behaviors if my skepticism is correct. - A good moral argument demonstrating men as a group are culpable for these motivations or actions as described. You would have to basically show me that the motivations were not deeply rooted in the subconscious, were unequivocally socially-derived and not innate, and that they were the direct result of synthetic social organization rather than natural products of innate gendered differences in men and women. If you think either of those is unreasonable, please let me know why. I'm trying to understand why the other side here is so damn adamant about ignoring this. Edit: tried to clean up formatting

t3_2ovisr

CMV: You don't love your kid, until you start to form an actual relationship with him/her.

Over on /r/photoshoprequests, I've seen quite a few posts where people post pics of their babies that died at birth and ask if photoshoppers can remove the medical equipment, etc. Most times the title includes an obvious 'thanks' and something like 'we loved him so much'. Don't get me wrong, I mean, I've never experienced it but I'm sure its one of the most terrible things one can experience. BUT does it make sense to say you loved someone you knew for hours? I've never had kids but I don't think it does. the way I see it, for the first few months at least, a child is just a crying, shitting, lump of meat that you have to tirelessly take care of. Yes, you created it and all that but thats still what it is. it doesnt do much other than wake you up and piss in your face. THEN, after a few months, itll talk or crawl or start to maybe resemble you or your SO. you form a relationship with what has become an actual person that does actual things, at which point I think that at least I would feel comfortable with saying I 'love' my child. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: You don't love your kid, until you start to form an actual relationship with him/her. Over on /r/photoshoprequests, I've seen quite a few posts where people post pics of their babies that died at birth and ask if photoshoppers can remove the medical equipment, etc. Most times the title includes an obvious 'thanks' and something like 'we loved him so much'. Don't get me wrong, I mean, I've never experienced it but I'm sure its one of the most terrible things one can experience. BUT does it make sense to say you loved someone you knew for hours? I've never had kids but I don't think it does. the way I see it, for the first few months at least, a child is just a crying, shitting, lump of meat that you have to tirelessly take care of. Yes, you created it and all that but thats still what it is. it doesnt do much other than wake you up and piss in your face. THEN, after a few months, itll talk or crawl or start to maybe resemble you or your SO. you form a relationship with what has become an actual person that does actual things, at which point I think that at least I would feel comfortable with saying I 'love' my child.

t3_6k4zto

CMV: Accessing an open computer network to see what's there should carry the same penalty as walking into an unlocked house for the same reason.

If you discover a computer network that is easily penetrated, and you access it with no intent to cause damage, steal/download/copy files, or gain trade secrets, but simply to see what's there, my view is that you have done no more than trespass on someone's property. If the property in question was a home, and you discovered an unlocked door, entered it and poked around without damaging or stealing anything, you'll be charged with trespassing if you're discovered. Obviously the owners could sue you for other damage, but in the case of accessing a computer network you'd be charged under criminal law. I don't think that makes sense. I've yet to meet someone who disagrees with this, yet I'm well aware that no Western court would agree. Change my view! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Accessing an open computer network to see what's there should carry the same penalty as walking into an unlocked house for the same reason. If you discover a computer network that is easily penetrated, and you access it with no intent to cause damage, steal/download/copy files, or gain trade secrets, but simply to see what's there, my view is that you have done no more than trespass on someone's property. If the property in question was a home, and you discovered an unlocked door, entered it and poked around without damaging or stealing anything, you'll be charged with trespassing if you're discovered. Obviously the owners could sue you for other damage, but in the case of accessing a computer network you'd be charged under criminal law. I don't think that makes sense. I've yet to meet someone who disagrees with this, yet I'm well aware that no Western court would agree. Change my view!

t3_1lriwx

The "born this way" defense of homosexuality is not a good defense for practicing it. CMV.

I saw this clip today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzV1r5SCc8U And was wondering why the fact that people don't choose to be gay (whether or not this is true is another debate entirely) has anything to do with whether we should be accepting of the behaviour. Many paedophiles claim to be "born this way", but we aren't accepting of their behaviour. Now I'm not implying paedophilia and homosexuality are the same. But the reason we should be accepting of homosexuality is that it is a form of sexual expression that involves two consenting parties. Why is how "natural" it is relevant to the debate? Now - when the PM of Australia says that he is accepting of homosexuality because it is natural - he is making an implicit claim that should new evidence come to light that it is in fact a choice - he will be forced to flip his view (or revise it). I see this train of thought being fairly common in the media. Why is it relevant? I suppose it is a way to make hardliners soften their stance - but is that all there is to it? I know this (or similar topics) are fairly common so I did look through some previous links. Similar topics: This is the closest I could find: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1evipa/i_think_finding_the_cause_of_homosexuality_is_an/ Others: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a29o0/i_think_that_homosexuality_is_a_choice_cmv/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jtmkf/i_reject_the_hardline_view_that_homosexuality_is/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1f865h/i_believe_that_homosexuality_isnt_something/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1juusw/i_think_homosexuality_should_be_treated_as_a/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gie0q/i_believe_homosexuality_is_not_a_choice_cmv/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ecunv/cmv_homosexuality_is_bad_but_not_wrong/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cioun/i_dont_believe_that_any_nonheterosexual/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jfx8m/i_dont_believe_anyone_is_born_gay_cmv/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dtkpa/homosexuals_and_transexuals_suffer_from_a_mental/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a46md/i_do_not_think_homosexuality_is_genetic_cmv/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1g909z/i_believe_that_homosexuality_plays_no_role_in_the/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a2d6t/as_a_mod_of_this_here_subreddit_my_preference_is/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ij5oo/cmv_i_believe_sexual_orientation_is_a_choice/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dts1m/i_believe_that_homosexuality_is_technically_an/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1h3j91/i_believe_that_if_therapy_does_not_work_for/

The "born this way" defense of homosexuality is not a good defense for practicing it. CMV. I saw this clip today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzV1r5SCc8U And was wondering why the fact that people don't choose to be gay (whether or not this is true is another debate entirely) has anything to do with whether we should be accepting of the behaviour. Many paedophiles claim to be "born this way", but we aren't accepting of their behaviour. Now I'm not implying paedophilia and homosexuality are the same. But the reason we should be accepting of homosexuality is that it is a form of sexual expression that involves two consenting parties. Why is how "natural" it is relevant to the debate? Now - when the PM of Australia says that he is accepting of homosexuality because it is natural - he is making an implicit claim that should new evidence come to light that it is in fact a choice - he will be forced to flip his view (or revise it). I see this train of thought being fairly common in the media. Why is it relevant? I suppose it is a way to make hardliners soften their stance - but is that all there is to it? I know this (or similar topics) are fairly common so I did look through some previous links. Similar topics: This is the closest I could find: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1evipa/i_think_finding_the_cause_of_homosexuality_is_an/ Others: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a29o0/i_think_that_homosexuality_is_a_choice_cmv/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jtmkf/i_reject_the_hardline_view_that_homosexuality_is/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1f865h/i_believe_that_homosexuality_isnt_something/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1juusw/i_think_homosexuality_should_be_treated_as_a/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gie0q/i_believe_homosexuality_is_not_a_choice_cmv/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ecunv/cmv_homosexuality_is_bad_but_not_wrong/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cioun/i_dont_believe_that_any_nonheterosexual/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jfx8m/i_dont_believe_anyone_is_born_gay_cmv/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dtkpa/homosexuals_and_transexuals_suffer_from_a_mental/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a46md/i_do_not_think_homosexuality_is_genetic_cmv/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1g909z/i_believe_that_homosexuality_plays_no_role_in_the/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1a2d6t/as_a_mod_of_this_here_subreddit_my_preference_is/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ij5oo/cmv_i_believe_sexual_orientation_is_a_choice/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dts1m/i_believe_that_homosexuality_is_technically_an/ http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1h3j91/i_believe_that_if_therapy_does_not_work_for/

t3_28pa7i

CMV: The stereotypical male response to addressing everyday problems (solve rationally) is objectively better than the stereotypical female response (share emotions)

I'm about to make generalizations, and I usually hate generalizing, but I'm specifically talking about the general cases here. Stereotypes are obviously never true for everyone, but they are often based on real trends and I think this is one of those times. I think it's a pretty universally accepted stereotype that men try to work through problems logically and solve them, whereas women prefer to address and share their emotional responses to problems. The epitome of relationship troubles: Girl is upset about something, wants to share and work through feelings, guy wants to solve the underlying problem and move on, girl gets frustrated by the analytical approach guy is taking to this emotional topic and little expression of sympathy, guy gets frustrated by his efforts to solve the problem backfiring, fight ensues. The point of my CMV is that as (you guessed it) a guy, I feel like this is not simply a case of different styles or personality trends which suggest neither one is better than the other, just different. I believe the typical male approach is objectively superior because by addressing the underlying issue, the source of the negative emotions is eliminated. With the female response, even if things are mended in the short-term, they rarely are in the long-term, and a relapse into negative emotion is likely. In addition, I tend to notice the stereotypical male responses in 'good life advice' and the stereotypical female responses in 'behaviour to avoid'. I feel like a lame sexist writing this, but I'm not. I wonder if this view is linked to patriarchal culture in some way.. Please CMV Edit: I can't hand out deltas to everyone who's brought it up (or maybe I can?), but consider my view changed on the basis that the two approaches are complementary. A rational approach and an emotional approach both bring something valuable to the table.

CMV: The stereotypical male response to addressing everyday problems (solve rationally) is objectively better than the stereotypical female response (share emotions). I'm about to make generalizations, and I usually hate generalizing, but I'm specifically talking about the general cases here. Stereotypes are obviously never true for everyone, but they are often based on real trends and I think this is one of those times. I think it's a pretty universally accepted stereotype that men try to work through problems logically and solve them, whereas women prefer to address and share their emotional responses to problems. The epitome of relationship troubles: Girl is upset about something, wants to share and work through feelings, guy wants to solve the underlying problem and move on, girl gets frustrated by the analytical approach guy is taking to this emotional topic and little expression of sympathy, guy gets frustrated by his efforts to solve the problem backfiring, fight ensues. The point of my CMV is that as (you guessed it) a guy, I feel like this is not simply a case of different styles or personality trends which suggest neither one is better than the other, just different. I believe the typical male approach is objectively superior because by addressing the underlying issue, the source of the negative emotions is eliminated. With the female response, even if things are mended in the short-term, they rarely are in the long-term, and a relapse into negative emotion is likely. In addition, I tend to notice the stereotypical male responses in 'good life advice' and the stereotypical female responses in 'behaviour to avoid'. I feel like a lame sexist writing this, but I'm not. I wonder if this view is linked to patriarchal culture in some way.. Please CMV Edit: I can't hand out deltas to everyone who's brought it up (or maybe I can?), but consider my view changed on the basis that the two approaches are complementary. A rational approach and an emotional approach both bring something valuable to the table.

t3_1p5ql1

I believe dating, and most related activities/things, is useless and mostly damaging to oneself. CMV

I have come to the conclusion that dating is useless. It robs time from more important things, such as work (for example), or study, and is mostly something that poses an obstacle to yourself, rather than helping you achieving things easily or giving you some kind of benefit. I also believe that sex is a mostly useless activity, since, while it has a few health benefits, and such, I feel that the cost involved searching for an available partner overshadows any gains from it. Plus it is not really interesting, or pleasurable, and masturbation is pretty much equally as good. Obviously, I believe that romantic relationships are therefore superfluous as well. CMV

I believe dating, and most related activities/things, is useless and mostly damaging to oneself. CMV. I have come to the conclusion that dating is useless. It robs time from more important things, such as work (for example), or study, and is mostly something that poses an obstacle to yourself, rather than helping you achieving things easily or giving you some kind of benefit. I also believe that sex is a mostly useless activity, since, while it has a few health benefits, and such, I feel that the cost involved searching for an available partner overshadows any gains from it. Plus it is not really interesting, or pleasurable, and masturbation is pretty much equally as good. Obviously, I believe that romantic relationships are therefore superfluous as well. CMV

t3_323cem

CMV: I have always been near the top of my class, am well-educated, and scored well on all standardized tests. My opinion matters more than the average person. (Not a troll)

I feel like an asshole writing this, but it is something that I'm starting to believe. Honestly, I don't like it about myself. It's also the reason why I'm using a throwaway account. I don't want anyone to actually know I think this. So, I've always scored near the top in every standardized test I've taken. I took the MCAT and scored in the 100th percentile (seriously, I didn't even know that was a thing) on the reading section. I was accepted into medical school, but I decided to get a PhD in statistics instead. I read the news for about an hour a day every day. I hardly watch any television, and I instead read novels and non-fiction on various topics. Before I make a decision about something, I always make sure I've researched the topic extensively. Now, I look at the average person. Look at any opinion poll, and it is just maddening. 42% of Americans don't believe in evolution by natural selection, which is science that was settles 150 years ago. Around half of Americans don't believe in climate change (as if they know enough about climate change to even have the right to an opinion). One in four Americans thinks the sun orbits the Earth. Anyway, I look at these numbers, and I realize I'm starting to think very little of anyone else's opinion. If you tell me something, I now think about how you are very likely to be one of the many people whose opinion I should never consider, because you do or don't believe some stupid shit. I think I'm developing a superiority complex, and it worries me. Yet, I look at what I've accomplished academically my whole life compared to the average American, and I can't help but think there is support for the idea that I really do just know more and am smarter than most people. (It felt horrible just writing that, btw.) At the same time, I think experience is more important than anything. But, when everyday political topics come up (as they so often do), I can't help but think my opinion matters more than almost anyone else's opinion. I'd love to not think this anymore. Please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I have always been near the top of my class, am well-educated, and scored well on all standardized tests. My opinion matters more than the average person. (Not a troll). I feel like an asshole writing this, but it is something that I'm starting to believe. Honestly, I don't like it about myself. It's also the reason why I'm using a throwaway account. I don't want anyone to actually know I think this. So, I've always scored near the top in every standardized test I've taken. I took the MCAT and scored in the 100th percentile (seriously, I didn't even know that was a thing) on the reading section. I was accepted into medical school, but I decided to get a PhD in statistics instead. I read the news for about an hour a day every day. I hardly watch any television, and I instead read novels and non-fiction on various topics. Before I make a decision about something, I always make sure I've researched the topic extensively. Now, I look at the average person. Look at any opinion poll, and it is just maddening. 42% of Americans don't believe in evolution by natural selection, which is science that was settles 150 years ago. Around half of Americans don't believe in climate change (as if they know enough about climate change to even have the right to an opinion). One in four Americans thinks the sun orbits the Earth. Anyway, I look at these numbers, and I realize I'm starting to think very little of anyone else's opinion. If you tell me something, I now think about how you are very likely to be one of the many people whose opinion I should never consider, because you do or don't believe some stupid shit. I think I'm developing a superiority complex, and it worries me. Yet, I look at what I've accomplished academically my whole life compared to the average American, and I can't help but think there is support for the idea that I really do just know more and am smarter than most people. (It felt horrible just writing that, btw.) At the same time, I think experience is more important than anything. But, when everyday political topics come up (as they so often do), I can't help but think my opinion matters more than almost anyone else's opinion. I'd love to not think this anymore. Please CMV.

t3_2c3x5p

CMV: As far as Star wars goes, The clone wars was way worse than the Phantom Menace

I've heard it all; "The kid in the first one couldn't fucking act" or "WHAT IN THE FUCK IS A JAR-JAR BINKS?" Personally, I consider the second to be much worse. The love scenes in the movie literally take up the most the time, and it is perhaps some of the worse acting I've ever seen. The first one had pod racing, an awesome fight between darth maul and the jedi, and Liam Nesson. The second one had the worst love plot to a movie I've ever seen...and practically nothing else. I'm not saying the first one was a good movie, I just dont think it deserves the hate it gets compared to the second. Keep in mind that I'm a younger man, and I didn't have to feel the disappointment of when the first one came out. Go ahead, 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: As far as Star wars goes, The clone wars was way worse than the Phantom Menace. I've heard it all; "The kid in the first one couldn't fucking act" or "WHAT IN THE FUCK IS A JAR-JAR BINKS?" Personally, I consider the second to be much worse. The love scenes in the movie literally take up the most the time, and it is perhaps some of the worse acting I've ever seen. The first one had pod racing, an awesome fight between darth maul and the jedi, and Liam Nesson. The second one had the worst love plot to a movie I've ever seen...and practically nothing else. I'm not saying the first one was a good movie, I just dont think it deserves the hate it gets compared to the second. Keep in mind that I'm a younger man, and I didn't have to feel the disappointment of when the first one came out. Go ahead, change my view

t3_1eaibi

I believe college athletes should NOT be paid. Is their college scholarship not enough payment...? CMV

Why do people believe college athletes on scholarships should be paid when they get to attend a university for free? Universities should not be required to pay their athletes for the revenue they generate. CMV

I believe college athletes should NOT be paid. Is their college scholarship not enough payment...? CMV. Why do people believe college athletes on scholarships should be paid when they get to attend a university for free? Universities should not be required to pay their athletes for the revenue they generate. CMV

t3_3wuvap

CMV: The Night's Watch mutineers are idiots

Obvious GoT spoilers below. This is based off the show only, and assumes that Alliser Thorne and his friends killed Jon Snow "for the Watch" and not for any nefarious reasons. IMO the people killed Jon Snow for bringing over the wildlings are idiots. Without dragonglass or Valyrian steel, the wildlings are sitting ducks for the White Walkers. Leaving them beyond the Wall would massively increase the size of the Night's King's wight army. This would result in more casualties for the Watch and make the Wall much more vulnerable to being breached. The wights and White Walkers are much more powerful and can cause more damage than any wildling army ever will. Alliser Thorne may think he's a better leader than Jon Snow, but he's clearly not. He's an well-meaning asshole who gives in easily to the pressures of leadership, and is often unable to see the big picture. He has an emotional hatred of wildlings that result in him making poor decisions. Thus, IMO, the mutineers are making the wrong decision for the Night's Watch. By removing Jon Snow from power, they are removing someone who recognizes the threat of the White Walkers and understands the usefulness of the being allied with the remaining wildlings. They are possibly replacing him with a poor leader who doesn't understand the complexity of the situation beyond the Wall. _____ > *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 Night's Watch mutineers are idiots. Obvious GoT spoilers below. This is based off the show only, and assumes that Alliser Thorne and his friends killed Jon Snow "for the Watch" and not for any nefarious reasons. IMO the people killed Jon Snow for bringing over the wildlings are idiots. Without dragonglass or Valyrian steel, the wildlings are sitting ducks for the White Walkers. Leaving them beyond the Wall would massively increase the size of the Night's King's wight army. This would result in more casualties for the Watch and make the Wall much more vulnerable to being breached. The wights and White Walkers are much more powerful and can cause more damage than any wildling army ever will. Alliser Thorne may think he's a better leader than Jon Snow, but he's clearly not. He's an well-meaning asshole who gives in easily to the pressures of leadership, and is often unable to see the big picture. He has an emotional hatred of wildlings that result in him making poor decisions. Thus, IMO, the mutineers are making the wrong decision for the Night's Watch. By removing Jon Snow from power, they are removing someone who recognizes the threat of the White Walkers and understands the usefulness of the being allied with the remaining wildlings. They are possibly replacing him with a poor leader who doesn't understand the complexity of the situation beyond the Wall.

t3_1wktfd

I think Social Security is bankrupt and any claims that it is not are based on accounting fiction. CMV

As I understand it, Social Security has a massive trillions of dollars in bonds Trust fund. However, the money that went into this Trust fund was taken out and used to fund expansions in the government. This has left the Trust fund empty, though still technically generating interest on both its supposed total as well as the interest from the "loans" it made to the government. However, since the bonds were technically redeemed already to pay for other things, the Trust fund is actually empty. Therefore, since more money is going out than coming in, Social Security is bankrupt. Furthermore, I fail to see how the government will possible repay the money without raising taxes, borrowing more form another source, or using surpluses from other programs. Since the program is bankrupt, it should be phased out over time for all people under the age (arbitrary) of 45 with reduced benefits to all current recipients.

I think Social Security is bankrupt and any claims that it is not are based on accounting fiction. CMV. As I understand it, Social Security has a massive trillions of dollars in bonds Trust fund. However, the money that went into this Trust fund was taken out and used to fund expansions in the government. This has left the Trust fund empty, though still technically generating interest on both its supposed total as well as the interest from the "loans" it made to the government. However, since the bonds were technically redeemed already to pay for other things, the Trust fund is actually empty. Therefore, since more money is going out than coming in, Social Security is bankrupt. Furthermore, I fail to see how the government will possible repay the money without raising taxes, borrowing more form another source, or using surpluses from other programs. Since the program is bankrupt, it should be phased out over time for all people under the age (arbitrary) of 45 with reduced benefits to all current recipients.

t3_6au9n5

CMV: in order to speak loud one has to use effort, force & power rather than just letting your voice naturally be loud without strain

(My story as a person who stuttered (not necessary to read) : Whatsup guys. My background is I used to be a person who stuttered. I was taught from an early age that from traditional speech pathologists on ways to speak in order to alleviate my stuttering. Because of this I learned a lot of "wrong" speech behaviors and processes but at the time I didn't know I had the wrong idea of how speech occurred. All I knew at the time was that the way how speech happens is the way which I was taugh which was WRONG. Not only till fairy recently I learned about how speech ACTUALLY is supposed to happen naturally. It's been great that i have abondond the wrong things I was taught. My speech has improved quite a lot! I'm very grateful and i almost have a complete understanding of how "natural" speech works. A few wrong things that traditional speech pathologists teach to people who stutter are things like 1. Think before you speak/think of the words. 2. Consciously use your articulator muscles to enunciate each word. Those two things i believed was how speech occurred but I finally found out that speech actually gets produced naturally if I "let go" and let my natural process take control. So instead of thinking of words and preplanning what I'm going to say I instead let my natural process select words for me and also instead of trying to consciously move my mouth and tounge to say a word I just let my mouth move automatically naturally. I have had great improvement :) ! ) Now I'm trying to figure out how intonation (volume) works when it comes to speaking. I have an idea of how intonation works and it just has not proven to "work". My logic is, if I want to speak loud I should use things like force, power, effort to speak loud. But when I try to do this i fail to speak loud. But it seems like the most logical thing to do for me... it is my view. One thing that made me question my idea of how to speak loud though was an experience I had that did not fit my idea of how I understood loud volume to work. One day I was at my local home town visiting and there was this lady who was being obnoxious & disturbing the peace. She was swearing up a storm over something silly, I can't remember what exactly. Well something inside of me "turned on" and I just said from very far away, atleast 15-20 car spaces away for her to "Be Quiet.. " and some other things, I can't remember all of what I said but it put her in check and she shut up. Well that experience blew my mind because when I was "loud" it wasn't a straining yell but it was more just a high volume assertive audible voice.. and it was effortless. I didn't "try" to speak loud or use force or power, instead it just happened with no strain whatsoever and so naturally. I'm so perplexed by it and i want to crack this code. Wrong beliefs about intonation are so drilled into my psyche just like wrong beliefs about speech when I stuttered so to be honest I know it's going to take quite a bit to make me destroy my belief/idea about volume.. so all the help I can get would be so beneficial. Thank you guys!

CMV: in order to speak loud one has to use effort, force & power rather than just letting your voice naturally be loud without strain. (My story as a person who stuttered (not necessary to read) : Whatsup guys. My background is I used to be a person who stuttered. I was taught from an early age that from traditional speech pathologists on ways to speak in order to alleviate my stuttering. Because of this I learned a lot of "wrong" speech behaviors and processes but at the time I didn't know I had the wrong idea of how speech occurred. All I knew at the time was that the way how speech happens is the way which I was taugh which was WRONG. Not only till fairy recently I learned about how speech ACTUALLY is supposed to happen naturally. It's been great that i have abondond the wrong things I was taught. My speech has improved quite a lot! I'm very grateful and i almost have a complete understanding of how "natural" speech works. A few wrong things that traditional speech pathologists teach to people who stutter are things like 1. Think before you speak/think of the words. 2. Consciously use your articulator muscles to enunciate each word. Those two things i believed was how speech occurred but I finally found out that speech actually gets produced naturally if I "let go" and let my natural process take control. So instead of thinking of words and preplanning what I'm going to say I instead let my natural process select words for me and also instead of trying to consciously move my mouth and tounge to say a word I just let my mouth move automatically naturally. I have had great improvement :) ! ) Now I'm trying to figure out how intonation (volume) works when it comes to speaking. I have an idea of how intonation works and it just has not proven to "work". My logic is, if I want to speak loud I should use things like force, power, effort to speak loud. But when I try to do this i fail to speak loud. But it seems like the most logical thing to do for me... it is my view. One thing that made me question my idea of how to speak loud though was an experience I had that did not fit my idea of how I understood loud volume to work. One day I was at my local home town visiting and there was this lady who was being obnoxious & disturbing the peace. She was swearing up a storm over something silly, I can't remember what exactly. Well something inside of me "turned on" and I just said from very far away, atleast 15-20 car spaces away for her to "Be Quiet.. " and some other things, I can't remember all of what I said but it put her in check and she shut up. Well that experience blew my mind because when I was "loud" it wasn't a straining yell but it was more just a high volume assertive audible voice.. and it was effortless. I didn't "try" to speak loud or use force or power, instead it just happened with no strain whatsoever and so naturally. I'm so perplexed by it and i want to crack this code. Wrong beliefs about intonation are so drilled into my psyche just like wrong beliefs about speech when I stuttered so to be honest I know it's going to take quite a bit to make me destroy my belief/idea about volume.. so all the help I can get would be so beneficial. Thank you guys!

t3_2313fl

CMV: Just because homosexuality isn't a conscious choice for many people doesn't mean that it can't be that way for some.

I was trying to be as succinct as possible with the submission title, so I'll try and be clear about my assumptions here to remove any ambiguity: I am no way trying to invalidate anybody's sexuality or to accuse people of representing their sexuality in a false or dishonest way. I've never met an openly gay person and suspected that they were being anything other than their natural, true selves. Some people are born gay--I know that's not a bold statement to make but I just want to be absolutely clear about where I'm coming from with my question. I don't see why people can't consciously decide to be gay at some point in their life and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. CMV. I suppose the main counterargument I'm anticipating is: If someone "chooses" to be gay later in life, that's really just them coming to terms with who they were all along. But there's something about that statement that strikes me as very limiting. As society becomes more progressive, we stop looking at sexuality in terms of binaries and dichotomies and accept that it's a fluid thing that encompasses many different spectrums. So what's problematic about that scope being expanded to conscious choice? **EDIT: I shouldn't have said choice. I know you can't just will yourself a new sexuality or desire on the spot. My confusion here is about this idea that if you naturally develop new feelings/desires/etc. (and I'm not just talking about sexuality here) that they retroactively becomes inherent to you as an individual.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Just because homosexuality isn't a conscious choice for many people doesn't mean that it can't be that way for some. I was trying to be as succinct as possible with the submission title, so I'll try and be clear about my assumptions here to remove any ambiguity: I am no way trying to invalidate anybody's sexuality or to accuse people of representing their sexuality in a false or dishonest way. I've never met an openly gay person and suspected that they were being anything other than their natural, true selves. Some people are born gay--I know that's not a bold statement to make but I just want to be absolutely clear about where I'm coming from with my question. I don't see why people can't consciously decide to be gay at some point in their life and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. CMV. I suppose the main counterargument I'm anticipating is: If someone "chooses" to be gay later in life, that's really just them coming to terms with who they were all along. But there's something about that statement that strikes me as very limiting. As society becomes more progressive, we stop looking at sexuality in terms of binaries and dichotomies and accept that it's a fluid thing that encompasses many different spectrums. So what's problematic about that scope being expanded to conscious choice? **EDIT: I shouldn't have said choice. I know you can't just will yourself a new sexuality or desire on the spot. My confusion here is about this idea that if you naturally develop new feelings/desires/etc. (and I'm not just talking about sexuality here) that they retroactively becomes inherent to you as an individual.**

t3_5zk4re

CMV: Children are never too young for things.

I don't mean this literally, as in I understand that a child is probably not going to understand particle physics, but in terms of what kids should be exposed to. You know, harsh topics and such that we consider to be reserved for mature adults. I think parents that try to censor things for their children are only doing a disservice to their child and they should attempt to make clear what reality is actually like as soon as possible to prepare them for it. Game of Thrones? Let em watch it. Violent Video Games? Whatever. The single biggest and most harmful lie a parent can give to their child is that they will always be there for them and protect them. You can't make that promise, and raising your child as if it is true only does them a disservice in the long run. Now, I don't mean this as in you should let your child fend for himself at all times. I think the role of a parent is to guide and explain thoroughly in order to produce successful offspring. Not to shelter them from "the real world." _____ > *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: Children are never too young for things. I don't mean this literally, as in I understand that a child is probably not going to understand particle physics, but in terms of what kids should be exposed to. You know, harsh topics and such that we consider to be reserved for mature adults. I think parents that try to censor things for their children are only doing a disservice to their child and they should attempt to make clear what reality is actually like as soon as possible to prepare them for it. Game of Thrones? Let em watch it. Violent Video Games? Whatever. The single biggest and most harmful lie a parent can give to their child is that they will always be there for them and protect them. You can't make that promise, and raising your child as if it is true only does them a disservice in the long run. Now, I don't mean this as in you should let your child fend for himself at all times. I think the role of a parent is to guide and explain thoroughly in order to produce successful offspring. Not to shelter them from "the real world."

t3_6afwlq

CMV: Conservative Populism is the political ideology of the next decade.

Historical political ideologies work in cycles. This is mostly a more recent phenomena since before the late 1700's everything was typically a monarchy. During the late 1700's and early 1800's the ideology was liberalism. This all started with the French Revolution and quickly spread to other countries such as the Germans, Italians, and a little bit of the British. This ideology fostered the creation of several other view points such as anarchism, socialism, and even the beginnings of fascism. Several countries adopted a liberal democracy or a more liberal form of their own government so that people would be represented. During the 1900's the beginnings of Communism came about. The idea took Russia by storm and quickly flowed to countries in Asia. In our era, while it may not be brand new form of government, conservative populism is the newest ideology and it is here to stay. It first started with Alabama governor George Wallace. He advocated on the behalf of the "common people" and was able to draw quite a gathering. Since then, the idea has only spread from not only across America, but now into Europe. In Europe some countries are experiencing the rise of populist parties and seeing them start to dominate. This past weekend, while she did not win, Marine Le Pen was able to make quite a statement for many right wing populists. The Netherlands just experienced a vote not too long ago where they encountered the same result. Some countries parliaments are dominated by conservative populists such as Poland's PiS. The reason why so many are drawn to is is that it drops many of the distinctions between people and really tries to focus on a few key elements. They tend to be very nationalistic and anti-immigration. While it may not be pleasant to think about, conservative populism is the next ideology of the future. _____ > *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: Conservative Populism is the political ideology of the next decade. Historical political ideologies work in cycles. This is mostly a more recent phenomena since before the late 1700's everything was typically a monarchy. During the late 1700's and early 1800's the ideology was liberalism. This all started with the French Revolution and quickly spread to other countries such as the Germans, Italians, and a little bit of the British. This ideology fostered the creation of several other view points such as anarchism, socialism, and even the beginnings of fascism. Several countries adopted a liberal democracy or a more liberal form of their own government so that people would be represented. During the 1900's the beginnings of Communism came about. The idea took Russia by storm and quickly flowed to countries in Asia. In our era, while it may not be brand new form of government, conservative populism is the newest ideology and it is here to stay. It first started with Alabama governor George Wallace. He advocated on the behalf of the "common people" and was able to draw quite a gathering. Since then, the idea has only spread from not only across America, but now into Europe. In Europe some countries are experiencing the rise of populist parties and seeing them start to dominate. This past weekend, while she did not win, Marine Le Pen was able to make quite a statement for many right wing populists. The Netherlands just experienced a vote not too long ago where they encountered the same result. Some countries parliaments are dominated by conservative populists such as Poland's PiS. The reason why so many are drawn to is is that it drops many of the distinctions between people and really tries to focus on a few key elements. They tend to be very nationalistic and anti-immigration. While it may not be pleasant to think about, conservative populism is the next ideology of the future.

t3_5hkmih

CMV: The GNU GPL (General Public License) is a horrible idea for code intended to be re-used by other programmers.

After writing [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/5h66n0/when_you_open_source_your_project/db0t8zx?context=2), it would only be appropriate to see the other side of the story. I don't believe /r/programming is the right place for a CMV so here I am. Feel free to crosspost if you want, I don't really mind. Selected snippets from my comment copied (note that this is from a comment response, so "you" may not mean the reader of this CMV post): --- Some types of software should not be public. Think about reddit's vote-fuzzing, anti-cheat technology in video games, internal coorperate firewalls. If you don't want others to re-use your code, what's the point of making it public in the first place? I will not deny GPL is good for applications. If you made an application that wraps together a few other libraries and your application-specific code can't be reused in other contexts, go ahead and GPL it. But using the GPL on libraries - or in general, code that is meant to be re-used - is a failed attempt [..] and has caused more confusion, legal trouble and problems than any other license. --- Here's the workflow for 99% of developers when they find a library that they want to use: - Is it GPL? - No: Use it. - Yes: Is there an alternative library? - No: Reinvent the wheel. Congratulations, instead of saving the world time, you just created more overall technical debt in your language's ecosystem. - Yes: Use that one instead. Now which of the top-level choices (GPL or no GPL) waste more overall time in the world? This doesn't apply for commercial projects either. I'm not even a professional programmer but I won't touch anything GPLd for all my hobby projects because it is such a mess and I'd rather not get my ass sued because some 10 line library I used was GPLd and I should now have to release a few thousand LOC that are completely unrelated to the GPL library.

CMV: The GNU GPL (General Public License) is a horrible idea for code intended to be re-used by other programmers. After writing [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/5h66n0/when_you_open_source_your_project/db0t8zx?context=2), it would only be appropriate to see the other side of the story. I don't believe /r/programming is the right place for a CMV so here I am. Feel free to crosspost if you want, I don't really mind. Selected snippets from my comment copied (note that this is from a comment response, so "you" may not mean the reader of this CMV post): --- Some types of software should not be public. Think about reddit's vote-fuzzing, anti-cheat technology in video games, internal coorperate firewalls. If you don't want others to re-use your code, what's the point of making it public in the first place? I will not deny GPL is good for applications. If you made an application that wraps together a few other libraries and your application-specific code can't be reused in other contexts, go ahead and GPL it. But using the GPL on libraries - or in general, code that is meant to be re-used - is a failed attempt [..] and has caused more confusion, legal trouble and problems than any other license. --- Here's the workflow for 99% of developers when they find a library that they want to use: - Is it GPL? - No: Use it. - Yes: Is there an alternative library? - No: Reinvent the wheel. Congratulations, instead of saving the world time, you just created more overall technical debt in your language's ecosystem. - Yes: Use that one instead. Now which of the top-level choices (GPL or no GPL) waste more overall time in the world? This doesn't apply for commercial projects either. I'm not even a professional programmer but I won't touch anything GPLd for all my hobby projects because it is such a mess and I'd rather not get my ass sued because some 10 line library I used was GPLd and I should now have to release a few thousand LOC that are completely unrelated to the GPL library.

t3_3g3ig4

CMV: I believe that determinism would be more widely accepted if it weren't so misunderstood

The position of determinism as I understand it is that all future events are already predetermined as a consequence of past and present events. For example, you may *perceive* that you choose to decide to do something "random" and take your pants off in public, thus confirming your own free will, but in reality, your actions are a consequence of past and present events e.g. your discomfort with the notion of determinism caused by a lingering religious belief from your childhood due to your parents who were themselves raised in a religious environment, et cetera, et cetera. The point being that even the most complex object we know of, the human brain, can ultimately be reduced to a set of behaviors. And desires, although thought of as arising spontaneously, are actually directly related to past and present experiences and our opinions of said experiences. Our minds are an amalgamation of environment and genetics, which is itself related to the genetics and environment of your ancestors, ad infinitum. In this way, it is theoretically possible that a super-mind with complete knowledge of the past and present world could with certainty predict future events, and from those predictions could predict future future events, meaning that a super-mind that witnessed the beginning of the universe could predict everything that would occur in said universe. Now I finally come to my point, which is that I do not understand what people find objectionable about this concept. It is my opinion that people with a love for liberty and individualism would feel "unoriginal" or "predictable" if determinism were true, but a belief in determinism does not imply either of these things. In fact, a belief in determinism seems to be independent of one's enjoyment of personal agency. Even if your actions can be predicted, that doesn't mean you are no longer in control of them. They are and will always be your actions, your choices. The fact that your decisions are a consequence of your past and present does not take them out of your hands, so to speak. In fact, it's only logical that they would be a result of your past and present. Otherwise, how could they truly be your decisions? Otherwise, anyone could have acted in that way. There are many arguments against determinism as there are against free will, but I only want to tackle the emotional reactions to determinism which I think are inherent to most if not all people. People tend to find determinism uncomfortable. Even those who believe in it sometimes do so with an attitude of resignation, having followed logic to the undesirable end. I want to argue that determinists are no less capable of enjoying and appreciating life as those who believe in free will. 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 believe that determinism would be more widely accepted if it weren't so misunderstood. The position of determinism as I understand it is that all future events are already predetermined as a consequence of past and present events. For example, you may *perceive* that you choose to decide to do something "random" and take your pants off in public, thus confirming your own free will, but in reality, your actions are a consequence of past and present events e.g. your discomfort with the notion of determinism caused by a lingering religious belief from your childhood due to your parents who were themselves raised in a religious environment, et cetera, et cetera. The point being that even the most complex object we know of, the human brain, can ultimately be reduced to a set of behaviors. And desires, although thought of as arising spontaneously, are actually directly related to past and present experiences and our opinions of said experiences. Our minds are an amalgamation of environment and genetics, which is itself related to the genetics and environment of your ancestors, ad infinitum. In this way, it is theoretically possible that a super-mind with complete knowledge of the past and present world could with certainty predict future events, and from those predictions could predict future future events, meaning that a super-mind that witnessed the beginning of the universe could predict everything that would occur in said universe. Now I finally come to my point, which is that I do not understand what people find objectionable about this concept. It is my opinion that people with a love for liberty and individualism would feel "unoriginal" or "predictable" if determinism were true, but a belief in determinism does not imply either of these things. In fact, a belief in determinism seems to be independent of one's enjoyment of personal agency. Even if your actions can be predicted, that doesn't mean you are no longer in control of them. They are and will always be your actions, your choices. The fact that your decisions are a consequence of your past and present does not take them out of your hands, so to speak. In fact, it's only logical that they would be a result of your past and present. Otherwise, how could they truly be your decisions? Otherwise, anyone could have acted in that way. There are many arguments against determinism as there are against free will, but I only want to tackle the emotional reactions to determinism which I think are inherent to most if not all people. People tend to find determinism uncomfortable. Even those who believe in it sometimes do so with an attitude of resignation, having followed logic to the undesirable end. I want to argue that determinists are no less capable of enjoying and appreciating life as those who believe in free will. CMV

t3_1p80md

Having Pokemon in real life would not be a good idea. CMV

So, as I'm sure you could tell from the title, I'm a pretty big Pokemon fan. I've been playing the games ever since I was at least five years old. (I'm sure I wasn't really good at that age, haha.) Although, I recently saw a comic that got me thinking. (I'm sorry for not being able to show it. I tried looking for it but I just couldn't find it.) In the comic, it shows a person in a lab that has just created a Pokemon. I then started to think... 1) If we created Pokemon, they probably would not look exactly like they do in the game/show. They'd most likely look like regular animals but with Pokemon like features. (That's just what I imagine.) 2) They probably would have the same characteristics as an animal. For example, they probably would not be saying "Pikachu!" and such. They'd just make noises. 3) It just wouldn't be the same as it is in the game. If we were to hold Pokemon in Pokeballs and make them fight each other, it would be just like doing the same thing to regular animals. It would be wrong. 4) Animals made in a lab do not live long. (At least that's how it is right now.) So, it would be the same for Pokemon. I just can't see a good reason for creating Pokemon in this world. I don't see any benefit. CMV. Edit: Creating our own would be a bad idea. Having them by nature would be fun. :) I just want to make sure we're clear on that. Also, just have fun with this. It's not too get mad over. Like, seriously...

Having Pokemon in real life would not be a good idea. CMV. So, as I'm sure you could tell from the title, I'm a pretty big Pokemon fan. I've been playing the games ever since I was at least five years old. (I'm sure I wasn't really good at that age, haha.) Although, I recently saw a comic that got me thinking. (I'm sorry for not being able to show it. I tried looking for it but I just couldn't find it.) In the comic, it shows a person in a lab that has just created a Pokemon. I then started to think... 1) If we created Pokemon, they probably would not look exactly like they do in the game/show. They'd most likely look like regular animals but with Pokemon like features. (That's just what I imagine.) 2) They probably would have the same characteristics as an animal. For example, they probably would not be saying "Pikachu!" and such. They'd just make noises. 3) It just wouldn't be the same as it is in the game. If we were to hold Pokemon in Pokeballs and make them fight each other, it would be just like doing the same thing to regular animals. It would be wrong. 4) Animals made in a lab do not live long. (At least that's how it is right now.) So, it would be the same for Pokemon. I just can't see a good reason for creating Pokemon in this world. I don't see any benefit. CMV. Edit: Creating our own would be a bad idea. Having them by nature would be fun. :) I just want to make sure we're clear on that. Also, just have fun with this. It's not too get mad over. Like, seriously...

t3_1olc2c

NSFW: I dont think porn is harmful to self or society. CMV

I hear from different people in real life and the internet, that "porn subconsciously alters your view on sexuality" and that "porn leads to unreal expectations of sexual performance and looks". I totally disagree with those notions. I think people are altered by porn the same way people are altered by watching die hard or the matrix. Its entertainment, not reality. Also i find plenty of people i know in real life hot and they don't have fake boobs, i like many types of boobs. My sexuality isn't altered by what i watch, what i watch is what my sexuality tells me is sexy, nothing is forcing me to watch anything. BTW yes some nutjobs take porn as something real, but i bet some guys tried to steal cars after playing GTA games, idk. I think people who hold these views don't watch porn or they are just too busy being politically correct to see that it has no big impact. EDIT: After reading your responses i have come to a few conclusions. Porn can change habits. Porn has made many fetishes and things like anal more normal in society. This can effect how sex goes in the bedroom. Also it effects you on some level, this is if you have no prior knowledge to how sex works. Although i think informing people and being able to talk openly about sex is more important than say banning porn. This is because porn to many people can be a good thing. I think if we had better and more sex ed classes and had more oppertunites to learn about sex things like porn would be almost no problem. If people cant experience sex sure they will learn it from somewhere. Changed my view: Porn gives unrealistic expectations of self althought not necessarily others. Its way easier to overobsess over your own body. Some men think their penises are too small despite what internet or any authority can tell them, its a mindset that is difficult to erease. No this does not mean porn should be banned or anything like it, but i do view porn a bit differently althought i personally have never struggled with being overobsessive over my body.

NSFW: I dont think porn is harmful to self or society. CMV. I hear from different people in real life and the internet, that "porn subconsciously alters your view on sexuality" and that "porn leads to unreal expectations of sexual performance and looks". I totally disagree with those notions. I think people are altered by porn the same way people are altered by watching die hard or the matrix. Its entertainment, not reality. Also i find plenty of people i know in real life hot and they don't have fake boobs, i like many types of boobs. My sexuality isn't altered by what i watch, what i watch is what my sexuality tells me is sexy, nothing is forcing me to watch anything. BTW yes some nutjobs take porn as something real, but i bet some guys tried to steal cars after playing GTA games, idk. I think people who hold these views don't watch porn or they are just too busy being politically correct to see that it has no big impact. EDIT: After reading your responses i have come to a few conclusions. Porn can change habits. Porn has made many fetishes and things like anal more normal in society. This can effect how sex goes in the bedroom. Also it effects you on some level, this is if you have no prior knowledge to how sex works. Although i think informing people and being able to talk openly about sex is more important than say banning porn. This is because porn to many people can be a good thing. I think if we had better and more sex ed classes and had more oppertunites to learn about sex things like porn would be almost no problem. If people cant experience sex sure they will learn it from somewhere. Changed my view: Porn gives unrealistic expectations of self althought not necessarily others. Its way easier to overobsess over your own body. Some men think their penises are too small despite what internet or any authority can tell them, its a mindset that is difficult to erease. No this does not mean porn should be banned or anything like it, but i do view porn a bit differently althought i personally have never struggled with being overobsessive over my body.

t3_1yq241

I believe that an adult being attracted to a member of the opposite sex that is sexually mature but below the age of 18 is a normal, healthy response and should not be treated as taboo, CMV.

First off, I want to clarify that I do NOT think it should be ok for adults to have sex with 14-15 year olds. That is illegal for a good reason. What I'm saying is that it is physiologically normal for (as an example) a 30 year old man to be sexually attracted to a 15 or 16 year old girl. I believe there are a lot of people who look at younger members of the opposite sex and find themselves attracted to them, but repress those thoughts due to guilt and fear of the social taboo. People reach sexual maturity far below the age of 18, and it is silly to make people believe that it's 'creepy' or 'wrong' for them to find someone aged 17 attractive just because it is illegal to act on that attraction.

I believe that an adult being attracted to a member of the opposite sex that is sexually mature but below the age of 18 is a normal, healthy response and should not be treated as taboo, CMV. First off, I want to clarify that I do NOT think it should be ok for adults to have sex with 14-15 year olds. That is illegal for a good reason. What I'm saying is that it is physiologically normal for (as an example) a 30 year old man to be sexually attracted to a 15 or 16 year old girl. I believe there are a lot of people who look at younger members of the opposite sex and find themselves attracted to them, but repress those thoughts due to guilt and fear of the social taboo. People reach sexual maturity far below the age of 18, and it is silly to make people believe that it's 'creepy' or 'wrong' for them to find someone aged 17 attractive just because it is illegal to act on that attraction.

t3_1s8jb4

DC's New 52 sucks and I hate the direction they've taken certain things. CMV

Honestly, I haven't kept up too much but the stuff i've seen here and there just annoys me. I hate how superman is detached from earth and him being with wonder woman instead of Lois. I hate that Nightwing now looks like Chris O'Donnell in Batman Forever. Cyborg "graduating" from the Titans onto the League is way better than making him a founding member of the League. Having, ANOTHER Robin die seems redundant. I know Comic deaths are common and they happen, but this is the 3rd Robin we've seen die under Bruce. It's getting kind of ridiculous. No Wally West is also a huge bummer. I want to love DC Comics, but I just have a hard time understanding what they're trying to do with their characters.

DC's New 52 sucks and I hate the direction they've taken certain things. CMV. Honestly, I haven't kept up too much but the stuff i've seen here and there just annoys me. I hate how superman is detached from earth and him being with wonder woman instead of Lois. I hate that Nightwing now looks like Chris O'Donnell in Batman Forever. Cyborg "graduating" from the Titans onto the League is way better than making him a founding member of the League. Having, ANOTHER Robin die seems redundant. I know Comic deaths are common and they happen, but this is the 3rd Robin we've seen die under Bruce. It's getting kind of ridiculous. No Wally West is also a huge bummer. I want to love DC Comics, but I just have a hard time understanding what they're trying to do with their characters.

t3_5gpw2l

CMV: Liberals perpetuate more fake news than conservatives but they use half truths and lies by omission rather than just straight up lies

We are getting a lot of news of fake news coming from the conservative side and that influenced the election. But from my experience liberals and progressives perpetuate lies by omission much more than anyone. For example the CNN video of the rioters where the sister of a murdered victim says "stop burning our shit" and that's where the video cuts off. But then thanks to conservative people who dug around we discovered that her full quote added in telling everyone to take the rioting and looting and burning to the suburbs to attack white people. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Liberals perpetuate more fake news than conservatives but they use half truths and lies by omission rather than just straight up lies. We are getting a lot of news of fake news coming from the conservative side and that influenced the election. But from my experience liberals and progressives perpetuate lies by omission much more than anyone. For example the CNN video of the rioters where the sister of a murdered victim says "stop burning our shit" and that's where the video cuts off. But then thanks to conservative people who dug around we discovered that her full quote added in telling everyone to take the rioting and looting and burning to the suburbs to attack white people.

t3_4j7yc1

CMV: Donald Trump should release his tax returns

1) Income: Trump has made the size of his fortune a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, implying that it’s a measure of his success as a businessman. He has also correctly noted that the income shown on his tax returns isn’t a reflection of his total wealth. Even so, income is a basis for assessing some of the foundations of any individual’s wealth -- and would certainly reflect the financial wherewithal of the businesses in which Trump is involved. After Fortune’s Shawn Tully dug into Trump’s financial disclosures with the Federal Election Commission and an accompanying personal balance sheet his campaign released, he noted in March that Trump “appears to have overstated his income, by a lot, which could be the reason he has so far tried to avoid releasing his returns.” Tully said that Trump apparently boosted his income in the documents by conflating his various businesses’ revenue with his personal income. Trump didn’t respond to Tully’s assessment, but he could clear up all of that by releasing his tax returns. 2) Business Activities: Trump has long claimed that his company, the Trump Organization, employs thousands of people. He has also criticized Fortune 500 companies for operating businesses overseas at the expense of jobs for U.S. workers. Trump’s returns would show how active he and his businesses are globally -- and would help substantiate the actual size and scope of his operation. 3) Charitable Giving: Trump has said that he’s a generous benefactor to a variety of causes -- especially war veterans -- even though it’s been hard to find concrete evidence to support the assertion. Other examples of major philanthropic largess from Trump have also been elusive. Trump could release his tax returns and put the matter to rest. 4) Tax Planning: There’s been global attention focused on the issue of how politicians and the wealthy use tax havens and shell companies to possibly hide parts of their fortunes from authorities. If released, Trump’s returns would make clear whether or not he used such vehicles. 5) Transparency and Accountability: Trump is seeking the most powerful office in the world. Some of the potential conflicts of interest or financial pressures that may arise if he reaches the White House would get an early airing in a release of his tax returns. For the last 40 years, presidential candidates have released their returns. Trump, of course, has portrayed himself as the un-candidate, the guy who bucks convention. But disclosing tax returns is a valuable political tradition that’s well worth preserving. Totally agree with the above stated points, all taken from [this article](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-12/time-for-donald-trump-to-release-his-tax-returns) EDIT: Was not originally 500 characters. _____ > *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: Donald Trump should release his tax returns. 1) Income: Trump has made the size of his fortune a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, implying that it’s a measure of his success as a businessman. He has also correctly noted that the income shown on his tax returns isn’t a reflection of his total wealth. Even so, income is a basis for assessing some of the foundations of any individual’s wealth -- and would certainly reflect the financial wherewithal of the businesses in which Trump is involved. After Fortune’s Shawn Tully dug into Trump’s financial disclosures with the Federal Election Commission and an accompanying personal balance sheet his campaign released, he noted in March that Trump “appears to have overstated his income, by a lot, which could be the reason he has so far tried to avoid releasing his returns.” Tully said that Trump apparently boosted his income in the documents by conflating his various businesses’ revenue with his personal income. Trump didn’t respond to Tully’s assessment, but he could clear up all of that by releasing his tax returns. 2) Business Activities: Trump has long claimed that his company, the Trump Organization, employs thousands of people. He has also criticized Fortune 500 companies for operating businesses overseas at the expense of jobs for U.S. workers. Trump’s returns would show how active he and his businesses are globally -- and would help substantiate the actual size and scope of his operation. 3) Charitable Giving: Trump has said that he’s a generous benefactor to a variety of causes -- especially war veterans -- even though it’s been hard to find concrete evidence to support the assertion. Other examples of major philanthropic largess from Trump have also been elusive. Trump could release his tax returns and put the matter to rest. 4) Tax Planning: There’s been global attention focused on the issue of how politicians and the wealthy use tax havens and shell companies to possibly hide parts of their fortunes from authorities. If released, Trump’s returns would make clear whether or not he used such vehicles. 5) Transparency and Accountability: Trump is seeking the most powerful office in the world. Some of the potential conflicts of interest or financial pressures that may arise if he reaches the White House would get an early airing in a release of his tax returns. For the last 40 years, presidential candidates have released their returns. Trump, of course, has portrayed himself as the un-candidate, the guy who bucks convention. But disclosing tax returns is a valuable political tradition that’s well worth preserving. Totally agree with the above stated points, all taken from [this article](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-12/time-for-donald-trump-to-release-his-tax-returns) EDIT: Was not originally 500 characters.

t3_2kfr78

CMV: No speech should be limited ever

I see no reason to limit someone's speech other than a desire to control others. If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre, it is the yelling that needs to be controlled, not the speech. If people trample one another heading for the exits, it is those who do the trampling that are at fault. If someone calls to harm another person or group, that person should be free to do so as long as they don't harm anyone themselves. If someone else causes harm as a result, that is on that person not the person who uttered the words. I am not saying that speech should not have consequences due to social market conditions, but limiting the free flow of ideas no matter how offensive you find them to be is never anybody else's right to impose on another. Please change my view EDIT: Thank you everybody for your comments. I will ponder your responses particularly the ones I did not respond to.

CMV: No speech should be limited ever. I see no reason to limit someone's speech other than a desire to control others. If someone yells fire in a crowded theatre, it is the yelling that needs to be controlled, not the speech. If people trample one another heading for the exits, it is those who do the trampling that are at fault. If someone calls to harm another person or group, that person should be free to do so as long as they don't harm anyone themselves. If someone else causes harm as a result, that is on that person not the person who uttered the words. I am not saying that speech should not have consequences due to social market conditions, but limiting the free flow of ideas no matter how offensive you find them to be is never anybody else's right to impose on another. Please change my view EDIT: Thank you everybody for your comments. I will ponder your responses particularly the ones I did not respond to.

t3_5msdq0

CMV: Life is not about being happy, it's about being logical

Many people have a wrong attitude and think that the purpose of life is happiness. Setting happiness as a goal is very narrow minded in my opinion. Einstein for example strived for logic and was better then everyone else. Also, if your goal is happiness and something happens that makes you sad, you are gonna have a really bad time. In case your existence is driven towards being happy you might get depressed and maybe suicidal if it doesn't work. Logic and the other hand will never let you down and you don't care about your emotion anymore if you are truly logical. An example, you might smoke cigaretts because it makes you happy but if you are logical you don't smoke because it causes cancer. I think that seeing logic as your purpose will benefit you way more because it turns you into a machine that only does logical stuff. All this emotions that people carry around are hindering them doing stuff that actually matters. If we all submit to logic we will be able to cure cancer, stop world hunger, etc. In short, we would live in Utopia. So far no one could change my mind, but I am open to your views. _____ > *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: Life is not about being happy, it's about being logical. Many people have a wrong attitude and think that the purpose of life is happiness. Setting happiness as a goal is very narrow minded in my opinion. Einstein for example strived for logic and was better then everyone else. Also, if your goal is happiness and something happens that makes you sad, you are gonna have a really bad time. In case your existence is driven towards being happy you might get depressed and maybe suicidal if it doesn't work. Logic and the other hand will never let you down and you don't care about your emotion anymore if you are truly logical. An example, you might smoke cigaretts because it makes you happy but if you are logical you don't smoke because it causes cancer. I think that seeing logic as your purpose will benefit you way more because it turns you into a machine that only does logical stuff. All this emotions that people carry around are hindering them doing stuff that actually matters. If we all submit to logic we will be able to cure cancer, stop world hunger, etc. In short, we would live in Utopia. So far no one could change my mind, but I am open to your views.