Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1i9xk2

I believe that taking photographs of strangers in a public place is not immoral. CMV

In the comments section of [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1i972z/the_lady_in_front_of_me_on_the_plane_had_some/) post, I noticed a heavy bias towards the idea that taking pictures of people in a public place is somehow an immoral thing to do. I Don't understand this. As far as I see it, when entering a public place, an individual can be seen by those around them. It is also true that in many public places, you are likely being recorded on CCTV in various points anyway, so objecting to others taking images seems irrational. I should also add that I obviously don't advocate photographing people for criminal means such as blackmail or libel, but in most other cases I see nothing immoral about taking photographs. I am looking forward to learning about the counter arguments, so thank you in advance

I believe that taking photographs of strangers in a public place is not immoral. CMV. In the comments section of [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1i972z/the_lady_in_front_of_me_on_the_plane_had_some/) post, I noticed a heavy bias towards the idea that taking pictures of people in a public place is somehow an immoral thing to do. I Don't understand this. As far as I see it, when entering a public place, an individual can be seen by those around them. It is also true that in many public places, you are likely being recorded on CCTV in various points anyway, so objecting to others taking images seems irrational. I should also add that I obviously don't advocate photographing people for criminal means such as blackmail or libel, but in most other cases I see nothing immoral about taking photographs. I am looking forward to learning about the counter arguments, so thank you in advance

t3_25n339

CMV: I am pro-austerity.

Many western governments have yearly budgets with a big deficit and have no intention of changing that. When they speak of budget cuts, they're talking about reducing the deficit by a percent. That is to say the amount of annual debt increase is slowing down. This especially applies to America with their outrageous amounts of defense and healthcare spending compared to their corporate and personal tax rates. It needs to stop or future generations will be crushed by an unpayable preexisting debt burden. _____ > *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 am pro-austerity. Many western governments have yearly budgets with a big deficit and have no intention of changing that. When they speak of budget cuts, they're talking about reducing the deficit by a percent. That is to say the amount of annual debt increase is slowing down. This especially applies to America with their outrageous amounts of defense and healthcare spending compared to their corporate and personal tax rates. It needs to stop or future generations will be crushed by an unpayable preexisting debt burden.

t3_33tkae

CMV: I think that most of the time bullied kids are to blame themselves

Hello, before I begin to explain my argument and my view I'd like to tell you some things about myself and my experiences in school. During Pre school and middle school I was severely bullied by my almost the whole class, I only had a few friends to hang with. I had a very hard time to realize why I was bullied in the first place. Some of the things the bullying kids did was freezing me out, making fun of me and even hitting me. My mother was very active in trying to make them stop, making my teacher speak in front of the class trying to at least make them stop harass me, but obviously it did not help. When I then later went to high school I sort of got into a group of people that made me change and grow up. And at that time the bullying also stopped. Now when I have grown up and looked back to my behavior I realize that I was a very weird kid, doing lots of weird things. At the moment I have a nice group of around 7 people to hang out with, and I love them. One of them is special in his own way, almost like I was during middle school and pre school. He is also bullied at the moment, when I ask those people why they are being mean to him, they just reply that they think he is very weird and have almost no real good answer to this. My view on bullied kids is that almost all the time the kid that is being bullied is a very weird person in a social way. A better word might be socially incapable. Me myself is a living example, and I have many examples of other people I have seen that have went through the same things I have. Why I went here is because when I start speaking about with people IRL they think I am a horrible person and what I think is morally wrong, and I do not disagree with them. Even if my view is like this I feel that it is kind of morally wrong to think like this, I know there are few examples where people have done nothing wrong and still been bullied, but I feel like the majority of them is like what I have been talking about here. Many might come with the argument that they've been bullied because they are fat, but I've had friends that are close to being obese but still being one of the popular people in school. Computer nerds hanging out with the "cool"(partying) gangs is yet another example. Please r/CMV, change my view. Edit: Many seem to think that I am justifying bullying, and this is completely wrong. I do not agree with buylling as it is absolutely horrible. I am just expressing my thoughts on why it is happening.

CMV: I think that most of the time bullied kids are to blame themselves. Hello, before I begin to explain my argument and my view I'd like to tell you some things about myself and my experiences in school. During Pre school and middle school I was severely bullied by my almost the whole class, I only had a few friends to hang with. I had a very hard time to realize why I was bullied in the first place. Some of the things the bullying kids did was freezing me out, making fun of me and even hitting me. My mother was very active in trying to make them stop, making my teacher speak in front of the class trying to at least make them stop harass me, but obviously it did not help. When I then later went to high school I sort of got into a group of people that made me change and grow up. And at that time the bullying also stopped. Now when I have grown up and looked back to my behavior I realize that I was a very weird kid, doing lots of weird things. At the moment I have a nice group of around 7 people to hang out with, and I love them. One of them is special in his own way, almost like I was during middle school and pre school. He is also bullied at the moment, when I ask those people why they are being mean to him, they just reply that they think he is very weird and have almost no real good answer to this. My view on bullied kids is that almost all the time the kid that is being bullied is a very weird person in a social way. A better word might be socially incapable. Me myself is a living example, and I have many examples of other people I have seen that have went through the same things I have. Why I went here is because when I start speaking about with people IRL they think I am a horrible person and what I think is morally wrong, and I do not disagree with them. Even if my view is like this I feel that it is kind of morally wrong to think like this, I know there are few examples where people have done nothing wrong and still been bullied, but I feel like the majority of them is like what I have been talking about here. Many might come with the argument that they've been bullied because they are fat, but I've had friends that are close to being obese but still being one of the popular people in school. Computer nerds hanging out with the "cool"(partying) gangs is yet another example. Please r/CMV, change my view. Edit: Many seem to think that I am justifying bullying, and this is completely wrong. I do not agree with buylling as it is absolutely horrible. I am just expressing my thoughts on why it is happening.

t3_1orzk0

I believe modern unions do more harm to workers' causes than good, CMV.

I find that the union groups I have come across tend to be self centred and negative on the whole. For instance, the teachers who went on strike because it was suggested they receive a pension not subsidised by everyone else's taxes, like the private sector. These strikes cause disruption and a negative view of the workers "represented" and going without money, the union bosses themselves don't stop being paid during strikes and often reject better initial deals only to agree to a worse one later. In the past, unions did help working hours and pay rates, but I feel like they've reached the same place as some modern feminists. The major issues that defined their beginning no longer exist so they push more extremist views in an attempt stay relevant, alienating people who would have previously supported them. In addition there is often a culture of bullying, with union members deriding those who don't belong for not supporting them, leading to a worse working environment for those who see a more nuanced world or simply can't afford to pay someone to tell them not to work every so often for no benefit.

I believe modern unions do more harm to workers' causes than good, CMV. I find that the union groups I have come across tend to be self centred and negative on the whole. For instance, the teachers who went on strike because it was suggested they receive a pension not subsidised by everyone else's taxes, like the private sector. These strikes cause disruption and a negative view of the workers "represented" and going without money, the union bosses themselves don't stop being paid during strikes and often reject better initial deals only to agree to a worse one later. In the past, unions did help working hours and pay rates, but I feel like they've reached the same place as some modern feminists. The major issues that defined their beginning no longer exist so they push more extremist views in an attempt stay relevant, alienating people who would have previously supported them. In addition there is often a culture of bullying, with union members deriding those who don't belong for not supporting them, leading to a worse working environment for those who see a more nuanced world or simply can't afford to pay someone to tell them not to work every so often for no benefit.

t3_1ger95

I believe the CIA should not try to arm the Syrian rebels. CMV

I think that the Syrian situation is a civil war that is different than what the CIA has dealt with in the past (like the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets). This has become a deadlock of slowly wearing away at the country that can only devolve into more bloodshed. I doubt the CIA will be able to find enough level-headed rebels that don't want to turn Syria into an Islamist-radical state to actually fight against Assad forces. I believe that the CIA and US State Department should team up to find the best way to diplomatically create a compromise that creates a fair government that the rebellion is happy enough with to rebuild the country. But because the CIA is actually going to do this, I'd like to see if any of you have a quality reasoning to support their decision.

I believe the CIA should not try to arm the Syrian rebels. CMV. I think that the Syrian situation is a civil war that is different than what the CIA has dealt with in the past (like the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets). This has become a deadlock of slowly wearing away at the country that can only devolve into more bloodshed. I doubt the CIA will be able to find enough level-headed rebels that don't want to turn Syria into an Islamist-radical state to actually fight against Assad forces. I believe that the CIA and US State Department should team up to find the best way to diplomatically create a compromise that creates a fair government that the rebellion is happy enough with to rebuild the country. But because the CIA is actually going to do this, I'd like to see if any of you have a quality reasoning to support their decision.

t3_6znx91

CMV: the use of the word "Blacks" or "Jews" as a way to describe people of that skin colour/religion is at least reductionist and possibly racist in a dated way. Media outlets should not use this term.

Full disclosure - this is coming from a Canadian. I watch and listen to a fair amount of American media and it is always jarring to hear the way a group of people's race/religion is used to describe them. This can be the stereotypical "blacks" as opposed to black people but I have also heard "Jews" as opposed to Jewish people, etc etc. This seems to reduce the person or group down to a quasi-derogatory slang. It is done for "whites" as well but it feels like that is done to make it acceptable to use the other dated and unnecessary terms. This seems analogous to white people using cracker for themselves so they would be also free to use the N word. I have heard this on both national news (PBS news hour) broadcasts and radio shows(wnyc). This language feels like it dates back to segregation era policies of water fountains, buses and washrooms. I have yet to come across a Canadian who hears this and thinks it is normal language to use. It seems like it would not be meaningfully more difficult to add an actual noun to the sentence instead of using the adjective as the noun. Change my view.

CMV: the use of the word "Blacks" or "Jews" as a way to describe people of that skin colour/religion is at least reductionist and possibly racist in a dated way. Media outlets should not use this term. Full disclosure - this is coming from a Canadian. I watch and listen to a fair amount of American media and it is always jarring to hear the way a group of people's race/religion is used to describe them. This can be the stereotypical "blacks" as opposed to black people but I have also heard "Jews" as opposed to Jewish people, etc etc. This seems to reduce the person or group down to a quasi-derogatory slang. It is done for "whites" as well but it feels like that is done to make it acceptable to use the other dated and unnecessary terms. This seems analogous to white people using cracker for themselves so they would be also free to use the N word. I have heard this on both national news (PBS news hour) broadcasts and radio shows(wnyc). This language feels like it dates back to segregation era policies of water fountains, buses and washrooms. I have yet to come across a Canadian who hears this and thinks it is normal language to use. It seems like it would not be meaningfully more difficult to add an actual noun to the sentence instead of using the adjective as the noun. Change my view.

t3_20ve0h

I think paternity tests should be a culturally standard part of the birth-giving experience. CMV.

I think by having routine paternity tests done at birth, there would be numerous benefits. Before this gets brought up, in my vision of this, the new parents could opt out if they wanted to, but... * Definite proof of genetic history. Suppose certain diseases run through the biological father's side of the family. If the biological father of the child is not the "societal" father, this information might fall through the cracks. * Presumably less difficult/awkward conversations. If the husband/boyfriend/whatever suspects infidelity, or even just wants peace of mind, the issue of trust comes up. With standard paternity tests done at birth, much of this could be avoided, all without having to force a man to accuse his partner of being unfaithful. * Possibly better for relationships. For some men, myself included, I feel I would be able to have a better relationship with the child if I knew without a doubt it was mine. There would never be any nagging questions at the back of my mind. * No man would ever get tricked into paying for a child that wasn't his, unless he explicitly took that risk (by opting out of the test). So reddit, why WOULDN'T this be a good idea? Again, if cost of the procedure is the issue, of course the parents could back out. I am more of the opinion that making this a culturally normal part of the birthing process would be nothing but a good thing. CMV.

I think paternity tests should be a culturally standard part of the birth-giving experience. CMV. I think by having routine paternity tests done at birth, there would be numerous benefits. Before this gets brought up, in my vision of this, the new parents could opt out if they wanted to, but... * Definite proof of genetic history. Suppose certain diseases run through the biological father's side of the family. If the biological father of the child is not the "societal" father, this information might fall through the cracks. * Presumably less difficult/awkward conversations. If the husband/boyfriend/whatever suspects infidelity, or even just wants peace of mind, the issue of trust comes up. With standard paternity tests done at birth, much of this could be avoided, all without having to force a man to accuse his partner of being unfaithful. * Possibly better for relationships. For some men, myself included, I feel I would be able to have a better relationship with the child if I knew without a doubt it was mine. There would never be any nagging questions at the back of my mind. * No man would ever get tricked into paying for a child that wasn't his, unless he explicitly took that risk (by opting out of the test). So reddit, why WOULDN'T this be a good idea? Again, if cost of the procedure is the issue, of course the parents could back out. I am more of the opinion that making this a culturally normal part of the birthing process would be nothing but a good thing. CMV.

t3_2eljsx

CMV: I am only 20, I want to be a father at 22.

Think of all the joys fatherhood brings. Whether it is father daughter dances or little league baseball or just seeing a life you helped mold. Here is the thing, I have some genetic diseases that will more or less makes sure that by 40 I will have back/neck/bone problems and maybe lung problems. Won't change how long I live at least significantly but it will harm my possible quality of life. I want to be an active parent, running, chasing after my kid, helping him or her play sports, I can't do that if I wait too long. So after I get my degree and get my foot in the door of a career, I should have a child. 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 am only 20, I want to be a father at 22. Think of all the joys fatherhood brings. Whether it is father daughter dances or little league baseball or just seeing a life you helped mold. Here is the thing, I have some genetic diseases that will more or less makes sure that by 40 I will have back/neck/bone problems and maybe lung problems. Won't change how long I live at least significantly but it will harm my possible quality of life. I want to be an active parent, running, chasing after my kid, helping him or her play sports, I can't do that if I wait too long. So after I get my degree and get my foot in the door of a career, I should have a child. CMV!

t3_37scpk

CMV: It is much more likely for humans to come into contact with alien robots than sentient organic life-forms.

*“Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.” - Marvin Minsky* So firstly, this stems from a view that if humans are ever to survive into the far future (maybe even only a few millennia), it will be by integrating ourselves with technology and shedding our fragile organic bodies. What is the maximum typical lifespan of a sentient organic species? Humans have gone from the invention of writing to the capability to destroy our entire species in just 5,000 years. On a cosmic timescale, that is an instant. Will the Earth still be inhabitable for us in our current states by the time another instant passes? Luckily, we’ve already started primitively engineering and augmenting ourselves, with genetic modification, prosthetic legs, hearts, ears, etc. The technological advances in just the last 100 years (as well as the damage we’ve done to our planet) has been incredible— what will the next 5,000 bring? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the nearest sentient species developed on a planet 100 lightyears away. (Just FYI, a quick Google/Wolfram Alpha search tells me the fastest human spacecraft now being designed will go 200km/s, which means it would traverse 100ly in 150,000 years.) Let’s say that, just by chance, this alien civilization achieved our current level of technology very near to us in time— only 10 million years ago. Do you think it's likely that if they existed today they would have organic bodies? Even an alien species so incredibly close to us on a cosmic timescale is almost unthinkably distant in the context of our lifespans as individuals and as a civilization. And organic life forms are just not well-suited for interstellar travel. Essentially, I think organic life is a means to bootstrap into existence truly immortal technological ‘life’. This is true on Earth and on every other planet as well. And just by the nature of cosmic timescales, it’s much more likely to come into contact with the next evolutionary stage of an alien species than to be lucky enough to catch it in the minuscule period while it’s still fully organic. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is much more likely for humans to come into contact with alien robots than sentient organic life-forms. *“Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.” - Marvin Minsky* So firstly, this stems from a view that if humans are ever to survive into the far future (maybe even only a few millennia), it will be by integrating ourselves with technology and shedding our fragile organic bodies. What is the maximum typical lifespan of a sentient organic species? Humans have gone from the invention of writing to the capability to destroy our entire species in just 5,000 years. On a cosmic timescale, that is an instant. Will the Earth still be inhabitable for us in our current states by the time another instant passes? Luckily, we’ve already started primitively engineering and augmenting ourselves, with genetic modification, prosthetic legs, hearts, ears, etc. The technological advances in just the last 100 years (as well as the damage we’ve done to our planet) has been incredible— what will the next 5,000 bring? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the nearest sentient species developed on a planet 100 lightyears away. (Just FYI, a quick Google/Wolfram Alpha search tells me the fastest human spacecraft now being designed will go 200km/s, which means it would traverse 100ly in 150,000 years.) Let’s say that, just by chance, this alien civilization achieved our current level of technology very near to us in time— only 10 million years ago. Do you think it's likely that if they existed today they would have organic bodies? Even an alien species so incredibly close to us on a cosmic timescale is almost unthinkably distant in the context of our lifespans as individuals and as a civilization. And organic life forms are just not well-suited for interstellar travel. Essentially, I think organic life is a means to bootstrap into existence truly immortal technological ‘life’. This is true on Earth and on every other planet as well. And just by the nature of cosmic timescales, it’s much more likely to come into contact with the next evolutionary stage of an alien species than to be lucky enough to catch it in the minuscule period while it’s still fully organic. CMV.

t3_22ixt4

CMV: Life is meaningless.

_____ Hello, I am curious to see what you guys have to say. Try as I might I cannot see any meaning behind our insignificant lives. Some may deem people with this belief as depressed, but on the contrary, for me it's quite the liberating conviction. I live everyday free of worry and stress as I am quite aware of the fact that nothing I do really matters as within a few decades (maximum) I will be nothing in this world. Innumerable human beings have searched for meaning behind their lives and I think it absolutely futile, searching for something that never existed to begin with. This conviction has led to my inability to form close relationships and do well in whatever stage of my life I am in and all because my nihilistic views have led to a consistent apathetic state. I don't care if I do well on a test or in a job, I don't care if I build friendships or intimate relationships and all because I see no meaning to any of it. I consider myself fortunate to live with this conviction and to have come across it at such a young age as I am free from the trivialities of this world that seem to enthrall so many others. I am left perpetually content as I just live day by day with no real concerns, appreciating what the Earth has to offer and awaiting my demise. My friends, share with me your opinions and if somehow you have come across what you think brings meaning to your life, please share that too :)

CMV: Life is meaningless. This conviction has led to my inability to form close relationships and do well in whatever stage of my life I am in and all because my nihilistic views have led to a consistent apathetic state. I don't care if I do well on a test or in a job, I don't care if I build friendships or intimate relationships and all because I see no meaning to any of it. I consider myself fortunate to live with this conviction and to have come across it at such a young age as I am free from the trivialities of this world that seem to enthrall so many others. I am left perpetually content as I just live day by day with no real concerns, appreciating what the Earth has to offer and awaiting my demise. My friends, share with me your opinions and if somehow you have come across what you think brings meaning to your life, please share that too :)

t3_5tifeq

CMV: I don't think it's accurate to describe Milo Yiannopoulos as a Nazi

To lay it out up front: I *do* think he's an asshole; I totally respect his legal right to free speech; I *don't* think that that entitles him to any particular platform; I don't give a shit about whether he's allowed to speak on college campuses or not; I don't think he has anything all that original or interesting to say. All of that's irrelevant. The point at hand: I think it's sloppy to call this dude a Nazi, and I think it's bad news to be sloppy on that front--we don't want people getting punched for the wrong reasons here, guys. (For the purpose of this discussion, I'll borrow from [Wikipdia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism): Nazism is "a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism" that "aim[s] to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of 'racial purity.'") To start with, I think part of the reason he's called a Nazi is because of his association with the "Alt Right." It seems to me that there are two distinct definitions of that term out right now: on one hand, you have the troll-y Trumpy memed up cartoon version of basic ass Fox News "conservatism," and then you have your actual hard core white supremacists. Compare [Yiannopoulos's intro to the Alt Right](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/) with the [Daily Stormer's](http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/): there's a lot of overlap, sure, but the acceptance/rejection of racial purity as a central tennet is clearly a point of contention, and Yiannopoulos would seem to be pretty unambiguously on the un-Nazi side of it. By the same token (no pun intended), here he is arguing that "[white nationalism is not the answer](http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/01/26/milo-white-nationalism-is-not-the-answer/)." To signal my own virtues here: Yiannopoulos's flirtation with hard core bigots is pretty fucking weird/trashy/repulsive. But whenever he's been pushed into a yes-Nazi or no-Nazi binary, he's chosen no-Nazi. He's no hero, but he's also not a Nazi on that count. The most direct evidence I've seen of literal Nazi sympathies is [this image](https://i.reddituploads.com/84bf50fe7e9a4f0eb935650bdb0bfafd?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=cd00ce56f32ac6fdfe2196817119b6df). A few things about it: * I can't find a source for those images. * I have no sense of context, e.g. wearing an Iron Cross around town as a witless joke is very different from wearing one to a march. * I think it's weird that the Nazi paraphernalia appears in separate pictures--or, more broadly, I have a blanket mistrust of internet photos as credible sources in and of themselves. * Assuming this can be confirmed to be Yiannopoulos, that still only really makes him as much of a Nazi as [Prince Harry](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/royal_gaffes/harry_nazi.jpg) without additional information. To sum up: the Alt Right umbrella *does* refer to Nazis, but not always, and not (as far as I can tell) in Yiannopoulos's case. His social/political positions are backwards and dumb, but they comport almost entirely with Ann Coulter's rather than Adolph Hitler's. He's just the same old boring neocon nonsense, unworthy Nazi-level scorn or notoriety. _____ > *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 don't think it's accurate to describe Milo Yiannopoulos as a Nazi. To lay it out up front: I *do* think he's an asshole; I totally respect his legal right to free speech; I *don't* think that that entitles him to any particular platform; I don't give a shit about whether he's allowed to speak on college campuses or not; I don't think he has anything all that original or interesting to say. All of that's irrelevant. The point at hand: I think it's sloppy to call this dude a Nazi, and I think it's bad news to be sloppy on that front--we don't want people getting punched for the wrong reasons here, guys. (For the purpose of this discussion, I'll borrow from [Wikipdia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism): Nazism is "a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism" that "aim[s] to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of 'racial purity.'") To start with, I think part of the reason he's called a Nazi is because of his association with the "Alt Right." It seems to me that there are two distinct definitions of that term out right now: on one hand, you have the troll-y Trumpy memed up cartoon version of basic ass Fox News "conservatism," and then you have your actual hard core white supremacists. Compare [Yiannopoulos's intro to the Alt Right](http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/) with the [Daily Stormer's](http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/): there's a lot of overlap, sure, but the acceptance/rejection of racial purity as a central tennet is clearly a point of contention, and Yiannopoulos would seem to be pretty unambiguously on the un-Nazi side of it. By the same token (no pun intended), here he is arguing that "[white nationalism is not the answer](http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/01/26/milo-white-nationalism-is-not-the-answer/)." To signal my own virtues here: Yiannopoulos's flirtation with hard core bigots is pretty fucking weird/trashy/repulsive. But whenever he's been pushed into a yes-Nazi or no-Nazi binary, he's chosen no-Nazi. He's no hero, but he's also not a Nazi on that count. The most direct evidence I've seen of literal Nazi sympathies is [this image](https://i.reddituploads.com/84bf50fe7e9a4f0eb935650bdb0bfafd?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=cd00ce56f32ac6fdfe2196817119b6df). A few things about it: * I can't find a source for those images. * I have no sense of context, e.g. wearing an Iron Cross around town as a witless joke is very different from wearing one to a march. * I think it's weird that the Nazi paraphernalia appears in separate pictures--or, more broadly, I have a blanket mistrust of internet photos as credible sources in and of themselves. * Assuming this can be confirmed to be Yiannopoulos, that still only really makes him as much of a Nazi as [Prince Harry](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/royal_gaffes/harry_nazi.jpg) without additional information. To sum up: the Alt Right umbrella *does* refer to Nazis, but not always, and not (as far as I can tell) in Yiannopoulos's case. His social/political positions are backwards and dumb, but they comport almost entirely with Ann Coulter's rather than Adolph Hitler's. He's just the same old boring neocon nonsense, unworthy Nazi-level scorn or notoriety.

t3_53qjd5

CMV: I think Amy Schumer is funny.

I don't get it. I just don't understand all the hate for her. I don't think she is the funniest of all time, or even in the top 100, but she does make me laugh more often than not. I think her show is pretty good also. I think the last fuckable day sketch was fantastic. I know she had very little to do in that sketch, but I also want to make that point. She got a show on the air, hired a good team, and they crank out some pretty good shit. I know she has writers. The VAST majority of comedians have writers, or at the very least but jokes on occasion. Richard Prior had writers, and collaborators. I also thought Trainwreck was terrible. As a film lover, i put most of that on terrible direction(Sorry Judd). The last joke everyone is talking about at the Emmy's was both poorly written and performed. I don't expect anyone to bat a 1000. Especially if your in the business putting yourself out there and making people laugh. This isn't a question of weather or not she has stolen jokes. My guess is the on some level she has. If it's a writer stealing it, or her. However, not all of her material is stolen. Some of it is unique, and funny. edit: I haven't changed my view that she's funny but... 1. Humor is subjective and it was a poor choice for a topic. I should have said something more along the lines that I feel she gets an unbalanced level of vitriol. 2. I have forgotten about being in the Reddit cloud. I love this group, but it is defiantly the key demographic of people that dislike her. Since Reddit is the only social media I engage, and the only one a visit on a very regular basis, my perspective is skewed. 3. Finally, here's my CMV. I do understand the other side better now. I still believe it is unbalanced, but I understand. As a huge fan of stand up, I was very angry watching all the success and attention that came with the "Redneck Comedy Tour". I couldn't fathom why they were getting so much attention. I believed that their comedy was actually hurting the art of comedy, and dumbing down their audience, instead of challenging them to become a more sophisticated audience. I like to see comedy move forward and push the boundaries, and I believed their efforts were killing that. I can definitely see why people would have an unbalanced level of vitriol, because she's getting an unbalanced level of attention and success. However, I still believe the level to which this goes is unwarranted, and unnecessary. Capitalism usually sorts these things out. But... Adam Sandler keeps making terrible movies, so that's not always true. Thanks Reddit, and a special thanks to Grunt08. I'm out! (mic drop) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think Amy Schumer is funny. I don't get it. I just don't understand all the hate for her. I don't think she is the funniest of all time, or even in the top 100, but she does make me laugh more often than not. I think her show is pretty good also. I think the last fuckable day sketch was fantastic. I know she had very little to do in that sketch, but I also want to make that point. She got a show on the air, hired a good team, and they crank out some pretty good shit. I know she has writers. The VAST majority of comedians have writers, or at the very least but jokes on occasion. Richard Prior had writers, and collaborators. I also thought Trainwreck was terrible. As a film lover, i put most of that on terrible direction(Sorry Judd). The last joke everyone is talking about at the Emmy's was both poorly written and performed. I don't expect anyone to bat a 1000. Especially if your in the business putting yourself out there and making people laugh. This isn't a question of weather or not she has stolen jokes. My guess is the on some level she has. If it's a writer stealing it, or her. However, not all of her material is stolen. Some of it is unique, and funny. edit: I haven't changed my view that she's funny but... 1. Humor is subjective and it was a poor choice for a topic. I should have said something more along the lines that I feel she gets an unbalanced level of vitriol. 2. I have forgotten about being in the Reddit cloud. I love this group, but it is defiantly the key demographic of people that dislike her. Since Reddit is the only social media I engage, and the only one a visit on a very regular basis, my perspective is skewed. 3. Finally, here's my CMV. I do understand the other side better now. I still believe it is unbalanced, but I understand. As a huge fan of stand up, I was very angry watching all the success and attention that came with the "Redneck Comedy Tour". I couldn't fathom why they were getting so much attention. I believed that their comedy was actually hurting the art of comedy, and dumbing down their audience, instead of challenging them to become a more sophisticated audience. I like to see comedy move forward and push the boundaries, and I believed their efforts were killing that. I can definitely see why people would have an unbalanced level of vitriol, because she's getting an unbalanced level of attention and success. However, I still believe the level to which this goes is unwarranted, and unnecessary. Capitalism usually sorts these things out. But... Adam Sandler keeps making terrible movies, so that's not always true. Thanks Reddit, and a special thanks to Grunt08. I'm out! (mic drop)

t3_3hbn89

CMV: US citizens under criminal federal investigations should not be allowed to run for public office.

**please note, I've already awarded some deltas, if you want to continue within this cmv;** **I am still of the opinion that a candidate under legitimate investigation would be doing the right thing by stepping down for another member of their political party** US citizens under federal investigation for any sort of criminal offence, should not be allowed to run for public office, until the investigation has concluded, and any possible charges are dismissed. The last thing we need in this country is to elect a criminal to become a Senator, Governor, President, etc. Nothing good could come from a recently elected official being proven guilty of a crime, and any honorable candidate for public office should step down from campaigning until the controversy has settled. I think this is a pretty reasonable CMV, but I am open to having my view changed if anyone can offer a valid explanation as to why, a candidate being investigated for a federal crime, should possibly continue their bid for public office. So reddit, CMV! **edit:** thanks for the great responses guys, my view has been changed insofar that I do not believe an investigation should **prohibit** a bid for public office, however I still believe that a respectable candidate, would step down from running, if they were under legitimate investigations, and It wasn't just a ploy by the opposition. I am still open to having this view changed.

CMV: US citizens under criminal federal investigations should not be allowed to run for public office. **please note, I've already awarded some deltas, if you want to continue within this cmv;** **I am still of the opinion that a candidate under legitimate investigation would be doing the right thing by stepping down for another member of their political party** US citizens under federal investigation for any sort of criminal offence, should not be allowed to run for public office, until the investigation has concluded, and any possible charges are dismissed. The last thing we need in this country is to elect a criminal to become a Senator, Governor, President, etc. Nothing good could come from a recently elected official being proven guilty of a crime, and any honorable candidate for public office should step down from campaigning until the controversy has settled. I think this is a pretty reasonable CMV, but I am open to having my view changed if anyone can offer a valid explanation as to why, a candidate being investigated for a federal crime, should possibly continue their bid for public office. So reddit, CMV! **edit:** thanks for the great responses guys, my view has been changed insofar that I do not believe an investigation should **prohibit** a bid for public office, however I still believe that a respectable candidate, would step down from running, if they were under legitimate investigations, and It wasn't just a ploy by the opposition. I am still open to having this view changed.

t3_1u37q0

If someone is pro-life, it is completely unethical for them to not spend every moment of energy advocating that stance (in countries that are pro-choice). CMV!

Just to clarify here, I am pro-choice, and do not believe that the pro-life stance has any merit. I am merely putting forth my opinion that if one is infact pro-life that anything short of all their energy to stop the pro-choice campaign is unethical. This is speaking only of people who believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, other people with pro-life stances for other reasons (none of which come to mind) I would not consider abhorent for not taking this stance. Many pro-life advocates claim that abortion is equivalent to murder, not just murder, but murder of babies no less. I would hope that if we were actively murdering babies in society, that everyone would do *everything* in their power to stop it. If you view abortion as an equivalent act, how could you possibly live with yourself while doing nothing to change it? Change my view! I'm quite sure there is some stance out there that will be able to.

If someone is pro-life, it is completely unethical for them to not spend every moment of energy advocating that stance (in countries that are pro-choice). CMV!. Just to clarify here, I am pro-choice, and do not believe that the pro-life stance has any merit. I am merely putting forth my opinion that if one is infact pro-life that anything short of all their energy to stop the pro-choice campaign is unethical. This is speaking only of people who believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, other people with pro-life stances for other reasons (none of which come to mind) I would not consider abhorent for not taking this stance. Many pro-life advocates claim that abortion is equivalent to murder, not just murder, but murder of babies no less. I would hope that if we were actively murdering babies in society, that everyone would do *everything* in their power to stop it. If you view abortion as an equivalent act, how could you possibly live with yourself while doing nothing to change it? Change my view! I'm quite sure there is some stance out there that will be able to.

t3_6doiib

CMV: In the US, the groups that are most acceptable to make stereotypes of are now minority groups who are white, such as Italians or Germans.

I thought about this when I saw a subway ad for their new Italian sub. The commercial had what many people probably think are stereotypes, such as the characters have thick Italian accents and they shout at each other on porches. Now these might not seem that extreme, however I think there would be considered very racist if they did this with African-Americans for example, like if they had characters shouting at each other "Hey DaQuan, check out da sandwich". I thought about other things like this, for example it is often fine to jokingly call French people "frog" or "baguette" but probably not okay to call a Mexican person "taco burrito" or something. _____ > *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: In the US, the groups that are most acceptable to make stereotypes of are now minority groups who are white, such as Italians or Germans. I thought about this when I saw a subway ad for their new Italian sub. The commercial had what many people probably think are stereotypes, such as the characters have thick Italian accents and they shout at each other on porches. Now these might not seem that extreme, however I think there would be considered very racist if they did this with African-Americans for example, like if they had characters shouting at each other "Hey DaQuan, check out da sandwich". I thought about other things like this, for example it is often fine to jokingly call French people "frog" or "baguette" but probably not okay to call a Mexican person "taco burrito" or something.

t3_1mutx8

I think all but the more extreme cases of Autism are not in fact an actual disorder: CMV.

Allow me to start this by saying that I do not have an expansive knowledge of autism and therefore do not know all the specifics. I may be misinformed and, if so, tell me and we'll end it there. Okay, this is what knowledge I've gained from knowing several autistic people, that autism is one or more of the following: nervousness and anxiety in public and in large group settings, aggressiveness, hatred of anything out of routine and confusing reality with imaginary worlds. I have seen several people labelled autistic who have one or more of these, and they behave no different to others most of the time. This to me does not warrant a disorder, this warrants calling these people "Aggressive" or "Anxious/nervous" or "fantasists". I have met and known people with anxiety (myself included) who are not autistic and aggressive people who are not autistic. This is why I have trouble believing that autism is a thing. It seems to me more that it is "helicopter parents" finding excuses to their children's otherwise forgivable flaws. Understand that I am only talking about the "mild" cases of autism, the severe ones that mean people can't get out of their routine or they have fits are obviously genuine. Please, if you think I am wrong, CMV.

I think all but the more extreme cases of Autism are not in fact an actual disorder: CMV. Allow me to start this by saying that I do not have an expansive knowledge of autism and therefore do not know all the specifics. I may be misinformed and, if so, tell me and we'll end it there. Okay, this is what knowledge I've gained from knowing several autistic people, that autism is one or more of the following: nervousness and anxiety in public and in large group settings, aggressiveness, hatred of anything out of routine and confusing reality with imaginary worlds. I have seen several people labelled autistic who have one or more of these, and they behave no different to others most of the time. This to me does not warrant a disorder, this warrants calling these people "Aggressive" or "Anxious/nervous" or "fantasists". I have met and known people with anxiety (myself included) who are not autistic and aggressive people who are not autistic. This is why I have trouble believing that autism is a thing. It seems to me more that it is "helicopter parents" finding excuses to their children's otherwise forgivable flaws. Understand that I am only talking about the "mild" cases of autism, the severe ones that mean people can't get out of their routine or they have fits are obviously genuine. Please, if you think I am wrong, CMV.

t3_1frs2d

People who hunt for fun lack empathy CMV

I can understand that some people need to hunt for food and/or need to kill animals which pose a threat to their livelihood but I can't see why a caring/psychologically sound individual would want to. I think that people who hunt for fun clearly lack empathy for animals and that this lack of empathy would cross over for people as well.

People who hunt for fun lack empathy CMV. I can understand that some people need to hunt for food and/or need to kill animals which pose a threat to their livelihood but I can't see why a caring/psychologically sound individual would want to. I think that people who hunt for fun clearly lack empathy for animals and that this lack of empathy would cross over for people as well.

t3_25hn97

CMV: I dont believe that the community is at liberty to define "pornography"

Before anything else, here are defenitions via the oxford dictionary Pornography: "Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." Explicit: "Describing or representing sexual activity in a graphic fashion" I have seen far too many books be challenged or banned because it was "pornographic" when the text is not sexy or titilating - just descriptive [sexually explicit if you will]. Some dont even include real descriptions of sex at all... I cannot find a citation right now [on mobile], but i have heard many people say that pornographic is to be defined by the community Without an understanding of the difference between pornographic and sexually explicit, community members are not at liberty to define either term. TLDR: If the community doesnt know what theyre talking about they shouldnt get to define words with such harsh connotations

CMV: I dont believe that the community is at liberty to define "pornography". Before anything else, here are defenitions via the oxford dictionary Pornography: "Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." Explicit: "Describing or representing sexual activity in a graphic fashion" I have seen far too many books be challenged or banned because it was "pornographic" when the text is not sexy or titilating - just descriptive [sexually explicit if you will]. Some dont even include real descriptions of sex at all... I cannot find a citation right now [on mobile], but i have heard many people say that pornographic is to be defined by the community Without an understanding of the difference between pornographic and sexually explicit, community members are not at liberty to define either term. TLDR: If the community doesnt know what theyre talking about they shouldnt get to define words with such harsh connotations

t3_61hsy5

CMV a society run via a libertarian meritocracy has the same outcome as a strict class (or caste) system.

For the purposes of this question, I define libertarian meritocracy as one where the government has almost 0 effect on day to day life, and people advance in society purely on the strength of their own skill or luck. I believe this has the effect of creating and reinforcing a class system because of the fundamental inequality of birth. A poor person born into this society would have few chances for learning and advancement of their skills, while a rich person would have access to high quality teachers and resources that would help them get ahead. After several generations, you would have rich families far more power and influence than any poor family, and they could easily conspire to keep it that way via nepotism and corruption. Once societal mobility is taken away, there's nothing effectively different about this society and strictly class based society.

CMV a society run via a libertarian meritocracy has the same outcome as a strict class (or caste) system. For the purposes of this question, I define libertarian meritocracy as one where the government has almost 0 effect on day to day life, and people advance in society purely on the strength of their own skill or luck. I believe this has the effect of creating and reinforcing a class system because of the fundamental inequality of birth. A poor person born into this society would have few chances for learning and advancement of their skills, while a rich person would have access to high quality teachers and resources that would help them get ahead. After several generations, you would have rich families far more power and influence than any poor family, and they could easily conspire to keep it that way via nepotism and corruption. Once societal mobility is taken away, there's nothing effectively different about this society and strictly class based society.

t3_1yyu5z

I believe that we need to embrace racism and sexism as a society. CMV.

I'm not trolling! Here's the thing: Racism exists because we are naturally predisposed to prefer things that look more like us. Sexism (patriarchy, whatever you want to call it) exists because of the way males and females evolved. What I believe is that we should embrace (or, if it's easier to swallow: admit) the idea that we are prejudiced and find males to be dominant. THEN we should strive, as cognitive beings, to overcome those prejudices in our own lives. From the standpoint it's harder to judge those we look down on for being intolerant. From that standpoint we are all fighting the same battle and it might make it easier for someone "intolerant" to switch sides. I'm not sure I phrased this very well, but I would really like to see some discussion on this topic, or to be corrected. Either way.

I believe that we need to embrace racism and sexism as a society. CMV. I'm not trolling! Here's the thing: Racism exists because we are naturally predisposed to prefer things that look more like us. Sexism (patriarchy, whatever you want to call it) exists because of the way males and females evolved. What I believe is that we should embrace (or, if it's easier to swallow: admit) the idea that we are prejudiced and find males to be dominant. THEN we should strive, as cognitive beings, to overcome those prejudices in our own lives. From the standpoint it's harder to judge those we look down on for being intolerant. From that standpoint we are all fighting the same battle and it might make it easier for someone "intolerant" to switch sides. I'm not sure I phrased this very well, but I would really like to see some discussion on this topic, or to be corrected. Either way.

t3_25z0nw

CMV: I can't appreciate EDM. CMV!!

My housemate always has at least one earbud listening to it 50% of the day. Making breakfast? EDM. Doing HW? EDM. Relaxing after class? EDM. I can totally understand getting wild to it while drunk at a club but I can't understand how he can enjoy listening to it all the time. (I used to really like dubstep a few years ago. But I got tired of it and it wasn't the right mood for all-day listening.) People who enjoy EDM: what parts of it do you like and listen for? What components of the sound are appealing? How can someone listen to it for extended periods of time? Thanks!! EDIT: disregard title and read body. _____ > *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 can't appreciate EDM. CMV!!. My housemate always has at least one earbud listening to it 50% of the day. Making breakfast? EDM. Doing HW? EDM. Relaxing after class? EDM. I can totally understand getting wild to it while drunk at a club but I can't understand how he can enjoy listening to it all the time. (I used to really like dubstep a few years ago. But I got tired of it and it wasn't the right mood for all-day listening.) People who enjoy EDM: what parts of it do you like and listen for? What components of the sound are appealing? How can someone listen to it for extended periods of time? Thanks!! EDIT: disregard title and read body.

t3_58b9r0

CMV: All whites are racist

This is in direct response to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5857t4/to_be_white_is_to_be_racist_norman_student/ post. I actually really enjoyed the discussion happening and think it's important to question assertions, but I disagree with most responses. In one of my sociology classes we learned distinction between stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination, and different types of racism. Stereotypes would be the typical definition, prejudice is ingrained, maybe subconscious feelings about a race, and discrimination would be actions taken against a person based on their race. Racism is divided into overt, interpersonal, and institutional racism. Overt would be stuff like the KKK, interpersonal would be during everyday interactions, and institutional would be the perpetuation of a system of racial domination in which one race dominates other races. So by that logic, all whites are participating in racial domination because they benefit from the system of institutional racism. I think it's healthy to see both sides, so do you agree or disagree with this position/ these definitions? Edit: I am specifically talking about in the U.S. Also, try not to take this as a personal attack. I just want to have a discussion Edit 2: Congrats reddit, I have reformed my view. I think it's unproductive to use the label racist on most people as that isn't entirely accurate. Instead racist should be reserved for perhaps overtly racist people and institutions. I still think racism is a larger problem in the U.S. and not enough people understand how they benefit from their race. I also still think that by not actively fighting against this system, whites are accepting their dominant position which is detrimental to fixing the problem. But I no longer think that all whites are "racist". Thanks for a fun and enlightening discussion! Edit 3: Also, here's a link that we viewed in class that I thought was a cool perspective that I agree with. https://youtu.be/O1iHmgE0g94

CMV: All whites are racist. This is in direct response to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5857t4/to_be_white_is_to_be_racist_norman_student/ post. I actually really enjoyed the discussion happening and think it's important to question assertions, but I disagree with most responses. In one of my sociology classes we learned distinction between stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination, and different types of racism. Stereotypes would be the typical definition, prejudice is ingrained, maybe subconscious feelings about a race, and discrimination would be actions taken against a person based on their race. Racism is divided into overt, interpersonal, and institutional racism. Overt would be stuff like the KKK, interpersonal would be during everyday interactions, and institutional would be the perpetuation of a system of racial domination in which one race dominates other races. So by that logic, all whites are participating in racial domination because they benefit from the system of institutional racism. I think it's healthy to see both sides, so do you agree or disagree with this position/ these definitions? Edit: I am specifically talking about in the U.S. Also, try not to take this as a personal attack. I just want to have a discussion Edit 2: Congrats reddit, I have reformed my view. I think it's unproductive to use the label racist on most people as that isn't entirely accurate. Instead racist should be reserved for perhaps overtly racist people and institutions. I still think racism is a larger problem in the U.S. and not enough people understand how they benefit from their race. I also still think that by not actively fighting against this system, whites are accepting their dominant position which is detrimental to fixing the problem. But I no longer think that all whites are "racist". Thanks for a fun and enlightening discussion! Edit 3: Also, here's a link that we viewed in class that I thought was a cool perspective that I agree with. https://youtu.be/O1iHmgE0g94

t3_3ifrs6

CMV: I don't think Jesus was an actual, historical person.

Right now there is almost an unanimous consensus among scholars that Jesus was a real human being. They even go as far as comparing the Christ myth theory to the Moon Landing conspiracy theories and Holocaust deniers. I think their confidence is unwarranted and here's why: *We have ZERO evidence of any Christian activity whatsoever before Paul wrote Galatians around 40-60AD, and no conclusively Christian artifacts have been found dating any earlier than 70 AD. Supposedly Jesus was already attracting huge crowds during his lifetime, and Israel has been studied extensively by archaeologists for a long time. You would think we would find some sort of trinket or writing contemporary to his life, but we've found nothing. Israel was already very literate during Christ's time. Despite what people popularly say, we do have much more evidence for Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great than we do for Christ. That's to be expected of course, but considering how popular the Gospels portray Jesus as being and how much of Israel has been dug up, you'd think we'd have SOMETHING from his lifetime attesting to his existence. *The attestations by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are very dubious. Scholars even admit that part of the Testimonium Flavianum was forged. *Paul seems to be writing about a heavenly Jesus, not an earthly one at times in his letters. *The Principle of Embarrassment is a very weak argument. We just don't know enough about the context of that era. *The Gospels are written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. It's possible he also spoke Greek, but you would think the Gospels would have been written in Aramaic originally if they were genuine accounts of Jesus's life. *The Gospels have huge issues. Aside from the fact that they describe magical happenings, they can't even get things like the year he was born right. One gospel suggests that Jesus was born around 5 BC, another suggests 6 AD. Since it's obvious the magical parts didn't happen, is it really that radical to come to the conclusion the whole story is a work of fiction? I think what happened is there was a preacher in Israel (who was maybe named Yeshua) at the time who claimed to be God and tried to overthrow the Roman client state with his followers and was executed for it. His followers, mostly poor illiterates, started telling tall tales about things he supposedly did while he was alive. Eventually decades later, some literate Greek believers, most likely in Anatolia wrote made-up biographies of this preacher's life and tacked on moral sayings they attributed to him. Some of these stories became very popular to the extent that people were willing to die for their faith. In other words, there may have been a person who Jesus was very loosely based on, but the Jesus that Christians worship is essentially a character from political fanfiction. Either that or entirely made up. Can anyone point me to some evidence that proves Jesus was in fact a real man, who was born under Herod, performed miracles in front of masses of crowds, and went fishing with his buddies in the freshwater Sea of Galilee, only to be killed for it? I'm not looking at this from a snarky anti-theist view, though I do happen to be an atheist. I just don't think the evidence is compelling or very convincing. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think Jesus was an actual, historical person. Right now there is almost an unanimous consensus among scholars that Jesus was a real human being. They even go as far as comparing the Christ myth theory to the Moon Landing conspiracy theories and Holocaust deniers. I think their confidence is unwarranted and here's why: *We have ZERO evidence of any Christian activity whatsoever before Paul wrote Galatians around 40-60AD, and no conclusively Christian artifacts have been found dating any earlier than 70 AD. Supposedly Jesus was already attracting huge crowds during his lifetime, and Israel has been studied extensively by archaeologists for a long time. You would think we would find some sort of trinket or writing contemporary to his life, but we've found nothing. Israel was already very literate during Christ's time. Despite what people popularly say, we do have much more evidence for Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great than we do for Christ. That's to be expected of course, but considering how popular the Gospels portray Jesus as being and how much of Israel has been dug up, you'd think we'd have SOMETHING from his lifetime attesting to his existence. *The attestations by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius are very dubious. Scholars even admit that part of the Testimonium Flavianum was forged. *Paul seems to be writing about a heavenly Jesus, not an earthly one at times in his letters. *The Principle of Embarrassment is a very weak argument. We just don't know enough about the context of that era. *The Gospels are written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. It's possible he also spoke Greek, but you would think the Gospels would have been written in Aramaic originally if they were genuine accounts of Jesus's life. *The Gospels have huge issues. Aside from the fact that they describe magical happenings, they can't even get things like the year he was born right. One gospel suggests that Jesus was born around 5 BC, another suggests 6 AD. Since it's obvious the magical parts didn't happen, is it really that radical to come to the conclusion the whole story is a work of fiction? I think what happened is there was a preacher in Israel (who was maybe named Yeshua) at the time who claimed to be God and tried to overthrow the Roman client state with his followers and was executed for it. His followers, mostly poor illiterates, started telling tall tales about things he supposedly did while he was alive. Eventually decades later, some literate Greek believers, most likely in Anatolia wrote made-up biographies of this preacher's life and tacked on moral sayings they attributed to him. Some of these stories became very popular to the extent that people were willing to die for their faith. In other words, there may have been a person who Jesus was very loosely based on, but the Jesus that Christians worship is essentially a character from political fanfiction. Either that or entirely made up. Can anyone point me to some evidence that proves Jesus was in fact a real man, who was born under Herod, performed miracles in front of masses of crowds, and went fishing with his buddies in the freshwater Sea of Galilee, only to be killed for it? I'm not looking at this from a snarky anti-theist view, though I do happen to be an atheist. I just don't think the evidence is compelling or very convincing.

t3_2c9qlj

CMV: I think high-school is pointless and stupid.

Hello, I think high-school is pointless and stupid. There are so many classes that waste my (and other students) time. For example, I'm planning on majoring in molecular biology. Why should 4 hours of my week be wasted studying La Belle Dame sans Merci? Wouldn't it be better if that time was utilized for learning how to write scientific papers instead of determining whether pacing steed means a horse or a dick? Another example would be "second language" classes. Why do I need to learn how to ask for coffee in French? I 9/10 people learn near to nothing in second language classes so why aren't they optional? My school wastes 6 hours a week on "career planning" classes, why can't people who know what they want to do skip that class and take more advanced calculus; a class that is actually useful? Wouldn't the world be a better place if college was 8 years and people went straight to that after middle school? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think high-school is pointless and stupid. Hello, I think high-school is pointless and stupid. There are so many classes that waste my (and other students) time. For example, I'm planning on majoring in molecular biology. Why should 4 hours of my week be wasted studying La Belle Dame sans Merci? Wouldn't it be better if that time was utilized for learning how to write scientific papers instead of determining whether pacing steed means a horse or a dick? Another example would be "second language" classes. Why do I need to learn how to ask for coffee in French? I 9/10 people learn near to nothing in second language classes so why aren't they optional? My school wastes 6 hours a week on "career planning" classes, why can't people who know what they want to do skip that class and take more advanced calculus; a class that is actually useful? Wouldn't the world be a better place if college was 8 years and people went straight to that after middle school?

t3_1l10t0

I believe boycotting places (like Chick-fil-A) is just advocating more hate and solving nothing. CMV.

I am a full supporter of the LGBT community. I think everyone is entitled to love who they want, everyone is entitled to label themselves as they like. To add a more personal level, I myself identify as male and am attracted to males (Everything from this point on will be about Chick-fil-A, since that's where this stems from). I still love Chick-fil-A. They make the best chicken I've ever tasted, and I hate seeing the looks on some of my friend's faces when I say I want to eat there. Anyways, I think it's ridiculous to refuse to give business to someone based on their moral views, unless they were to do the same. Chick-fil-A doesn't have a sign over their door saying "NO FAGGOTS", does it? They serve everyone food, so why do people insist on feeling righteous for boycotting a food chain? Even more so, why do people have the right to tell ME I shouldn't eat there just because of my preference?

I believe boycotting places (like Chick-fil-A) is just advocating more hate and solving nothing. CMV. I am a full supporter of the LGBT community. I think everyone is entitled to love who they want, everyone is entitled to label themselves as they like. To add a more personal level, I myself identify as male and am attracted to males (Everything from this point on will be about Chick-fil-A, since that's where this stems from). I still love Chick-fil-A. They make the best chicken I've ever tasted, and I hate seeing the looks on some of my friend's faces when I say I want to eat there. Anyways, I think it's ridiculous to refuse to give business to someone based on their moral views, unless they were to do the same. Chick-fil-A doesn't have a sign over their door saying "NO FAGGOTS", does it? They serve everyone food, so why do people insist on feeling righteous for boycotting a food chain? Even more so, why do people have the right to tell ME I shouldn't eat there just because of my preference?

t3_3rq227

CMV: Kids shouldn't be paid to do chores

When I was growing up, my brother and I were expected to do our chores without being paid for them; the idea being that living in the house and being part of the family included certain responsibilities, like helping with cleaning, cooking, laundry, yard work, etc. However, most of my friends were paid for the chores they did. My parents felt strongly that paying kids to do chores sets them up to expect some kind of reward for doing chores later in life, when they are living alone or with their own families, instead of teaching them that chores should be done by everyone simply as part of living together. I agree with my parents, and don't think that parents should pay their kids to do chores like dishes, cleaning, laundry, cooking, yard work, etc. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Kids shouldn't be paid to do chores. When I was growing up, my brother and I were expected to do our chores without being paid for them; the idea being that living in the house and being part of the family included certain responsibilities, like helping with cleaning, cooking, laundry, yard work, etc. However, most of my friends were paid for the chores they did. My parents felt strongly that paying kids to do chores sets them up to expect some kind of reward for doing chores later in life, when they are living alone or with their own families, instead of teaching them that chores should be done by everyone simply as part of living together. I agree with my parents, and don't think that parents should pay their kids to do chores like dishes, cleaning, laundry, cooking, yard work, etc.

t3_4k0o79

CMV:The world is too crowded/populous for a majority of earth's inhabitants to live a healthy and happy life

My uncle constantly talks about global warming and how the earth is too populous for it to sustain itself. As we approach eight billion, there are too many people to eat healthy (organic) and live a happy life. While certainly there have been 'improvements' in nutrition that allow more people to eat, these haven't seemed to work out too well in the long haul (i.e. trans fats being used to prolong shelf life of food--horrible for health). Is there any reason to think that seven billion human beings is sustainable and we should be less pessimistic? _____ > *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 world is too crowded/populous for a majority of earth's inhabitants to live a healthy and happy life. My uncle constantly talks about global warming and how the earth is too populous for it to sustain itself. As we approach eight billion, there are too many people to eat healthy (organic) and live a happy life. While certainly there have been 'improvements' in nutrition that allow more people to eat, these haven't seemed to work out too well in the long haul (i.e. trans fats being used to prolong shelf life of food--horrible for health). Is there any reason to think that seven billion human beings is sustainable and we should be less pessimistic?

t3_3jvfv3

CMV: The Death Penalty should be made illegal, but Suicide should be made legal.

The death penalty simply is not economically, socially or rationally viable with the way court systems and the rest of society work today. Even if there is ample evidence, with multiple convictions, including the killing of guards, other prison workers or other prisoners, can be dragged out for decades and cost society millions more than simply keeping that person incarcerated for the decades they’re likely to live. The social and rational costs are also high, with people being relatively mum on wanting to call ourselves civilized while still allowing the death penalty. Why is this related to suicide exactly? Because I believe it should be within a prisoner’s right, as well as the medically ill or physically and mentally disabled, to choose to end their life with a modicum of dignity. No one should be forced to live in a prison for many decades, as the Boston Bomber will do even if he eventually gets the death penalty, with no real ability to escape their self-imposed imprisonment. We are already condemning them to die within the walls of a prison, why not just allow them to choose, as other humans should be able to, when their life inside ends? Note here, I’m more specifically talking about the more serious felonies and people who are stuck in prison for the rest of their life, as well as other serial rapists, murderers, child abusers and their ilk. On a related point, as my grandfather was able to do with his terminal cancer that he fought through for a few years in his old age, people with terminal or severe physical or mental deficiency should be allowed to choose to end their own life. I’m not saying, as with the prisoners, that this should be imposed on them or that everyone should necessarily allowed to do it, as many people might choose this when there is much help that can be offered to change their views. But my grandfather was simply going to die with multi-system cancer that was not abated by the medical technology that was around at that time, and choosing to plan his own funeral and estate before he died, instead of staying in immense pain for another few weeks to maybe a year, is a right all people should have, not something that is shamed and made illegal for whatever reasons we still make it illegal. Much of this stems from what I believe I would like to do, and if I were ever a prisoner, I’d like that dignity, as well as if and when I’m old enough and sick enough, even with the technology that will invariably allow us first world people to live well past 100, to end my life in the same dignity. _____ > *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 Death Penalty should be made illegal, but Suicide should be made legal. The death penalty simply is not economically, socially or rationally viable with the way court systems and the rest of society work today. Even if there is ample evidence, with multiple convictions, including the killing of guards, other prison workers or other prisoners, can be dragged out for decades and cost society millions more than simply keeping that person incarcerated for the decades they’re likely to live. The social and rational costs are also high, with people being relatively mum on wanting to call ourselves civilized while still allowing the death penalty. Why is this related to suicide exactly? Because I believe it should be within a prisoner’s right, as well as the medically ill or physically and mentally disabled, to choose to end their life with a modicum of dignity. No one should be forced to live in a prison for many decades, as the Boston Bomber will do even if he eventually gets the death penalty, with no real ability to escape their self-imposed imprisonment. We are already condemning them to die within the walls of a prison, why not just allow them to choose, as other humans should be able to, when their life inside ends? Note here, I’m more specifically talking about the more serious felonies and people who are stuck in prison for the rest of their life, as well as other serial rapists, murderers, child abusers and their ilk. On a related point, as my grandfather was able to do with his terminal cancer that he fought through for a few years in his old age, people with terminal or severe physical or mental deficiency should be allowed to choose to end their own life. I’m not saying, as with the prisoners, that this should be imposed on them or that everyone should necessarily allowed to do it, as many people might choose this when there is much help that can be offered to change their views. But my grandfather was simply going to die with multi-system cancer that was not abated by the medical technology that was around at that time, and choosing to plan his own funeral and estate before he died, instead of staying in immense pain for another few weeks to maybe a year, is a right all people should have, not something that is shamed and made illegal for whatever reasons we still make it illegal. Much of this stems from what I believe I would like to do, and if I were ever a prisoner, I’d like that dignity, as well as if and when I’m old enough and sick enough, even with the technology that will invariably allow us first world people to live well past 100, to end my life in the same dignity.

t3_1be207

I don't think the repercussions of gun violence are great enough that we should regulate guns. CMV

Gun deaths and injuries just seem like a minor problem. Why try to regulate them when it takes so much effort? There are better things our politicians and law enforcement could be spending their time on, why gun violence? Change my view.

I don't think the repercussions of gun violence are great enough that we should regulate guns. CMV. Gun deaths and injuries just seem like a minor problem. Why try to regulate them when it takes so much effort? There are better things our politicians and law enforcement could be spending their time on, why gun violence? Change my view.

t3_4firew

CMV: The Milgram Experiments have changed how people think and the results do not predict how modern populations would behave.

The Milgram experiments showed that the vast majority of people will follow through with painful, and even lethal punishments when prompted by an authority figure. However, these experiments are now widely taught in the western world. By being confronted by these results, people have changed their automatic reaction and are more likely to refuse to continue even in the face of authority. Because of this, the results of the Milgram Experiment do not accurately predict the response of a modern (Western) population to an authority commanding them to do terrible things to another person. _______ > *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 Milgram Experiments have changed how people think and the results do not predict how modern populations would behave. The Milgram experiments showed that the vast majority of people will follow through with painful, and even lethal punishments when prompted by an authority figure. However, these experiments are now widely taught in the western world. By being confronted by these results, people have changed their automatic reaction and are more likely to refuse to continue even in the face of authority. Because of this, the results of the Milgram Experiment do not accurately predict the response of a modern (Western) population to an authority commanding them to do terrible things to another person. _______ > *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_1q2av0

I believe that capital punishment is a just punishment for people who have committed a murderous crime. CMV

This topic for me has been a debated one when i mention it to people i know. I think for acts such as pre-meditated murder, murdering someone in the heat of another offence such as theft or rape, and murders committed through gang on gang violence and such should be eligible for capital punishment. My reasons for thinking is are because while the offender has ended someones life and hurt many other people in the process, the consequences for their actions is a roof over their head, a meal every day and resources, completely off of society's back. Coming from the UK this might seem a tad strange but when i look at america's system, so much money is funneled into keeping these people alive, when there are honest people at the bottom scraping along. Why should someone who believed they had the right to end someone elses life take priority over a good citizen. One thing i have taken into consideration is the fact of what if they get it wrong, and that 1 wrong sentence is 1 too many. I see that argument and i just see the statistics and, however horrible it may be, i think the pro's out way the con's in that respect.

I believe that capital punishment is a just punishment for people who have committed a murderous crime. CMV. This topic for me has been a debated one when i mention it to people i know. I think for acts such as pre-meditated murder, murdering someone in the heat of another offence such as theft or rape, and murders committed through gang on gang violence and such should be eligible for capital punishment. My reasons for thinking is are because while the offender has ended someones life and hurt many other people in the process, the consequences for their actions is a roof over their head, a meal every day and resources, completely off of society's back. Coming from the UK this might seem a tad strange but when i look at america's system, so much money is funneled into keeping these people alive, when there are honest people at the bottom scraping along. Why should someone who believed they had the right to end someone elses life take priority over a good citizen. One thing i have taken into consideration is the fact of what if they get it wrong, and that 1 wrong sentence is 1 too many. I see that argument and i just see the statistics and, however horrible it may be, i think the pro's out way the con's in that respect.

t3_1voqvt

I believe that affirmative action when applying to college is inherently racist. CMV.

I would argue that any form of favoritism grated to one race over another is racist, regardless of what race receives the advantage. Why not make it so that there is no display of race on a college application? That way, there is no preference given at all. I agree that something should be done to help those unable to go to college, but shouldn't it be done solely on economic class? Why does an impoverished African American receive an advantage over an equally impoverished Caucasian? If it true that there are more blacks living in poverty than whites, wouldn't a system of aid based on economic status help them just as much? EDIT: A few have raised concerns that "racist" may not be the best word. "Racially discriminatory" may be better.

I believe that affirmative action when applying to college is inherently racist. CMV. I would argue that any form of favoritism grated to one race over another is racist, regardless of what race receives the advantage. Why not make it so that there is no display of race on a college application? That way, there is no preference given at all. I agree that something should be done to help those unable to go to college, but shouldn't it be done solely on economic class? Why does an impoverished African American receive an advantage over an equally impoverished Caucasian? If it true that there are more blacks living in poverty than whites, wouldn't a system of aid based on economic status help them just as much? EDIT: A few have raised concerns that "racist" may not be the best word. "Racially discriminatory" may be better.

t3_1x3one

CMV: I think there is a chance Creationism might be true

Essentially, a creationist is making the scientific hypothesis that all we see, observe, experience and study is an elaborate creation by an omnipotent being. What can be done to entirely disprove that theory? If a creationist is supposing that all of the science we have acquired is the work of a grand illusionist, how can we ever prove anything definitively? We can say that apples fall from trees do to gravity, which is due to mass warping space-time but if a creationist theory holds that all of that (apples, trees, mass, gravity, space-time, etc.) is the work of a higher being, how can that be disproven? Thus, I believe that there is still a possibility that Creationism is true. CMV.

CMV: I think there is a chance Creationism might be true. Essentially, a creationist is making the scientific hypothesis that all we see, observe, experience and study is an elaborate creation by an omnipotent being. What can be done to entirely disprove that theory? If a creationist is supposing that all of the science we have acquired is the work of a grand illusionist, how can we ever prove anything definitively? We can say that apples fall from trees do to gravity, which is due to mass warping space-time but if a creationist theory holds that all of that (apples, trees, mass, gravity, space-time, etc.) is the work of a higher being, how can that be disproven? Thus, I believe that there is still a possibility that Creationism is true. CMV.

t3_3mqqfm

CMV: Feminism is better off identifying as 'Women's Advocacy'. 'Equality' is too broad a scope.

It's easy to see that women can get the short end of the stick in our society. Personally, I believe it's crucial that women have a voice for *advocacy*. I can't think of a any group more suited to rally the electorate around reproductive rights than feminists. Similarly, it's also not hard to find plenty of areas in society where men are disadvantaged. Again, who better to *advocate* for fair child custody for men than MRA's? 'Equality' is a vague term once you leave the sphere of mathematics. Men and women aren't numbers. Their strengths, their weakness and the value they provide to society can be highly contextual and vary on an individual basis. The value in question here is subjective. **In short, it's arrogant for any one group to assert that they're an authority on how any demographic deserves to be treated, or not treated and in what context.** Rather, society as a whole should be responsible for carving out the definition of 'equality' through *advocacy* and *compromise*. You can really only trust people to act in their own best interest. Only society as a whole can determine what works best for society as a whole. Unfortunately, the 'equality' narrative from feminists hasn't had the unifying effect one would hope. Instead, for the reasons I listed above, it's perceived as disingenuous. It seems to suggest that the feminist perspective of 'equality' is greater than perspective of the whole. Further more, since the switch to 'equality', the movement has gotten more extreme and more sectarian within itself, while simultaneously hemorrhaging support from would be sympathizers. _____ > *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: Feminism is better off identifying as 'Women's Advocacy'. 'Equality' is too broad a scope. It's easy to see that women can get the short end of the stick in our society. Personally, I believe it's crucial that women have a voice for *advocacy*. I can't think of a any group more suited to rally the electorate around reproductive rights than feminists. Similarly, it's also not hard to find plenty of areas in society where men are disadvantaged. Again, who better to *advocate* for fair child custody for men than MRA's? 'Equality' is a vague term once you leave the sphere of mathematics. Men and women aren't numbers. Their strengths, their weakness and the value they provide to society can be highly contextual and vary on an individual basis. The value in question here is subjective. **In short, it's arrogant for any one group to assert that they're an authority on how any demographic deserves to be treated, or not treated and in what context.** Rather, society as a whole should be responsible for carving out the definition of 'equality' through *advocacy* and *compromise*. You can really only trust people to act in their own best interest. Only society as a whole can determine what works best for society as a whole. Unfortunately, the 'equality' narrative from feminists hasn't had the unifying effect one would hope. Instead, for the reasons I listed above, it's perceived as disingenuous. It seems to suggest that the feminist perspective of 'equality' is greater than perspective of the whole. Further more, since the switch to 'equality', the movement has gotten more extreme and more sectarian within itself, while simultaneously hemorrhaging support from would be sympathizers.

t3_1h79ua

I believe the United States should split up into multiple sovereign nations. CMV

I'm an American and for the longest time solidly believed in not only the conservation of the union, but the addition to it (granting statehood to territories). However, the last eight years have shown me how ineffective a large bureaucracy is and the detriment it causes to the individual states. Let me clarify my stance by reaffirming that I do believe in a strong federal government. I also believe that the federal gov't needs to be fair in its dealings with the states and as the country grows, its becoming increasingly difficult for that to happen. I think that by allowing states to form more local unions (New England, Mid-Atlantic, the South, The Rust Belt, The Sun Belt, Texas, California, The Pac-NW, The Rockies, The Great Plains) and to give those unions complete federal powers, it would be more beneficial to the states. The de-localization of our government as led to increasing dissent between the states and the federal government over policy and procedure, and that is unhealthy in a union such as the US. To me this seems to solve the great divide. It reaffirms the federal goverments position and necessity, while giving the states their power back. There could even be a super-union of these unions if they deem necessary (national defense comes to mind, we exist in NATO and the UN without handing over sovereignty, why can't it work this way with the states). So, please, I invite you to change my view on this. Convince me the union is worth saving.

I believe the United States should split up into multiple sovereign nations. CMV. I'm an American and for the longest time solidly believed in not only the conservation of the union, but the addition to it (granting statehood to territories). However, the last eight years have shown me how ineffective a large bureaucracy is and the detriment it causes to the individual states. Let me clarify my stance by reaffirming that I do believe in a strong federal government. I also believe that the federal gov't needs to be fair in its dealings with the states and as the country grows, its becoming increasingly difficult for that to happen. I think that by allowing states to form more local unions (New England, Mid-Atlantic, the South, The Rust Belt, The Sun Belt, Texas, California, The Pac-NW, The Rockies, The Great Plains) and to give those unions complete federal powers, it would be more beneficial to the states. The de-localization of our government as led to increasing dissent between the states and the federal government over policy and procedure, and that is unhealthy in a union such as the US. To me this seems to solve the great divide. It reaffirms the federal goverments position and necessity, while giving the states their power back. There could even be a super-union of these unions if they deem necessary (national defense comes to mind, we exist in NATO and the UN without handing over sovereignty, why can't it work this way with the states). So, please, I invite you to change my view on this. Convince me the union is worth saving.

t3_28pepv

CMV: Education should be completely privatized

Needless to say, public education as it is is completely unacceptable. With the goals it strives to achieve, the low standards set by districts, the way testing is carried out, the stagnation of how its been done for the past century, the standards set by public schooling would have been deemed sub-par long ago and done away with via parents voting with their wallets. Going by statistics seen [here](http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf), academics wise, private schools score *much* higher than public schools. Even Lutheran, Catholic, and Baptist schools were noted for scoring roughly 9 points higher than public schools. State run schools set low standards to ensure every student in a vast and diverse nation are on the same track doing the same things at the same time, not to mention the bureaucracy and hoops you need to jump through to make any kind of curriculum update. Students and the array of cultures they come from are unique and need class tailored to them, not vice versa.

CMV: Education should be completely privatized. Needless to say, public education as it is is completely unacceptable. With the goals it strives to achieve, the low standards set by districts, the way testing is carried out, the stagnation of how its been done for the past century, the standards set by public schooling would have been deemed sub-par long ago and done away with via parents voting with their wallets. Going by statistics seen [here](http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf), academics wise, private schools score *much* higher than public schools. Even Lutheran, Catholic, and Baptist schools were noted for scoring roughly 9 points higher than public schools. State run schools set low standards to ensure every student in a vast and diverse nation are on the same track doing the same things at the same time, not to mention the bureaucracy and hoops you need to jump through to make any kind of curriculum update. Students and the array of cultures they come from are unique and need class tailored to them, not vice versa.

t3_47efgb

CMV: I like the idea of Universal Basic Income, but I do not believe that it would be sustainable.

A friend of mine recently showed me [BasicIncome](https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome), and I find it intriguing. The benefits look great if a UBI system could replace Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare, but I do not believe that this system could ever exist because the US Federal Budget is not large enough. On Reddit, I have seen people put estimates of the system at ~$15k/citizen/year, but this number doesn't make sense to me. According to the [CBO](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/budgetinfographic.pdf), the total spending of the Federal Government in 2011 was $3.6 trillion. There are over 300 million citizens in the US, and 300 million x $15 thousand = $4.5 trillion. That's a bit more than $3.6 trillion, and I doubt UBI would somehow generate an extra trillion dollars plus the money that goes to non-welfare & non-healthcare programs. What am I missing? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I like the idea of Universal Basic Income, but I do not believe that it would be sustainable. A friend of mine recently showed me [BasicIncome](https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome), and I find it intriguing. The benefits look great if a UBI system could replace Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare, but I do not believe that this system could ever exist because the US Federal Budget is not large enough. On Reddit, I have seen people put estimates of the system at ~$15k/citizen/year, but this number doesn't make sense to me. According to the [CBO](https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/budgetinfographic.pdf), the total spending of the Federal Government in 2011 was $3.6 trillion. There are over 300 million citizens in the US, and 300 million x $15 thousand = $4.5 trillion. That's a bit more than $3.6 trillion, and I doubt UBI would somehow generate an extra trillion dollars plus the money that goes to non-welfare & non-healthcare programs. What am I missing?

t3_3th52c

CMV: I align more with Bernie, but I am voting for Hilary for the nomination because I don't believe Bernie can be elected.

I consider myself somewhat of a democratic socialist, in favor of big government, social welfare, tax reform, income equality, financial regulation, social safety nets, and single payer universal health care. While many democratic candidates subscribe to these viewpoints, we could agree that I align more with Bernie Sanders than with Clinton. But, Bernie Sanders does not appear to me to be a candidate who can win a national election. Disregarding his age, I do not know if he has the name recognition or political acumen to win. He's never served in any other branch of Federal government (while Clinton has been both a representative and a Cabinet member), has only ran in elections in *very* small, homogenous communities (he actually has taken the seat of the same representative, Jim Jeffords, twice) and does not, **purely based on outward appearance** strike me as Presidential. Hilary, on the other hand, either tacitly supports or implicitly supports the majority of these issues. She has a long history of work in both the Executive and Legislative branches of Congress. She has way more foreign policy experience than Sanders. She has a track record of being an unfathomably tough negotiator (and person to be around, supposedly). When she's *on*, she seems composed, confident, and Presidential. Yes, she apparently shared documents on a personal email server (which were unclassified at the time of sending, but reclassified later) and she made a really dumb comment in a debate. But in terms of pure electability, I and most other political minds believe she is more *likely to be President* if she were to win the nomination. Now, none of the things I believe in will happen if Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush were to win the presidency. Is it wrong for me to vote for a candidate that I do not entirely agree with? Or, to put it more obviously, is "the lesser of two evils" a morally defensible argument? _____ > *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 align more with Bernie, but I am voting for Hilary for the nomination because I don't believe Bernie can be elected. I consider myself somewhat of a democratic socialist, in favor of big government, social welfare, tax reform, income equality, financial regulation, social safety nets, and single payer universal health care. While many democratic candidates subscribe to these viewpoints, we could agree that I align more with Bernie Sanders than with Clinton. But, Bernie Sanders does not appear to me to be a candidate who can win a national election. Disregarding his age, I do not know if he has the name recognition or political acumen to win. He's never served in any other branch of Federal government (while Clinton has been both a representative and a Cabinet member), has only ran in elections in *very* small, homogenous communities (he actually has taken the seat of the same representative, Jim Jeffords, twice) and does not, **purely based on outward appearance** strike me as Presidential. Hilary, on the other hand, either tacitly supports or implicitly supports the majority of these issues. She has a long history of work in both the Executive and Legislative branches of Congress. She has way more foreign policy experience than Sanders. She has a track record of being an unfathomably tough negotiator (and person to be around, supposedly). When she's *on*, she seems composed, confident, and Presidential. Yes, she apparently shared documents on a personal email server (which were unclassified at the time of sending, but reclassified later) and she made a really dumb comment in a debate. But in terms of pure electability, I and most other political minds believe she is more *likely to be President* if she were to win the nomination. Now, none of the things I believe in will happen if Ben Carson, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush were to win the presidency. Is it wrong for me to vote for a candidate that I do not entirely agree with? Or, to put it more obviously, is "the lesser of two evils" a morally defensible argument?

t3_6218h5

CMV: Opposition to homosexuality, although wrong, is not necessarily malicious

The moral code held by the majority of society that says happiness is the goal. Most far-right Christians, on the other hand, believe in a moral code where respecting the sacred is the main goal, and I believe that it is this, rather than malice or hatred, that leads them to oppose homosexuality. For instance, the dominant view is that murder is wrong because it causes suffering to fellow human beings. But a fundamentalist Christian might argue that murder is wrong because it destroys something that God values. From their perspective, any other possible reason to be against murder - the suffering of the person being murdered, the person's family's grief, or the fear people would have to live with were murder commonplace or acceptable - are irrelevant. It's reflects the view that you can't have objective morality without God; only God's feelings are presumed to matter. For another, somewhat opposite example, a person who follows the dominant moral code will view it as common sense to support abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, when the fetus is only a clump of cells incapable of thinking or feeling. A far-right Christian might come to a different conclusion, based on the belief that "sanctity" is the only reason not to kill an adult human being, and following that therefore, personal experiences like happiness or suffering shouldn't be a factor. Why should it matter if the fetus is less conscious than the mother? If God values adult humans for mysterious reasons unrelated to their ability to have experiences, then why couldn't he value a clump of cells for the same reasons? You can see the same thinking at play with other issues, like euthanasia and suicide. And of course, you can see it with sexuality. To a far-right Christian, sex is something that we should use to make God happy, not necessarily to increase our own happiness. It's something sacred and utterly uncompromisable, and must be made to seem as special as it possibly can. So naturally, no sex before marriage, and no masturbation. It doesn't seem difficult to me to see how someone could view acceptance of homosexuality as compromising their vision; they believe God created heterosexuality, which would make it "sacred", while homosexuality would be a deviation from what God intended, making sex something less than as sacred as it can be. There's not even any need to find Bible verses supporting this conclusion; it already makes sense within the context of their worldview. It's the same type of thinking we've seen a thousand times, across many different issues, and with many other topics related to sexuality. Yet with homosexuality, suddenly our culture wants us to see things differently, as though opposition to it is more hatefully-driven. Why don't we say that people hate their kids for telling them not to masturbate? Or that that they hate terminally-ill people because they don't support euthanasia? I won't deny that there seems to be a lot of people out there who say hateful things about gays. Yet what it is about the particular topic of homosexuality that would necessarily require someone to be hateful in order to be opposed? I will note that I do think this and other similar ultra-conservative beliefs require a certain lack of empathy. But that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm only trying to say that I don't believe they are hateful at their source. I think they are actually deeply-held religious beliefs which make sense in the context of a worldview where morality is decided by God, rather than what is necessarily healthiest and best for humanity.

CMV: Opposition to homosexuality, although wrong, is not necessarily malicious. The moral code held by the majority of society that says happiness is the goal. Most far-right Christians, on the other hand, believe in a moral code where respecting the sacred is the main goal, and I believe that it is this, rather than malice or hatred, that leads them to oppose homosexuality. For instance, the dominant view is that murder is wrong because it causes suffering to fellow human beings. But a fundamentalist Christian might argue that murder is wrong because it destroys something that God values. From their perspective, any other possible reason to be against murder - the suffering of the person being murdered, the person's family's grief, or the fear people would have to live with were murder commonplace or acceptable - are irrelevant. It's reflects the view that you can't have objective morality without God; only God's feelings are presumed to matter. For another, somewhat opposite example, a person who follows the dominant moral code will view it as common sense to support abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, when the fetus is only a clump of cells incapable of thinking or feeling. A far-right Christian might come to a different conclusion, based on the belief that "sanctity" is the only reason not to kill an adult human being, and following that therefore, personal experiences like happiness or suffering shouldn't be a factor. Why should it matter if the fetus is less conscious than the mother? If God values adult humans for mysterious reasons unrelated to their ability to have experiences, then why couldn't he value a clump of cells for the same reasons? You can see the same thinking at play with other issues, like euthanasia and suicide. And of course, you can see it with sexuality. To a far-right Christian, sex is something that we should use to make God happy, not necessarily to increase our own happiness. It's something sacred and utterly uncompromisable, and must be made to seem as special as it possibly can. So naturally, no sex before marriage, and no masturbation. It doesn't seem difficult to me to see how someone could view acceptance of homosexuality as compromising their vision; they believe God created heterosexuality, which would make it "sacred", while homosexuality would be a deviation from what God intended, making sex something less than as sacred as it can be. There's not even any need to find Bible verses supporting this conclusion; it already makes sense within the context of their worldview. It's the same type of thinking we've seen a thousand times, across many different issues, and with many other topics related to sexuality. Yet with homosexuality, suddenly our culture wants us to see things differently, as though opposition to it is more hatefully-driven. Why don't we say that people hate their kids for telling them not to masturbate? Or that that they hate terminally-ill people because they don't support euthanasia? I won't deny that there seems to be a lot of people out there who say hateful things about gays. Yet what it is about the particular topic of homosexuality that would necessarily require someone to be hateful in order to be opposed? I will note that I do think this and other similar ultra-conservative beliefs require a certain lack of empathy. But that's not what I'm arguing against. I'm only trying to say that I don't believe they are hateful at their source. I think they are actually deeply-held religious beliefs which make sense in the context of a worldview where morality is decided by God, rather than what is necessarily healthiest and best for humanity.

t3_3yommg

CMV: If dogs wore pants, they would wear them on their hind legs only (not on all four).

Currently, this [image](http://imgur.com/JFhw6qz) is making its rounds on the Internet. While some are baffled by this question, I am not. I believe that, if dogs wore pants, they would wear them like the second dog in the picture, over their butt and hind legs. I believe this is the way dogs would wear pants for two reasons. 1) It corresponds to how dogs wear shirts/sweaters. When people currently dress their dogs up, they put them in sweaters or shirts that cover the front half of the dog's body, like [this](http://imgur.com/z1wpZZD). If the dog wore pants with this sweater, they would be worn on the back half of the body (the part not covered by the sweater). 2) It corresponds to how we wear pants. We wear pants on the lower half of our body, covering our butt/groin and our legs (our lower limbs). If dogs wore pants, it seems as though they would also wear them on the lower half of their body, covering their butt and their back legs (their lower limbs). Things that could change my view: Why it would be better for them to wear them like the first dog in the picture. Why wearing them like the second dog would be impractical (the cons of wearing them like the second dog). _____ > *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 dogs wore pants, they would wear them on their hind legs only (not on all four). Currently, this [image](http://imgur.com/JFhw6qz) is making its rounds on the Internet. While some are baffled by this question, I am not. I believe that, if dogs wore pants, they would wear them like the second dog in the picture, over their butt and hind legs. I believe this is the way dogs would wear pants for two reasons. 1) It corresponds to how dogs wear shirts/sweaters. When people currently dress their dogs up, they put them in sweaters or shirts that cover the front half of the dog's body, like [this](http://imgur.com/z1wpZZD). If the dog wore pants with this sweater, they would be worn on the back half of the body (the part not covered by the sweater). 2) It corresponds to how we wear pants. We wear pants on the lower half of our body, covering our butt/groin and our legs (our lower limbs). If dogs wore pants, it seems as though they would also wear them on the lower half of their body, covering their butt and their back legs (their lower limbs). Things that could change my view: Why it would be better for them to wear them like the first dog in the picture. Why wearing them like the second dog would be impractical (the cons of wearing them like the second dog).

t3_2llke1

CMV: I don't think I should care whether or not a DJ is "actually doing anything" on stage.

I see a lot of people complaining about how they don't think DJ's actually do anything on stage and then there are people who come in and explain that they do (some at least). I don't think I should care either way. I feel this way because when I'm going to a club, I'm not going for the same reason I go to see a band play. When I'm seeing a band, I'm going for them and to see them play their songs live. When I'm going to a club, I'm going to dance. Yes, the DJ is there to supply the music but I don't care how he does it because that's not what I'm there to see. If he wants to just hit play and let it go, then that's fine, I have no reason to care. So go ahead, CMV!

CMV: I don't think I should care whether or not a DJ is "actually doing anything" on stage. I see a lot of people complaining about how they don't think DJ's actually do anything on stage and then there are people who come in and explain that they do (some at least). I don't think I should care either way. I feel this way because when I'm going to a club, I'm not going for the same reason I go to see a band play. When I'm seeing a band, I'm going for them and to see them play their songs live. When I'm going to a club, I'm going to dance. Yes, the DJ is there to supply the music but I don't care how he does it because that's not what I'm there to see. If he wants to just hit play and let it go, then that's fine, I have no reason to care. So go ahead, CMV!

t3_1pk6xr

I think Huckleberry Finn should be kept as core curriculum in high school. CMV

I live in a liberal environment, and we are required to read this book. This book consists of a lot of racial views and use of the N word, it explores the theme of racism, but it might not be appropriate for all students. All my peers think that the book isn't racist, because it is just using vernacular, but aside from racism this book has a lot of satire on religion, which can affect Christian students such as myself. I googled this question and a lot of people want to keep the book, but what are some arguments for the other side.

I think Huckleberry Finn should be kept as core curriculum in high school. CMV. I live in a liberal environment, and we are required to read this book. This book consists of a lot of racial views and use of the N word, it explores the theme of racism, but it might not be appropriate for all students. All my peers think that the book isn't racist, because it is just using vernacular, but aside from racism this book has a lot of satire on religion, which can affect Christian students such as myself. I googled this question and a lot of people want to keep the book, but what are some arguments for the other side.

t3_3wyfbu

CMV: A dedicated, philanthropic 1%er could become a Santa-figure.

I think a select few noble filthy rich Philanthropists have it in their power to become a Santa figure in the modern world, if they truly wanted. Parameters of the "Santa" Mythos that could be feasible. Change my view by providing the infeasability of one or more: -Every boy and girl who wrote Santa a letter could recieve a single, modest gift on christmas morning, and it could be paid by a single charitable entity. It would be difficult, but plausible. - Santa could publish a public catalouge, kids could choose from a small list of small, easily manufactured gifts: wood trains, balls, teddy bears, a dolly, etc. (Remeber to mail out your letter be the 18th! Mail takes a while to get to the North pole, kids!) -Factory infrastructure exists already, Santa can pay his "Elves" a modest price for every letter he recieves requesting each gift -Santa could recieve and sort his letters, organize a list of gifts, and send presents that were requested to every child. -if there's a mistake or error: Sorry, Santa didnt check his list twice! My elves are on it, expect it soon! -Santa could ship them off to be delivered in a single night with the help of his Magic Reindeer that drive the UPS trucks CMV by shattering my naive perceptions of the spirit if Christmas and the capabilities of a single, kind-hearted person. EDIT; I have to reiterate this caveat: we arent giving to EVERY child, just the ones who are still naive enough to write letters to the north pole. You think the 9 year olds insulting my mother on Xbox live are going to sit down and write a letter asking santa for a teddy bear? Take this estimation into account, it keeps being brought up ON THE SECOND DAY OF EDITS, /u/silicondiver GAVE TO ME two grueling spreadsheets, and a world-shattering bitter cup of tea. When I originally proposed this, I had figured, rather selfishly, that Santa would be confined to America, but as several of you pointed out, he flies around the entire world. It wasn't until one of my wisest elves pointed out to me that in order to complete such a gift-Delivery, I would need a world-wide shipping prigram, larger and more capable than the modern world's shipping capabilities. I suppose Santa could build his own shipping company and be CEO of SantaCorp Intl, but the costs of one-day of global shipping would unfortunately dwarf the profits of 364 days of global shipping monopoly. Plus, that's hardly a philantropistic idea. So it is with a heavy heart that Santa's officially retiring. But of course! this means each of you is now responsible for being as jolly and cheerful and generous as you can for your friends and neighbors in my absence, because that is the true spirit if Christmas. Not a single mythic man, but a heartfelt, jolly global community of givers.

CMV: A dedicated, philanthropic 1%er could become a Santa-figure. I think a select few noble filthy rich Philanthropists have it in their power to become a Santa figure in the modern world, if they truly wanted. Parameters of the "Santa" Mythos that could be feasible. Change my view by providing the infeasability of one or more: -Every boy and girl who wrote Santa a letter could recieve a single, modest gift on christmas morning, and it could be paid by a single charitable entity. It would be difficult, but plausible. - Santa could publish a public catalouge, kids could choose from a small list of small, easily manufactured gifts: wood trains, balls, teddy bears, a dolly, etc. (Remeber to mail out your letter be the 18th! Mail takes a while to get to the North pole, kids!) -Factory infrastructure exists already, Santa can pay his "Elves" a modest price for every letter he recieves requesting each gift -Santa could recieve and sort his letters, organize a list of gifts, and send presents that were requested to every child. -if there's a mistake or error: Sorry, Santa didnt check his list twice! My elves are on it, expect it soon! -Santa could ship them off to be delivered in a single night with the help of his Magic Reindeer that drive the UPS trucks CMV by shattering my naive perceptions of the spirit if Christmas and the capabilities of a single, kind-hearted person. EDIT; I have to reiterate this caveat: we arent giving to EVERY child, just the ones who are still naive enough to write letters to the north pole. You think the 9 year olds insulting my mother on Xbox live are going to sit down and write a letter asking santa for a teddy bear? Take this estimation into account, it keeps being brought up ON THE SECOND DAY OF EDITS, /u/silicondiver GAVE TO ME two grueling spreadsheets, and a world-shattering bitter cup of tea. When I originally proposed this, I had figured, rather selfishly, that Santa would be confined to America, but as several of you pointed out, he flies around the entire world. It wasn't until one of my wisest elves pointed out to me that in order to complete such a gift-Delivery, I would need a world-wide shipping prigram, larger and more capable than the modern world's shipping capabilities. I suppose Santa could build his own shipping company and be CEO of SantaCorp Intl, but the costs of one-day of global shipping would unfortunately dwarf the profits of 364 days of global shipping monopoly. Plus, that's hardly a philantropistic idea. So it is with a heavy heart that Santa's officially retiring. But of course! this means each of you is now responsible for being as jolly and cheerful and generous as you can for your friends and neighbors in my absence, because that is the true spirit if Christmas. Not a single mythic man, but a heartfelt, jolly global community of givers.

t3_1mgv1q

I don't think that there should be different physical standards for women in the military. CMV!

I fully support gender equality in almost every single arena. However, men have a huge advantage when it comes to physical labor. I'm not saying that women should not be allowed to do them at all, just that they should be held to the same standard as their male coworkers. I feel like this is doubly true for military service. They don't make separate lighter guns or packs for women so it makes sense to me to hold all applicants and recruits to the same standard. Also, the stakes are much higher in military service. People's lives are on the line and I can't help but think that it is unsafe to allow physically substandard people in our armed forces. The example I always think of is if we say "ok women are smaller so they only have to be able to drag 200 lbs instead of 300." What happens if a 300lb guy or girl needs to be dragged off the battlefield? I've always held this belief and I want to see the other side of the argument and maybe CMV. Thanks! Edit: Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I only really care about combat roles, desk jobs I don't really care about the physical requirements because nobody's life depends on it.

I don't think that there should be different physical standards for women in the military. CMV!. I fully support gender equality in almost every single arena. However, men have a huge advantage when it comes to physical labor. I'm not saying that women should not be allowed to do them at all, just that they should be held to the same standard as their male coworkers. I feel like this is doubly true for military service. They don't make separate lighter guns or packs for women so it makes sense to me to hold all applicants and recruits to the same standard. Also, the stakes are much higher in military service. People's lives are on the line and I can't help but think that it is unsafe to allow physically substandard people in our armed forces. The example I always think of is if we say "ok women are smaller so they only have to be able to drag 200 lbs instead of 300." What happens if a 300lb guy or girl needs to be dragged off the battlefield? I've always held this belief and I want to see the other side of the argument and maybe CMV. Thanks! Edit: Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I only really care about combat roles, desk jobs I don't really care about the physical requirements because nobody's life depends on it.

t3_3d70nm

CMV: it is clear that I am meant to be alone

I am a 23 year old male Indian American male. I have never held hands with a girl, been kissed, or obviously had sex. I have never even asked someone out. I do not think a girl has expressed even the slightest interest in me. I graduated from college last year and am about to start med school in a month. I had been fat for years but lost all the weight over the past year and am pretty fit now. I am only 5ft 4 tall however. I do think facially I am slight above average and I wouldn't call myself ugly. My family struggled financially and I focused on academics like a madman and was able to go to a great college and am headed to a great med school. It is my ticket to a better life. Yet I believe strongly that life will be one of loneliness. Internally I am angry and bitter even as all my friends think I must be so happy to start this next chapter of my life. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: it is clear that I am meant to be alone. I am a 23 year old male Indian American male. I have never held hands with a girl, been kissed, or obviously had sex. I have never even asked someone out. I do not think a girl has expressed even the slightest interest in me. I graduated from college last year and am about to start med school in a month. I had been fat for years but lost all the weight over the past year and am pretty fit now. I am only 5ft 4 tall however. I do think facially I am slight above average and I wouldn't call myself ugly. My family struggled financially and I focused on academics like a madman and was able to go to a great college and am headed to a great med school. It is my ticket to a better life. Yet I believe strongly that life will be one of loneliness. Internally I am angry and bitter even as all my friends think I must be so happy to start this next chapter of my life.

t3_3c7srb

CMV: Countries besides USA (and a small select otheres) have had a long, rich history of a certain ethnic group. I think it's okay for these countries to severely restrict immigration to preserve their respective nations.

There's been so much uproar over Sweden and the Netherlands and other countries that have been dealing with immigration issues. I would like to move to another country in the future so I understand wanting to move to a country in Europe, although I am not seeking asylum from a war torn homeland. At any rate, these countries have a history of an ethnic population and when one thinks of Sweden, there's a certain image just as when one thinks of what and who constitutes any specific country. I would hate to have Sweden be overrun by rampant immigration from any country (my problem is not with the Muslim population specifically/Middle eastern immigration but the idea of rampant immigration in general) just as I would hate for any other country, let's say Bangladesh, to be overrun with let's say, British immigration. _____ > *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: Countries besides USA (and a small select otheres) have had a long, rich history of a certain ethnic group. I think it's okay for these countries to severely restrict immigration to preserve their respective nations. There's been so much uproar over Sweden and the Netherlands and other countries that have been dealing with immigration issues. I would like to move to another country in the future so I understand wanting to move to a country in Europe, although I am not seeking asylum from a war torn homeland. At any rate, these countries have a history of an ethnic population and when one thinks of Sweden, there's a certain image just as when one thinks of what and who constitutes any specific country. I would hate to have Sweden be overrun by rampant immigration from any country (my problem is not with the Muslim population specifically/Middle eastern immigration but the idea of rampant immigration in general) just as I would hate for any other country, let's say Bangladesh, to be overrun with let's say, British immigration.

t3_38cz1x

CMV: Mega Bloks figures are superior to LEGO figures in every way

One of my biggest let-downs in action figures was always the lack of points of articulation. Those vintage Star Wars figures that my dad grew up playing with suck compared to the ones my generation was raised on...which brings me to my view. Look at a LEGO figure. Look at the blocky, unrealistic way they move. Want to have a guy hold a rifle? Sucks. Look at a Mega Bloks figure. Not only do they have bendable knees, bendable elbows, and full range of motion heads, but they have arms that move like actual arms. How can anybody prefer Lego? _____ > *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: Mega Bloks figures are superior to LEGO figures in every way. One of my biggest let-downs in action figures was always the lack of points of articulation. Those vintage Star Wars figures that my dad grew up playing with suck compared to the ones my generation was raised on...which brings me to my view. Look at a LEGO figure. Look at the blocky, unrealistic way they move. Want to have a guy hold a rifle? Sucks. Look at a Mega Bloks figure. Not only do they have bendable knees, bendable elbows, and full range of motion heads, but they have arms that move like actual arms. How can anybody prefer Lego?

t3_2qg9yj

CMV: It's intellectually dishonest to blame the plight of Black people in America solely on racism.

Given the current events that have occurred in the U.S., the topic of racism has been brought to the forefront of our consciousness. Depending on who you listen to, racism ranges from being the reason that black people suffer in the United States to not even existing at all. I think that it is intellectually dishonest to make either claim. To try to present the plight of black people as solely being caused by racism, to me is just as dishonest as saying that racism doesn't exist in America. There are a multitude of factors that have caused the current situation in Black America. People like Sean Hannity or Al Sharpton will try to present a specific narrative that will fit their agendas. Unfortunately when discussing the topic, people will refuse to look at all of the causes (which in my opinion is the only way to actually solve the problem) and will choose to shape their opinions based on generalizations as if they are absolute truths. Take for example the issue of why black youth are more likely to grow up without authority figures. One narrative is to say that the reason black youth grow up without authority figures is because police disproportionately target black men. As a result kids grow up without father figures. Another narrative is to say that black culture perpetuates unprotected sex or sex out of wedlock and therefore kids grow up without father figures. Another narrative says that when the "projects" systems were implemented in the U.S. they were never designed to allow for black people to flourish. They placed black people in neighborhoods of violence and crime which put them on paths to failure and incarceration. Another narrative is that since black people don't have the same work opportunities as white people (because of racism and other factors) kids are forced to grow up without role models since often times parents have to work multiple jobs to make due. To me all of these narratives are contributing factors in why black youth are less likely to succeed. By ignoring all of these things and harboring on the narratives that fit our agendas, we are not helping the situation and are not actually fixing the problem. There are other issues as well that aren't being looked at with objective reasoning. Issues such as: - Crummy public school systems in inner cities - The welfare culture - Drug use & relying on drugs as sources of income - Commercial investment in inner cities - Cost of living/ Pricing groups out of certain neighborhoods - The culture of "no snitching" or the culture of "not being black enough" These are just a few of the issues. There are many more that contribute to the current imbalance in the quality of life for black people vs. white people. To try to present the be all end all reason that black people's suffering in the U.S. is caused by racism is intellectually dishonest. Reddit, Change My View. Edit: I'm going to get lunch, will answer more of these in a couple of hours. **EDIT2:** I'm back, I am going to try to reply to as many comments as I can. I'd like to thank everyone for participating in this discussion. It's a great part of our society that civil discourse about difficult subjects can be had. It's refreshing to see thoughtful answers rooted in facts that aren't upvoted/downvoted blindly based on predetermined bias. Thank you for 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: It's intellectually dishonest to blame the plight of Black people in America solely on racism. Given the current events that have occurred in the U.S., the topic of racism has been brought to the forefront of our consciousness. Depending on who you listen to, racism ranges from being the reason that black people suffer in the United States to not even existing at all. I think that it is intellectually dishonest to make either claim. To try to present the plight of black people as solely being caused by racism, to me is just as dishonest as saying that racism doesn't exist in America. There are a multitude of factors that have caused the current situation in Black America. People like Sean Hannity or Al Sharpton will try to present a specific narrative that will fit their agendas. Unfortunately when discussing the topic, people will refuse to look at all of the causes (which in my opinion is the only way to actually solve the problem) and will choose to shape their opinions based on generalizations as if they are absolute truths. Take for example the issue of why black youth are more likely to grow up without authority figures. One narrative is to say that the reason black youth grow up without authority figures is because police disproportionately target black men. As a result kids grow up without father figures. Another narrative is to say that black culture perpetuates unprotected sex or sex out of wedlock and therefore kids grow up without father figures. Another narrative says that when the "projects" systems were implemented in the U.S. they were never designed to allow for black people to flourish. They placed black people in neighborhoods of violence and crime which put them on paths to failure and incarceration. Another narrative is that since black people don't have the same work opportunities as white people (because of racism and other factors) kids are forced to grow up without role models since often times parents have to work multiple jobs to make due. To me all of these narratives are contributing factors in why black youth are less likely to succeed. By ignoring all of these things and harboring on the narratives that fit our agendas, we are not helping the situation and are not actually fixing the problem. There are other issues as well that aren't being looked at with objective reasoning. Issues such as: - Crummy public school systems in inner cities - The welfare culture - Drug use & relying on drugs as sources of income - Commercial investment in inner cities - Cost of living/ Pricing groups out of certain neighborhoods - The culture of "no snitching" or the culture of "not being black enough" These are just a few of the issues. There are many more that contribute to the current imbalance in the quality of life for black people vs. white people. To try to present the be all end all reason that black people's suffering in the U.S. is caused by racism is intellectually dishonest. Reddit, Change My View. Edit: I'm going to get lunch, will answer more of these in a couple of hours. **EDIT2:** I'm back, I am going to try to reply to as many comments as I can. I'd like to thank everyone for participating in this discussion. It's a great part of our society that civil discourse about difficult subjects can be had. It's refreshing to see thoughtful answers rooted in facts that aren't upvoted/downvoted blindly based on predetermined bias. Thank you for that.

t3_4dlrjs

CMV: I think fourth-wave feminism is taking exactly the wrong approach when dealing with men

I'm withdrawing the question. I haven't changed my mind, but I think it's only a proxy for the real issue I have. I think the actual question is whether or not women genuinely do have it significantly worse then men. That's particularly hard when a lot of the studies on the topic seem to have a very poor methodology, and bad things happening to men (homelessness rates, suicide rates, poverty rates, education rates) seem to get ignored. I haven't searched the wiki for that particular question, so rather then debating it here I'm going to take some time to gather my thoughts and do a post about it later. --- I think most of the anger men feel is a result of feeling disrespected. I think most men wouldln’t mind being profiled if they didn’t find it humiliating. For example, suppose Generic University was concerned about female students getting raped while crossing the campus at night. After considering many options, GU decides that the most pragmatic way to prevent rapes is by creating a late-night bus line that only women would be allowed on. The buses will be paid for by student fees, which means that male students will be subsidizing buses they are not allowed to ride. Still, I think men would be willing to tolerate this if the president of GU said “Men of GU, you are no doubt wondering why your student fees are paying for buses you can’t ride. The reason we cannot let men ride these buses is that we need to stop women getting raped. Now I know that most of you aren’t rapists. But it’s impossible for us to let the non-rapist men on these buses without also letting on the rapists. Gender discrimination may be crude, but it’s the best tool we’ve got. It sucks that we have to discriminate against all men based on the actions of a few. But we have to do it for the greater good. We hope you’ll understand.” I think most men would be honored to endured an inconvenience to stop women from being raped. OTOH, imagine if the president said “Awww look at the poor little menz…. all they did was rape a few women and now they’re banned from the late night buses. What a tragedy, these doodz are getting their feelings hurt. We should just let the doodz keep raping women because that wouldn’t hurt their feelings. Such a speech would humiliate men, and they would be less likely to support a women’s only bus line. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think fourth-wave feminism is taking exactly the wrong approach when dealing with men. I'm withdrawing the question. I haven't changed my mind, but I think it's only a proxy for the real issue I have. I think the actual question is whether or not women genuinely do have it significantly worse then men. That's particularly hard when a lot of the studies on the topic seem to have a very poor methodology, and bad things happening to men (homelessness rates, suicide rates, poverty rates, education rates) seem to get ignored. I haven't searched the wiki for that particular question, so rather then debating it here I'm going to take some time to gather my thoughts and do a post about it later. --- I think most of the anger men feel is a result of feeling disrespected. I think most men wouldln’t mind being profiled if they didn’t find it humiliating. For example, suppose Generic University was concerned about female students getting raped while crossing the campus at night. After considering many options, GU decides that the most pragmatic way to prevent rapes is by creating a late-night bus line that only women would be allowed on. The buses will be paid for by student fees, which means that male students will be subsidizing buses they are not allowed to ride. Still, I think men would be willing to tolerate this if the president of GU said “Men of GU, you are no doubt wondering why your student fees are paying for buses you can’t ride. The reason we cannot let men ride these buses is that we need to stop women getting raped. Now I know that most of you aren’t rapists. But it’s impossible for us to let the non-rapist men on these buses without also letting on the rapists. Gender discrimination may be crude, but it’s the best tool we’ve got. It sucks that we have to discriminate against all men based on the actions of a few. But we have to do it for the greater good. We hope you’ll understand.” I think most men would be honored to endured an inconvenience to stop women from being raped. OTOH, imagine if the president said “Awww look at the poor little menz…. all they did was rape a few women and now they’re banned from the late night buses. What a tragedy, these doodz are getting their feelings hurt. We should just let the doodz keep raping women because that wouldn’t hurt their feelings. Such a speech would humiliate men, and they would be less likely to support a women’s only bus line.

t3_2x3mqe

CMV: Children should not be raised religiously

Let me begin by saying that I'm not religious myself but I have nothing against people being religious. What I'm against however, is children being brought up in religious backgrounds. This includes religious schools, weekly attending churches (or whatever is applicable) - basically any activity that promotes a one certain religion. I have nothing against children learning about different religions/ beliefs. Just don't think they should be 'taught/raised' in a particular one. I believe children don't have the capacity to think for themselves at that age yet. They should be free to choose what they want to believe in once they reached a certain maturity level. I'm hesitant to give an age as to when that might be as each child is different. Rather, children should learn about different religions and different beliefs in the world before making a decision. Edit: Had my view (partially) changed. Realized that I did in fact have a problem with religious teachings so cannot look in the point of view of religious parents + cannot comment on their parenting styles. I believed that raising a child religiously is harmful because they will not be able to think for themselves. But as many of you commented, being religiously raised has actually been a positive impact on your life. Anyway, whether being raised religiously is harmful or beneficial is another discussion beyond this CMV. I awarded deltas to those who CMV, thanks all for commenting! _____ > *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: Children should not be raised religiously. Let me begin by saying that I'm not religious myself but I have nothing against people being religious. What I'm against however, is children being brought up in religious backgrounds. This includes religious schools, weekly attending churches (or whatever is applicable) - basically any activity that promotes a one certain religion. I have nothing against children learning about different religions/ beliefs. Just don't think they should be 'taught/raised' in a particular one. I believe children don't have the capacity to think for themselves at that age yet. They should be free to choose what they want to believe in once they reached a certain maturity level. I'm hesitant to give an age as to when that might be as each child is different. Rather, children should learn about different religions and different beliefs in the world before making a decision. Edit: Had my view (partially) changed. Realized that I did in fact have a problem with religious teachings so cannot look in the point of view of religious parents + cannot comment on their parenting styles. I believed that raising a child religiously is harmful because they will not be able to think for themselves. But as many of you commented, being religiously raised has actually been a positive impact on your life. Anyway, whether being raised religiously is harmful or beneficial is another discussion beyond this CMV. I awarded deltas to those who CMV, thanks all for commenting!

t3_1r2qad

I do not believe there is any empirical evidence for the existence of God. CMV

First, let me preface this by saying: -I am not saying I believe God does not exist. -I think there can be evidence for God that is NOT empirical (i.e., religious experiences, collective beliefs, etc.) -I think that empirical evidence for God CAN exist, but that none exists at the moment -For the sake of this argument, I define "empirical" as evidence obtained in a scientific manner, such as reproducible, detectable be instruments, procedural, or corroboratory by scientific means. I believe that all current empirical evidence for God is just too weak to be true. To my knowledge, there is no evidence for God that has been detected by an instrument (camera, telescope, microphone, etc.), which in my opinion would be the strongest evidence. There has been corroborated first-person evidence, but I feel that since it is not reproducible and that these encounters may be false (lying, memory, wrong perceptions being some examples), they cannot be considered true empirical evidence. Historical texts contain similar issues. There may be other examples which I haven't explicitly stated, but I still have no proof for direct empirical evidence for God. I would feel that the strongest evidence would be something like demonic possessions or hauntings, or claimed Miracles. Though these do not directly prove God's existence, they might do so secondarily. However, I feel evidence for such things are still disprovable through Occam's Razor. In saying this, I mean that something like a Miracle would require the assumption that God exists if the Miracle is true, requiring a very high burden of proof. It is much easier to explain an unlikely natural event (such as an incurable disease being cured without aid) through scientific improbabilities. If you know of empirical evidence for God's existence, please let me know, and cite the source or example (if applicable)! And please, CMV! Edit: I refer, for Western convenience, to the Abrahamic God, but I believe this applies to any God.

I do not believe there is any empirical evidence for the existence of God. CMV. First, let me preface this by saying: -I am not saying I believe God does not exist. -I think there can be evidence for God that is NOT empirical (i.e., religious experiences, collective beliefs, etc.) -I think that empirical evidence for God CAN exist, but that none exists at the moment -For the sake of this argument, I define "empirical" as evidence obtained in a scientific manner, such as reproducible, detectable be instruments, procedural, or corroboratory by scientific means. I believe that all current empirical evidence for God is just too weak to be true. To my knowledge, there is no evidence for God that has been detected by an instrument (camera, telescope, microphone, etc.), which in my opinion would be the strongest evidence. There has been corroborated first-person evidence, but I feel that since it is not reproducible and that these encounters may be false (lying, memory, wrong perceptions being some examples), they cannot be considered true empirical evidence. Historical texts contain similar issues. There may be other examples which I haven't explicitly stated, but I still have no proof for direct empirical evidence for God. I would feel that the strongest evidence would be something like demonic possessions or hauntings, or claimed Miracles. Though these do not directly prove God's existence, they might do so secondarily. However, I feel evidence for such things are still disprovable through Occam's Razor. In saying this, I mean that something like a Miracle would require the assumption that God exists if the Miracle is true, requiring a very high burden of proof. It is much easier to explain an unlikely natural event (such as an incurable disease being cured without aid) through scientific improbabilities. If you know of empirical evidence for God's existence, please let me know, and cite the source or example (if applicable)! And please, CMV! Edit: I refer, for Western convenience, to the Abrahamic God, but I believe this applies to any God.

t3_21jus4

CMV: All emotion inhibits logical thinking.

This does not mean that all emotions are necessarily bad. It means that any problem that can be solved with emotion can be solved more efficiently without it. Emotion may lead to biases towards friends or enemies. Emotion causes the mind to think of things within that field of emotion. For example, an enraged person is more likely to think of (and therefore commit) acts of violence. Since this person spends extra time thinking of acts of rage, he is spending less time trying to solve the problem. One who accepts evident truth and focuses on the future task at hand thinks with less emotion. _____ > *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: All emotion inhibits logical thinking. This does not mean that all emotions are necessarily bad. It means that any problem that can be solved with emotion can be solved more efficiently without it. Emotion may lead to biases towards friends or enemies. Emotion causes the mind to think of things within that field of emotion. For example, an enraged person is more likely to think of (and therefore commit) acts of violence. Since this person spends extra time thinking of acts of rage, he is spending less time trying to solve the problem. One who accepts evident truth and focuses on the future task at hand thinks with less emotion.

t3_2ggopc

CMV: Islam is NOT a religion of peace

I would like to hear from the believers. There is no evidence in history where Islam causes peace. The following etymology and meaning is from wikipedia: Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, safeness and peace. In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God". Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive. Believers demonstrate submission to God by serving God, following his commands, and rejecting polytheism. The word sometimes has distinct connotations in its various occurrences in the Qur'an. In some verses, there is stress on the quality of Islam as an internal conviction: "Whomsoever God desires to guide, He opens his heart to Islam." Other verses connect Islām and dīn (usually translated as "religion"): "Today, I have perfected your religion (dīn) for you; I have completed My blessing upon you; I have approved Islam for your religion." Still others describe Islam as an action of returning to God—more than just a verbal affirmation of faith. In the Hadith of Gabriel, islām is presented as one part of a triad that includes imān (faith), and ihsān (excellence), where islām is defined theologically as Tawhid, historically by asserting that Muhammad is messenger of God, and doctrinally by mandating five basic and fundamental pillars of practice. It's not even a religion but a [cult of personality](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm) it claims it destroys. There has been more war years than peace since it's forgery. How can't you see this?

CMV: Islam is NOT a religion of peace. I would like to hear from the believers. There is no evidence in history where Islam causes peace. The following etymology and meaning is from wikipedia: Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, safeness and peace. In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God". Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive. Believers demonstrate submission to God by serving God, following his commands, and rejecting polytheism. The word sometimes has distinct connotations in its various occurrences in the Qur'an. In some verses, there is stress on the quality of Islam as an internal conviction: "Whomsoever God desires to guide, He opens his heart to Islam." Other verses connect Islām and dīn (usually translated as "religion"): "Today, I have perfected your religion (dīn) for you; I have completed My blessing upon you; I have approved Islam for your religion." Still others describe Islam as an action of returning to God—more than just a verbal affirmation of faith. In the Hadith of Gabriel, islām is presented as one part of a triad that includes imān (faith), and ihsān (excellence), where islām is defined theologically as Tawhid, historically by asserting that Muhammad is messenger of God, and doctrinally by mandating five basic and fundamental pillars of practice. It's not even a religion but a [cult of personality](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm) it claims it destroys. There has been more war years than peace since it's forgery. How can't you see this?

t3_1iwnef

I believe the death penalty is appropriate. CMV.

I believe the death penalty is, it seems, the best deterrent to violent crimes. I believe people should be required to "pay for their crimes". I've been taught it's much less of an economic burden. I cannot fathom another solution to murder. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; therefore, I am not particularly worried about executing the innocent, especially since it happens so incredibly infrequently now that DNA testing is so popular. My mind is entirely open to any suggestions for alternatives to the death penalty. Please CMV. Edit: my V has been C'd. Also, not sure why my comments are being downvoted? I'm propagating discussion. 2nd Edit: also, very few philosophical arguments. Got any?

I believe the death penalty is appropriate. CMV. I believe the death penalty is, it seems, the best deterrent to violent crimes. I believe people should be required to "pay for their crimes". I've been taught it's much less of an economic burden. I cannot fathom another solution to murder. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; therefore, I am not particularly worried about executing the innocent, especially since it happens so incredibly infrequently now that DNA testing is so popular. My mind is entirely open to any suggestions for alternatives to the death penalty. Please CMV. Edit: my V has been C'd. Also, not sure why my comments are being downvoted? I'm propagating discussion. 2nd Edit: also, very few philosophical arguments. Got any?

t3_4yj9yw

CMV: The world is becoming more politically polarized.

I feel that a lot of different areas of society have devolved into echo chambers. I think people are tending to talk more with people who they agree with rather than those they disagree with. This hurts our ability to have meaningful discussions about different topics. Furthermore I feel that each side is committed to only responding to the worst elements of the other side. This causes people to come in with preconceptions about other groups that are often inaccurate. I also find that it's difficult for people to stay on topic. I've had a lot of conversations where when I give a stance I have on something, the response is to accuse me of agreeing with the extreme of that stance. The reasoning is often along the lines of "someone else from (group you identify with) believes in that" and the conversation has shifted from one about the issues to an us vs them. In my view the increased polarization is damaging our ability to have meaningful discourse and I'm worried about our future if this trend continues.

CMV: The world is becoming more politically polarized. I feel that a lot of different areas of society have devolved into echo chambers. I think people are tending to talk more with people who they agree with rather than those they disagree with. This hurts our ability to have meaningful discussions about different topics. Furthermore I feel that each side is committed to only responding to the worst elements of the other side. This causes people to come in with preconceptions about other groups that are often inaccurate. I also find that it's difficult for people to stay on topic. I've had a lot of conversations where when I give a stance I have on something, the response is to accuse me of agreeing with the extreme of that stance. The reasoning is often along the lines of "someone else from (group you identify with) believes in that" and the conversation has shifted from one about the issues to an us vs them. In my view the increased polarization is damaging our ability to have meaningful discourse and I'm worried about our future if this trend continues.

t3_1p5m56

I wanna buy a new iPad mini. CMV

Hello everyone, Apple has already presented the new iPad: Air and Mini retina. I'm very shocked about the iPad Mini and i would buy it but i'm not totally sure about this idea. Currently i'm using a Macbook Pro 2011 and an iPhone 5. Every day i go to the university and every day i have to bring with me, my Macbook pro. The matter is really heavy and uncomfortable above all when i have to walk for a long time. Can someone describe me how is changed his life with an iPad and if it's worth it? Thanks

I wanna buy a new iPad mini. CMV. Hello everyone, Apple has already presented the new iPad: Air and Mini retina. I'm very shocked about the iPad Mini and i would buy it but i'm not totally sure about this idea. Currently i'm using a Macbook Pro 2011 and an iPhone 5. Every day i go to the university and every day i have to bring with me, my Macbook pro. The matter is really heavy and uncomfortable above all when i have to walk for a long time. Can someone describe me how is changed his life with an iPad and if it's worth it? Thanks

t3_3dgzr8

CMV: I believe that putting stop signs at railroad crossings and expecting people to come to a complete stop is ridiculous.

Now, I totally understand that I'm just a stupid 17 year old who's only been driving for less than a year and probably doesn’t have a clue what he's talking about. That's why I'm posting to /r/*change*myview. I'd rather I knew what I'm doing is insane than not. Anyway, so some crossings have the full barriers because a train is coming, some just have stop signs, and some just have railroad crossing signs without and stop signs. I don't really understand what the distintions for what to put where are, but I almost never fully stop for crossings with stop signs. I do, however, slow down quite a bit, and always make sure I *know* there isn't a train coming, aside from a silent, invisible one, well before I approach the track. I understand this doesn't work for crossings obscured by trees/bushes/shrubbery/whatnot or at night or there's sun in your eyes or there's an elf on your windshield or whatever. I'm talking about when the railroad is visible to the horizon in mid-day and is easily identifiable as completely empty. If not, stopping is totally necessary. You can only brake so fast, and reaction times and whatnot is included on that too, and the extra 5 seconds aren't worth your life yadda yadda. I just don't see why there has to a full stop sign for something that so completely doesn't need it, and can cost you drivers otherwise. It makes more sense to me to just have a railroad crossing sign just have it's own set of rules. Looking forward to your responses :) **TL;DR: Lawl I can't fekkin drive** Edit: Sorry I can't follow the 3hr rule, but it's been pretty unactive. I'll continue anything here in the morning. _____ > *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 putting stop signs at railroad crossings and expecting people to come to a complete stop is ridiculous. Now, I totally understand that I'm just a stupid 17 year old who's only been driving for less than a year and probably doesn’t have a clue what he's talking about. That's why I'm posting to /r/*change*myview. I'd rather I knew what I'm doing is insane than not. Anyway, so some crossings have the full barriers because a train is coming, some just have stop signs, and some just have railroad crossing signs without and stop signs. I don't really understand what the distintions for what to put where are, but I almost never fully stop for crossings with stop signs. I do, however, slow down quite a bit, and always make sure I *know* there isn't a train coming, aside from a silent, invisible one, well before I approach the track. I understand this doesn't work for crossings obscured by trees/bushes/shrubbery/whatnot or at night or there's sun in your eyes or there's an elf on your windshield or whatever. I'm talking about when the railroad is visible to the horizon in mid-day and is easily identifiable as completely empty. If not, stopping is totally necessary. You can only brake so fast, and reaction times and whatnot is included on that too, and the extra 5 seconds aren't worth your life yadda yadda. I just don't see why there has to a full stop sign for something that so completely doesn't need it, and can cost you drivers otherwise. It makes more sense to me to just have a railroad crossing sign just have it's own set of rules. Looking forward to your responses :) **TL;DR: Lawl I can't fekkin drive** Edit: Sorry I can't follow the 3hr rule, but it's been pretty unactive. I'll continue anything here in the morning.

t3_1fo9dk

Anger causes problems and should be considered immoral CMV

At it's best, I feel that anger blinds us from making more logical decisions. At it's worst, it can lead to hatred or violence towards others. Anger seems to only be useful for intimidation, which I don't think is moral to use in solving conflicts. If people want to be sensible to each other, then anger seems to only get in the way. I will also preemptively say that I do not think that anyone can just rid themselves of all anger. I am simply trying to find out how anger is at all helpful in a cooperative society.

Anger causes problems and should be considered immoral CMV. At it's best, I feel that anger blinds us from making more logical decisions. At it's worst, it can lead to hatred or violence towards others. Anger seems to only be useful for intimidation, which I don't think is moral to use in solving conflicts. If people want to be sensible to each other, then anger seems to only get in the way. I will also preemptively say that I do not think that anyone can just rid themselves of all anger. I am simply trying to find out how anger is at all helpful in a cooperative society.

t3_2a5fi8

CMV: I find turn based combat to be tedious and infuriating

Whenever I play a game like Wastelands 2 or Xenonauts (these are the two that spring to mind, though I've played others) and finally get to the combat, I feel like the game grinds to a halt. This happens with any sort of turn based combat in RPG games. I should point out that Grand-Strategy games like Civ or Total War are not what I'm talking about here. The games themselves aren't what's boring. I thought that the two I mentioned above had cool premises and were super detailed in lore, two things I love about games. But when the combat started, the nice flow that I had been experiencing stops. I'll try and list the things that bother me. 1. Action Points: I get the reasoning behind them but they limit what I want to do so badly I want to throw my computer out the window. They simply seem unrealistic. 2. Enemies: Perhaps it's because I never played long enough to get better equipment, but every time I play and try to attack I always miss at point blank range. However at 100 yards the enemy seems to be a dead eye with every shot. 3. Turns: Things will happen to my guys on an enemy turn that I can't react to like I would in Age of Empires, Company of Heroes, etc... and it seems unrealistic. One time I was playing Xenonats and the aliens made one of my soldiers go nuts and started shooting everyone. IRL and in RTS games you'd move your guys away and try to kill the crazed soldier, but nope, I had to sit there and watch three of my guys get slaughtered because it was the "Enemy Turn". I know I'll probably get responses like, "Oh well you just haven't played them enough" or "You sound like you don't know what you're doing". Which are both true, but the games make me so mad that I don't want to even try and get better. In an RTS if I accidentally lose my tank to an enemy emplacement, that's my fault and I should have been paying attention more to the situation. But it could have happened in a split second, far to fast for me to react, and that doesn't bother me because shit happens like that IRW all the time. In a turn based game if I miss it, I have to sit there and watch helplessly as the enemy takes it out and I watch the camera hover over the wreckage as if to say "Look dumb-ass, ya coulda stopped it, but you got too frustrated." I do really want to have my view changed on this. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I find turn based combat to be tedious and infuriating. Whenever I play a game like Wastelands 2 or Xenonauts (these are the two that spring to mind, though I've played others) and finally get to the combat, I feel like the game grinds to a halt. This happens with any sort of turn based combat in RPG games. I should point out that Grand-Strategy games like Civ or Total War are not what I'm talking about here. The games themselves aren't what's boring. I thought that the two I mentioned above had cool premises and were super detailed in lore, two things I love about games. But when the combat started, the nice flow that I had been experiencing stops. I'll try and list the things that bother me. 1. Action Points: I get the reasoning behind them but they limit what I want to do so badly I want to throw my computer out the window. They simply seem unrealistic. 2. Enemies: Perhaps it's because I never played long enough to get better equipment, but every time I play and try to attack I always miss at point blank range. However at 100 yards the enemy seems to be a dead eye with every shot. 3. Turns: Things will happen to my guys on an enemy turn that I can't react to like I would in Age of Empires, Company of Heroes, etc... and it seems unrealistic. One time I was playing Xenonats and the aliens made one of my soldiers go nuts and started shooting everyone. IRL and in RTS games you'd move your guys away and try to kill the crazed soldier, but nope, I had to sit there and watch three of my guys get slaughtered because it was the "Enemy Turn". I know I'll probably get responses like, "Oh well you just haven't played them enough" or "You sound like you don't know what you're doing". Which are both true, but the games make me so mad that I don't want to even try and get better. In an RTS if I accidentally lose my tank to an enemy emplacement, that's my fault and I should have been paying attention more to the situation. But it could have happened in a split second, far to fast for me to react, and that doesn't bother me because shit happens like that IRW all the time. In a turn based game if I miss it, I have to sit there and watch helplessly as the enemy takes it out and I watch the camera hover over the wreckage as if to say "Look dumb-ass, ya coulda stopped it, but you got too frustrated." I do really want to have my view changed on this.

t3_21e9df

CMV: People who get robbed on the streets are no more responsible for it than those who are sexually assaulted on the streets.

I'd first like to make it clear 100,000,000,000,000^123123123 times that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY SORT OF RAPE NOBODY should be sexually assaulted. Recently, a friend of mine got his stuff stolen because he was carrying his iPhone out in the open while walking down a street at night. He posted about it on Facebook and the responses he got from people were: "You're responsible because you shouldn't have your phone or wallet or iPod out when you're walking down streets at night. You should know that you are more likely to have your stuff stolen if you're just holding it out for everyone to see." A very similar argument that gets tons of negative response is when a woman is sexually assaulted and gets told: "You shouldn't have been dressed like that" and that she brought it upon herself. Clearly being sexually assaulted is worse than being mugged and having your iPhone and wallet stolen, but its the same factors: You were displaying something that provoked the crime (clothes or valuable objects) --> the crime was committed (sexual assault, mugging). _____ > *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: People who get robbed on the streets are no more responsible for it than those who are sexually assaulted on the streets. I'd first like to make it clear 100,000,000,000,000^123123123 times that I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY SORT OF RAPE NOBODY should be sexually assaulted. Recently, a friend of mine got his stuff stolen because he was carrying his iPhone out in the open while walking down a street at night. He posted about it on Facebook and the responses he got from people were: "You're responsible because you shouldn't have your phone or wallet or iPod out when you're walking down streets at night. You should know that you are more likely to have your stuff stolen if you're just holding it out for everyone to see." A very similar argument that gets tons of negative response is when a woman is sexually assaulted and gets told: "You shouldn't have been dressed like that" and that she brought it upon herself. Clearly being sexually assaulted is worse than being mugged and having your iPhone and wallet stolen, but its the same factors: You were displaying something that provoked the crime (clothes or valuable objects) --> the crime was committed (sexual assault, mugging).

t3_54xrxk

CMV: Prison is an archaic way of dealing with criminality and is only tolerated because we don't know what to do instead.

I wrote prison but I'm talking about punishment in general. What is the point? Let's take an example: say you kill someone, regardless of why, first offense, and turn yourself in. What can people do with you: * This was an exception to the rule, you pose virtually no threat, it's okay to let you go. * You're slightly dangerous (spectrum is wide), let's find a way to make sure (again, not 100%) you don't do it again before letting you go. * You're a threat, there's no way to be sure you won't go murder someone the same day we let go of you. You have to be removed from society. Where does prison fit in there? They send you to jail for x years, depending on the gravity of the offense. That's it. There's no attempt to make you a "okay" person, there's no attempt of protecting the people from you. You just sit there waiting for time to pass. When you get out, you can either think *that was annoying, I better not do that again* (he won't do it again because he's afraid of being jailed again, not because he's a better person than he was before) or *finally out, let's see if my "tools" are still where I left them.* And somehow society think it's okay to let him out. Just because he "paid his debt". Pointless, we're not playing give and take. A serial killer being a good prisoner doesn't mean he'll be a responsible citizen when he gets out. He shouldn't be getting 10 or 20 years, he should be staying there until he proves his worth as a person, or not get out at all. Giving jailtime to a father with no background of violence of any kind that kills the burglar he runs into in his own house is virtually *not* a threat except for the next bulgar that pays him a visit. The bulgar died labeled a bulgar or a *victim of the society that made him go down that path*, the father is now murderer that killed a rogue. He'll lose his job, his boss will lose a capable worker, his kids will miss their father, his wife will miss her husband. “Yes but he needs to pay for his crime.” — The state shouldn't be wasting money on selfish desire for revenge. _____ > *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: Prison is an archaic way of dealing with criminality and is only tolerated because we don't know what to do instead. I wrote prison but I'm talking about punishment in general. What is the point? Let's take an example: say you kill someone, regardless of why, first offense, and turn yourself in. What can people do with you: * This was an exception to the rule, you pose virtually no threat, it's okay to let you go. * You're slightly dangerous (spectrum is wide), let's find a way to make sure (again, not 100%) you don't do it again before letting you go. * You're a threat, there's no way to be sure you won't go murder someone the same day we let go of you. You have to be removed from society. Where does prison fit in there? They send you to jail for x years, depending on the gravity of the offense. That's it. There's no attempt to make you a "okay" person, there's no attempt of protecting the people from you. You just sit there waiting for time to pass. When you get out, you can either think *that was annoying, I better not do that again* (he won't do it again because he's afraid of being jailed again, not because he's a better person than he was before) or *finally out, let's see if my "tools" are still where I left them.* And somehow society think it's okay to let him out. Just because he "paid his debt". Pointless, we're not playing give and take. A serial killer being a good prisoner doesn't mean he'll be a responsible citizen when he gets out. He shouldn't be getting 10 or 20 years, he should be staying there until he proves his worth as a person, or not get out at all. Giving jailtime to a father with no background of violence of any kind that kills the burglar he runs into in his own house is virtually *not* a threat except for the next bulgar that pays him a visit. The bulgar died labeled a bulgar or a *victim of the society that made him go down that path*, the father is now murderer that killed a rogue. He'll lose his job, his boss will lose a capable worker, his kids will miss their father, his wife will miss her husband. “Yes but he needs to pay for his crime.” — The state shouldn't be wasting money on selfish desire for revenge.

t3_1uwu73

You need friends to be 'happy' and 'successful' CMV

You need friends to be 'happy' and 'successful' CMV Society shows us that you need to have a whole group of friends that all share your interests and that can talk things through in order to be happy/successful. Most shows on TV depict a group of 5 or more friends being the norm, Most shows also depict at least 1 *Best* friend. Its seems that in order to lead happy lives everyone needs to be surrounded by that support 24/7. This reflects in real life, people with more friends seem to go further and faster. But do you really need that? Sometimes are you better off alone (not in a emo/cynical way) can you feel fulfilled without that group?

You need friends to be 'happy' and 'successful' CMV. You need friends to be 'happy' and 'successful' CMV Society shows us that you need to have a whole group of friends that all share your interests and that can talk things through in order to be happy/successful. Most shows on TV depict a group of 5 or more friends being the norm, Most shows also depict at least 1 *Best* friend. Its seems that in order to lead happy lives everyone needs to be surrounded by that support 24/7. This reflects in real life, people with more friends seem to go further and faster. But do you really need that? Sometimes are you better off alone (not in a emo/cynical way) can you feel fulfilled without that group?

t3_3xj4pq

CMV: It is in the United State's best interest to become more progressive if it wishes to remain relevant in the world.

The rest of the world is becoming more and more progressive, especially Europe. The UN seems to operate on a more progressive agenda, as opposed to a traditional one, or to be more clear with my meaning, the typical Republican viewpoint. It could be argued that the U.S doesn't mean to be relevant, but that seems rather silly considering the fact the we are a super connected world due to technology and many of the leading issues in politics today seem to revolve around how we deal abroad. So, assuming that it is, in fact important that the U.S remains a world leader, I argue that progressivism is imperative to our success. Edit: I mean Political relevancy Edit2.0: my view has been effectively been changed. I have gained a better understanding of the politics of the US and the world. this is an amazing subreddit and I am grateful for the chance to discuss various political ideas.

CMV: It is in the United State's best interest to become more progressive if it wishes to remain relevant in the world. The rest of the world is becoming more and more progressive, especially Europe. The UN seems to operate on a more progressive agenda, as opposed to a traditional one, or to be more clear with my meaning, the typical Republican viewpoint. It could be argued that the U.S doesn't mean to be relevant, but that seems rather silly considering the fact the we are a super connected world due to technology and many of the leading issues in politics today seem to revolve around how we deal abroad. So, assuming that it is, in fact important that the U.S remains a world leader, I argue that progressivism is imperative to our success. Edit: I mean Political relevancy Edit2.0: my view has been effectively been changed. I have gained a better understanding of the politics of the US and the world. this is an amazing subreddit and I am grateful for the chance to discuss various political ideas.

t3_1vzlt9

Sometimes, its hard to sympathize, even when I know I should. CMV

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/jason-derr_n_4652438.html This guy sounds like a nice guy. He sounds like he's in a rut, a real rut, and I am genuinely sorry for him. But, I still want to examine his situation, and figure out, is this really a problem with the economy, with the government, or with bad decision making. **Criticism #1:** This guy is 37, and has a graduate degree, a wife and one son. Sounds good so far. But what is his graduate degree in? I can't quite tell from the article, but from one sentence near the bottom I believe it has something to do with Creative Writing... Why do people do this to themselves? Spend tens of thousands of dollars on literally POINTLESS degrees. The best writers in history, did not study it or get a graduate degree. I write in my spare time. Just read some good novels and try to emulate it. This is a hobby, or a job you take time off to do when you aren't struggling. Not a career. CMV **Criticism #2:** *Marriage and kids...* I don't know this guy's situation, and he is at an age in life when this makes more sense than in many other situations, but in my humble opinion you should not get married or have a kid until you are financially stable. PERIOD. He should have waited till they both had their visa to move, or he should have waited to marry till his wife could work. And he had the choice to have a kid, 3 choices in fact, the moment of, the morning after, and the first trimester. It is ridiculous and immoral to have a kid in this day and age when you can't afford one. CMV **Criticism #3:** *Portland OR.* I freakin' LOVE Portland. Looks so great! I lived in the west cost for 3 months and visited OR, unfortunately never saw the city, and I absolutely LOVE OR. However, where should you live if you don't have a lot to live off of? Not Portland. The West Coast has high taxes and a high cost of living. I have friends who are living quite well on 20k down here. It makes it easier, its not a fix it solution though. So, yes, living on 20k at 37y/o with a wife and kid in Portland OR is a horrible situation. But my complaint is, how much of that damage is self inflicted? I still want to help the guy, but shouldn't he get a little criticism for all of this. Idk. CMV

Sometimes, its hard to sympathize, even when I know I should. CMV. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/jason-derr_n_4652438.html This guy sounds like a nice guy. He sounds like he's in a rut, a real rut, and I am genuinely sorry for him. But, I still want to examine his situation, and figure out, is this really a problem with the economy, with the government, or with bad decision making. **Criticism #1:** This guy is 37, and has a graduate degree, a wife and one son. Sounds good so far. But what is his graduate degree in? I can't quite tell from the article, but from one sentence near the bottom I believe it has something to do with Creative Writing... Why do people do this to themselves? Spend tens of thousands of dollars on literally POINTLESS degrees. The best writers in history, did not study it or get a graduate degree. I write in my spare time. Just read some good novels and try to emulate it. This is a hobby, or a job you take time off to do when you aren't struggling. Not a career. CMV **Criticism #2:** *Marriage and kids...* I don't know this guy's situation, and he is at an age in life when this makes more sense than in many other situations, but in my humble opinion you should not get married or have a kid until you are financially stable. PERIOD. He should have waited till they both had their visa to move, or he should have waited to marry till his wife could work. And he had the choice to have a kid, 3 choices in fact, the moment of, the morning after, and the first trimester. It is ridiculous and immoral to have a kid in this day and age when you can't afford one. CMV **Criticism #3:** *Portland OR.* I freakin' LOVE Portland. Looks so great! I lived in the west cost for 3 months and visited OR, unfortunately never saw the city, and I absolutely LOVE OR. However, where should you live if you don't have a lot to live off of? Not Portland. The West Coast has high taxes and a high cost of living. I have friends who are living quite well on 20k down here. It makes it easier, its not a fix it solution though. So, yes, living on 20k at 37y/o with a wife and kid in Portland OR is a horrible situation. But my complaint is, how much of that damage is self inflicted? I still want to help the guy, but shouldn't he get a little criticism for all of this. Idk. CMV

t3_43aa7w

CMV: No type of speech should ever be banned

Now, I would just like to start off with some qualifications for this post. First of all, I understand that some people have mental handicaps which cause them to take offense more easily than others. This does not apply to those people. Likewise, I am more open to the fact that "Call to Action" speech should be banned than any other, due to the potential nature for riots and such. If I am convinced that calls to action should be banned, I'll put in an edit right below this paragraph clarifying that fact so that a discussion can be continued with that in mind. EDIT: Yup, there's a really good reason calls to action are banned. Those are an exception too. By banning any type of speech, you weaken your own argument and strengthen that of your opponent. When there is a type of speech that you do not agree with, the best thing to do is always to disprove them, not keep them from being able to speak. This creates anger within the speaker, which may be passed down through children, until that belief is strong within the population of, say, the country. If you want to quell a belief, you have to make it sound stupid, not shut people up. The point of debate is to quell certain types of speech, and banning speech does the opposite. By refusing to debate a topic, you allow it to fester and grow, and it has been seen in the real world that the harder you push to ban a certain type of thought, the stronger that thought becomes in the populous. The only reasons you should ever refuse to debate a topic are if you cannot debate it sufficiently(Which is a problem with you, not the topic), or if you are afraid of being wrong. My next point is that the idea of banning any sort of speech, hateful or otherwise, is susceptible to manipulation. There is no defining factor that tells us what is hate speech and what is not - only our own discretion. By trying to ban hate speech in a government setting, we give our government the right to silence our thoughts by putting them under this huge blanket idea of "wrongthink". By allowing speech to be banned, we may become banned from speaking ourselves. My final point is a problem with the individual who wants to ban hate speech. I mentioned two paragraphs ago that one of the reasons you would want to ban an opposing idea from being brought out is that you are afraid of being wrong. The people who want speech banned are usually people who are wrong, but don't want to admit it. I would like to present to you the concept that **if you cannot prove somebody else wrong, you should assume that YOU are the one who is wrong.** I think that this is the safest assumption to make. No matter how morally upstanding you think your views are, if you cannot prove why they are morally upstanding, they are not. Nazis thought they were morally upstanding, too, but the difference between them and an actual moral person is that they could not prove it. Thank you for reading this post. I've been debating this point with my friends for a while now, and so far, I don't think I've lost a single time. I wanted to bring it here, because I want to make sure I'm right about this - it is a pretty complex issue, after all. _____ > *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: No type of speech should ever be banned. Now, I would just like to start off with some qualifications for this post. First of all, I understand that some people have mental handicaps which cause them to take offense more easily than others. This does not apply to those people. Likewise, I am more open to the fact that "Call to Action" speech should be banned than any other, due to the potential nature for riots and such. If I am convinced that calls to action should be banned, I'll put in an edit right below this paragraph clarifying that fact so that a discussion can be continued with that in mind. EDIT: Yup, there's a really good reason calls to action are banned. Those are an exception too. By banning any type of speech, you weaken your own argument and strengthen that of your opponent. When there is a type of speech that you do not agree with, the best thing to do is always to disprove them, not keep them from being able to speak. This creates anger within the speaker, which may be passed down through children, until that belief is strong within the population of, say, the country. If you want to quell a belief, you have to make it sound stupid, not shut people up. The point of debate is to quell certain types of speech, and banning speech does the opposite. By refusing to debate a topic, you allow it to fester and grow, and it has been seen in the real world that the harder you push to ban a certain type of thought, the stronger that thought becomes in the populous. The only reasons you should ever refuse to debate a topic are if you cannot debate it sufficiently(Which is a problem with you, not the topic), or if you are afraid of being wrong. My next point is that the idea of banning any sort of speech, hateful or otherwise, is susceptible to manipulation. There is no defining factor that tells us what is hate speech and what is not - only our own discretion. By trying to ban hate speech in a government setting, we give our government the right to silence our thoughts by putting them under this huge blanket idea of "wrongthink". By allowing speech to be banned, we may become banned from speaking ourselves. My final point is a problem with the individual who wants to ban hate speech. I mentioned two paragraphs ago that one of the reasons you would want to ban an opposing idea from being brought out is that you are afraid of being wrong. The people who want speech banned are usually people who are wrong, but don't want to admit it. I would like to present to you the concept that **if you cannot prove somebody else wrong, you should assume that YOU are the one who is wrong.** I think that this is the safest assumption to make. No matter how morally upstanding you think your views are, if you cannot prove why they are morally upstanding, they are not. Nazis thought they were morally upstanding, too, but the difference between them and an actual moral person is that they could not prove it. Thank you for reading this post. I've been debating this point with my friends for a while now, and so far, I don't think I've lost a single time. I wanted to bring it here, because I want to make sure I'm right about this - it is a pretty complex issue, after all.

t3_20gyw4

I think that Malaysian Flight MH300 was interfered with by Aliens. CMV.

How does a widebody jetliner disintegrate in mid flight without a single redflag on the ground or have a history in its maintenance log? Nothing about this whole deal makes sense. We all know that there are extraterrestrials up there and down in the depths. One hundred million billion trillion stars with planets and even Kepler is finding possible life bearing planets by looking at a single point in space for years. Is Hawking, Tyson, Nye, Arthur C. Clark, Sagan, Gene Roddenberry, George Lucas, some astronauts, all the early astrologist, the painting of baby Jesus with the UFO, AREA51, and anything & everyone ever connected with space wrong about aliens and that space is just a light show? Nothing adds up and news reports about this are just as vague as their experts have nothing more than a speculative guess as to what happened. With all of the worlds tech looking outwards, upwards, downwards, and everywhere & its all been absolutely useless in solving this. So........ let's just say what we're all thinking and ease into a general acceptance that we are not alone and that this species of E.T.'s got one in on us, and has a jet loaded with people in its possession until..... This will end our holy wars and narrow inward thinking self destructive behavior as now we know we must stop fighting and fucking each other over for a dollar and get the world united to form EarthForce®©. So...... Change My View before something else happens on the world stage that turns this into a forgotten incident. Because once the next thing happens, we all know that this will just turn into another cold case file left to solve by some bored billionaire with a bunch of cool superhightech toys to play with.

I think that Malaysian Flight MH300 was interfered with by Aliens. CMV. How does a widebody jetliner disintegrate in mid flight without a single redflag on the ground or have a history in its maintenance log? Nothing about this whole deal makes sense. We all know that there are extraterrestrials up there and down in the depths. One hundred million billion trillion stars with planets and even Kepler is finding possible life bearing planets by looking at a single point in space for years. Is Hawking, Tyson, Nye, Arthur C. Clark, Sagan, Gene Roddenberry, George Lucas, some astronauts, all the early astrologist, the painting of baby Jesus with the UFO, AREA51, and anything & everyone ever connected with space wrong about aliens and that space is just a light show? Nothing adds up and news reports about this are just as vague as their experts have nothing more than a speculative guess as to what happened. With all of the worlds tech looking outwards, upwards, downwards, and everywhere & its all been absolutely useless in solving this. So........ let's just say what we're all thinking and ease into a general acceptance that we are not alone and that this species of E.T.'s got one in on us, and has a jet loaded with people in its possession until..... This will end our holy wars and narrow inward thinking self destructive behavior as now we know we must stop fighting and fucking each other over for a dollar and get the world united to form EarthForce®©. So...... Change My View before something else happens on the world stage that turns this into a forgotten incident. Because once the next thing happens, we all know that this will just turn into another cold case file left to solve by some bored billionaire with a bunch of cool superhightech toys to play with.

t3_1o5321

CMV - I believe that the crimes committed by the Nazis, even though they were terrible, are a display of human nature

First off I do not in any way think that the crimes were OK or justifiable in any way. What I do think though is that crimes like these are a perfect display of the human nature in it's most basic state. IMO it is natural for humans to be brutal and "barbaric". And that human kind as a total will probably never (or at least not in a long time) stray from the path of violence and brutality to a path of kindness and fairness because it is just a natural trait of humans to be brutal. Good examples to this are actually all the wars that have ever been fought. Sure sometimes you have to stand up against something but still a lot of situations could just be solved without using force or without starting a war yet humanity continues to choose force and war over peace and diplomacy. EDIT: I think I have messed up my formulation a bit. What I meant to say is following: A lot of people view what the Nazis did pre as well as during WW2 as inhuman and atrocious. I think that even if they are horrible things they are normal and give a good view of how humans as a species are. Or in other words humans are by definition and nature brutal and tend to be so. (Sorry somehow my English skills are just giving up on me -.-) **EDIT 2 (10.10.13 / 19:20 GMT+1):** I will take a look at your posts when I am back on my computer. To say it some things did make me start to rethink my views. Thanks for your replies so far :) CMV :)

CMV - I believe that the crimes committed by the Nazis, even though they were terrible, are a display of human nature. First off I do not in any way think that the crimes were OK or justifiable in any way. What I do think though is that crimes like these are a perfect display of the human nature in it's most basic state. IMO it is natural for humans to be brutal and "barbaric". And that human kind as a total will probably never (or at least not in a long time) stray from the path of violence and brutality to a path of kindness and fairness because it is just a natural trait of humans to be brutal. Good examples to this are actually all the wars that have ever been fought. Sure sometimes you have to stand up against something but still a lot of situations could just be solved without using force or without starting a war yet humanity continues to choose force and war over peace and diplomacy. EDIT: I think I have messed up my formulation a bit. What I meant to say is following: A lot of people view what the Nazis did pre as well as during WW2 as inhuman and atrocious. I think that even if they are horrible things they are normal and give a good view of how humans as a species are. Or in other words humans are by definition and nature brutal and tend to be so. (Sorry somehow my English skills are just giving up on me -.-) **EDIT 2 (10.10.13 / 19:20 GMT+1):** I will take a look at your posts when I am back on my computer. To say it some things did make me start to rethink my views. Thanks for your replies so far :) CMV :)

t3_6yb4g1

CMV: Illegal/Undocumented Immigrants from Neighboring Countries Should Not Receive Asylum

**Edited because I don't know the meaning of the word asylum** I want to start off by saying that this view is not based off of racism or any other discrimination of ethnicity or nationality. With that said, I believe that there are no redeeming outcomes to granting safety to illegal/undocumented immigrants from neighboring countries. First, definitions: - **Safety** So this word used to be asylum, because as a word it works for what I meant, but I forgot that in terms of immigration it has a specific legal definition. So I replaced it with "safety", meaning in this case any amount of refuge inside the United States. **Neighboring Countries** By this I mean any country with a land border with the US, and I include in the term "illegal/undocumented immigrants from neighboring countries" any immigrant who uses one of these land borders as their entry into the US to avoid legal immigration methods, regardless of said person's point of origin. - My biggest personal grievance with granting asylum to illegal/undocumented immigrants is that it both directly and indirectly affects people trying to enter the US legally. Immigration is regulated, so granting asylum to illegal immigrants would likely take away from the number of legal immigrants who would also be seeking asylum. If anything the idea of granting asylum to illegal immigrants *goes against* the concept of the US as a nation of immigrants because it means we have to restrict immigrants from around the globe in response to people illegally entering the country and adding population strain. Additionally, granting asylum to these people would likely increase xenophobia by biasing our interactions towards people who are prepared to break the law, giving those with already xenophobic viewpoints a reason to be angry in the violation of our laws, and giving people with neutral viewpoints things to oppose again in the violation of our laws. _____ > *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: Illegal/Undocumented Immigrants from Neighboring Countries Should Not Receive Asylum. **Edited because I don't know the meaning of the word asylum** I want to start off by saying that this view is not based off of racism or any other discrimination of ethnicity or nationality. With that said, I believe that there are no redeeming outcomes to granting safety to illegal/undocumented immigrants from neighboring countries. First, definitions: - **Safety** So this word used to be asylum, because as a word it works for what I meant, but I forgot that in terms of immigration it has a specific legal definition. So I replaced it with "safety", meaning in this case any amount of refuge inside the United States. **Neighboring Countries** By this I mean any country with a land border with the US, and I include in the term "illegal/undocumented immigrants from neighboring countries" any immigrant who uses one of these land borders as their entry into the US to avoid legal immigration methods, regardless of said person's point of origin. - My biggest personal grievance with granting asylum to illegal/undocumented immigrants is that it both directly and indirectly affects people trying to enter the US legally. Immigration is regulated, so granting asylum to illegal immigrants would likely take away from the number of legal immigrants who would also be seeking asylum. If anything the idea of granting asylum to illegal immigrants *goes against* the concept of the US as a nation of immigrants because it means we have to restrict immigrants from around the globe in response to people illegally entering the country and adding population strain. Additionally, granting asylum to these people would likely increase xenophobia by biasing our interactions towards people who are prepared to break the law, giving those with already xenophobic viewpoints a reason to be angry in the violation of our laws, and giving people with neutral viewpoints things to oppose again in the violation of our laws.

t3_26dxom

CMV:Blind university admissions are preferable to affirmative action-based admissions.

It is undeniable that most people are subconsciously racist, or at least that they favour people who share their pigmentation. Given that, it is understandable that there would be institutional measures to counter this bias. The problem is that there is a much better solution to affirmative action and it solves more at ultimately less cost. The argument for affirmative action, as best I understand and can represent it, is something like: 1. People from minority backgrounds are disadvantaged (economically, socially, nutritionally, developmentally due to environmental factors) and this disadvantage should be nullified by a counterweight of sorts in preference for disadvantaged people. 2. Over time, affirmative action will become unnecessary due to the balance being restored, but is a necessary, just and optimal state of affairs in the meantime. 3. There are advantages to affirmative action in terms of disempowered minorities being able to voice their experience to the privileged classes and general cultural enrichment will result through affirmative action. To me, most of these points are fairly reasonable, and I don't see much need to contest the claims they make. However, I see blind admissions and I can't help but find their apparent advantages make affirmative action look very poor indeed by comparison: 1. Blind testing fundamentally nullifies any bias in the admissions process. It is an elegant way of ensuring fairness on a multitude of socially relevant factors like sex, race, location etc. 2. Blind testing is less likely to cause racial divides because it seems (and arguable is) more "fair". 3. Affirmative action may be deleterious to racial relations in the long run, and the perception of competence of racial minorities may be perverted by the controversy surrounding affirmative action. 4. Blind testing ensures that the most competent members of minority groups will be representative of their group, and so general opinions concerning disadvantaged minorities will increase.

CMV:Blind university admissions are preferable to affirmative action-based admissions. It is undeniable that most people are subconsciously racist, or at least that they favour people who share their pigmentation. Given that, it is understandable that there would be institutional measures to counter this bias. The problem is that there is a much better solution to affirmative action and it solves more at ultimately less cost. The argument for affirmative action, as best I understand and can represent it, is something like: 1. People from minority backgrounds are disadvantaged (economically, socially, nutritionally, developmentally due to environmental factors) and this disadvantage should be nullified by a counterweight of sorts in preference for disadvantaged people. 2. Over time, affirmative action will become unnecessary due to the balance being restored, but is a necessary, just and optimal state of affairs in the meantime. 3. There are advantages to affirmative action in terms of disempowered minorities being able to voice their experience to the privileged classes and general cultural enrichment will result through affirmative action. To me, most of these points are fairly reasonable, and I don't see much need to contest the claims they make. However, I see blind admissions and I can't help but find their apparent advantages make affirmative action look very poor indeed by comparison: 1. Blind testing fundamentally nullifies any bias in the admissions process. It is an elegant way of ensuring fairness on a multitude of socially relevant factors like sex, race, location etc. 2. Blind testing is less likely to cause racial divides because it seems (and arguable is) more "fair". 3. Affirmative action may be deleterious to racial relations in the long run, and the perception of competence of racial minorities may be perverted by the controversy surrounding affirmative action. 4. Blind testing ensures that the most competent members of minority groups will be representative of their group, and so general opinions concerning disadvantaged minorities will increase.

t3_4sz62l

CMV: I feel bad that I don't want to go into a "helpful" or "society bettering" career

Basically, I will be going into college soon and have thought quite a bit on my career in my future life. I have friends who want to become nurses, doctors, want to join the military, firefighters, EMTs, veterinarians, basically careers that were made to help others, or to disregard your own safety for the greater good of others. While I personally think I would like to pursue a career in the business/economics or physical therapy sectors, I feel bad that my aims aren't like this. If I go into business for example, I wont be bettering humanity, nor will I be helping people. I wouldn't be putting my life on the line (as I would if I joined the military or firefighters), nor am I helping save lives in a more "noble" career such as doctors or EMTs. To sum it up, I feel bad that I don't want to have a career in something "helpful to humanity", can someone change my opinion on this, maybe make me feel not so bad about this?

CMV: I feel bad that I don't want to go into a "helpful" or "society bettering" career. Basically, I will be going into college soon and have thought quite a bit on my career in my future life. I have friends who want to become nurses, doctors, want to join the military, firefighters, EMTs, veterinarians, basically careers that were made to help others, or to disregard your own safety for the greater good of others. While I personally think I would like to pursue a career in the business/economics or physical therapy sectors, I feel bad that my aims aren't like this. If I go into business for example, I wont be bettering humanity, nor will I be helping people. I wouldn't be putting my life on the line (as I would if I joined the military or firefighters), nor am I helping save lives in a more "noble" career such as doctors or EMTs. To sum it up, I feel bad that I don't want to have a career in something "helpful to humanity", can someone change my opinion on this, maybe make me feel not so bad about this?

t3_2kdz85

CMV: Dressing up for Halloween as a member of another culture is not racist.

I've seen a lot of articles lately condemning costumes like Native American or Geishas, comparing them to Black Face, and calling the people who don them racists. Obviously, if you dress as a Native American and go around making grunting noises and jumping all over the place and acting like an asshole, or if you're in an Oriental outfit and say nothing but 'Ching Ching ding dong' then that goes without saying- you're not only an asshole, you're a racist asshole. Racism stems from negative stereotypes that are trumped up and oppress a people in a certain group. However, if someone were to wear a costume to celebrate those people, feel good about themselves and express their interest in other cultures, and behave like an actual adult would in public, I honestly can't see how this is offensive to other cultures. Donning Black Face was racist because white people dressed as blacks to mock them and dehumanized them for entertainment. Dressing up in a Native American headdress in order to celebrate a holiday that requires you to become something you're not is no more racist than donning a Toga at a frat party. CMV Edit: thanks for the great replies guys! Keep em coming! I think we have a pretty interesting, and intelligent conversation going on here, thank you all for being mature and open minded during this discussion. This is one of my favorite subs for a reason. Carry on...

CMV: Dressing up for Halloween as a member of another culture is not racist. I've seen a lot of articles lately condemning costumes like Native American or Geishas, comparing them to Black Face, and calling the people who don them racists. Obviously, if you dress as a Native American and go around making grunting noises and jumping all over the place and acting like an asshole, or if you're in an Oriental outfit and say nothing but 'Ching Ching ding dong' then that goes without saying- you're not only an asshole, you're a racist asshole. Racism stems from negative stereotypes that are trumped up and oppress a people in a certain group. However, if someone were to wear a costume to celebrate those people, feel good about themselves and express their interest in other cultures, and behave like an actual adult would in public, I honestly can't see how this is offensive to other cultures. Donning Black Face was racist because white people dressed as blacks to mock them and dehumanized them for entertainment. Dressing up in a Native American headdress in order to celebrate a holiday that requires you to become something you're not is no more racist than donning a Toga at a frat party. CMV Edit: thanks for the great replies guys! Keep em coming! I think we have a pretty interesting, and intelligent conversation going on here, thank you all for being mature and open minded during this discussion. This is one of my favorite subs for a reason. Carry on...

t3_48pb52

CMV: Affirmative Action based on race is racist and unethical.

I am Asian, a child of poor-ish immigrants, and frankly fairly confused. Growing up, I've been told many times that I will have to study harder and do more to get into a good college than my black/hispanic counterparts because of my race and gender (asian male). So my question: how can liberals (or people in general) be so against racism and discrimination, while supporting things that directly discriminate on race and gender, like Affirmative Action? Doesn't it make more sense to base affirmative action on income levels, if we decide to keep it at all? Doesn't it make sense for people to be hired/accepted based on merit and ability, rather than inherent characteristics? Thank you! :) EDIT: Thank you for your responses! I still haven't entirely changed my view, but I'm starting to see the reasons why people would think differently. I'm trying to respond as quickly as I can, sorry if I'm slow! EDIT2: Again, thanks for your opinions! I was unable to change my view. It seems like a difference of values - Equality vs Equalization, Utilitarianism vs Diversity, etc etc. Thank you for the time and effort, I appreciate 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: Affirmative Action based on race is racist and unethical. I am Asian, a child of poor-ish immigrants, and frankly fairly confused. Growing up, I've been told many times that I will have to study harder and do more to get into a good college than my black/hispanic counterparts because of my race and gender (asian male). So my question: how can liberals (or people in general) be so against racism and discrimination, while supporting things that directly discriminate on race and gender, like Affirmative Action? Doesn't it make more sense to base affirmative action on income levels, if we decide to keep it at all? Doesn't it make sense for people to be hired/accepted based on merit and ability, rather than inherent characteristics? Thank you! :) EDIT: Thank you for your responses! I still haven't entirely changed my view, but I'm starting to see the reasons why people would think differently. I'm trying to respond as quickly as I can, sorry if I'm slow! EDIT2: Again, thanks for your opinions! I was unable to change my view. It seems like a difference of values - Equality vs Equalization, Utilitarianism vs Diversity, etc etc. Thank you for the time and effort, I appreciate it.

t3_1zjxsd

"Could of" is proper english grammar. CMV

In linguistics there are two views about what is "proper" grammar. There are the prescriptivist and descriptivist views. Prescriptivism says that there is such a thing as proper grammar and that there are certain rules pertaining to spelling, pronunciation and sentence structure, ect. that one must follow in order to speak properly. These rules are set by some kind of authority which varies according to different languages/regions. This authority always claims that the grammar of the social elite is the one true way. Descriptivism rejects the idea of proper grammar. Whatever grammar people use is what they use and that's that. As with any philosophical issue, one can have a position that is somewhere in between. My position is that you are using proper grammar for a language if a native speaker of that language can easily understand your intentions. The idea that some self-appointed authority can tell me what is and isn't proper is laughable. It's also insulting that these authorities only say that the grammatical style of the elites is the "right" grammar. This is nothing more than status dominating behavior. SOURCE from wikipedia: "The spoken and written language usages of the authorities (state, military, church) are preserved as the standard language to emulate for social success (see social class)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription It is a fact that languages morph over time. This is a point of contention for prescriptivist theories. Since many native speakers of english write or say "could of" and any native speaker of english knows immediately what this means it has become a normal part of the english language and is therefore "proper." That the language authorities say otherwise has no merit because their authority is illegitimate. EDIT: Just wanted to say that I don't care you are downvoting me. Since language changes over time, I'll probably be proven right - some time in the future.

"Could of" is proper english grammar. CMV. In linguistics there are two views about what is "proper" grammar. There are the prescriptivist and descriptivist views. Prescriptivism says that there is such a thing as proper grammar and that there are certain rules pertaining to spelling, pronunciation and sentence structure, ect. that one must follow in order to speak properly. These rules are set by some kind of authority which varies according to different languages/regions. This authority always claims that the grammar of the social elite is the one true way. Descriptivism rejects the idea of proper grammar. Whatever grammar people use is what they use and that's that. As with any philosophical issue, one can have a position that is somewhere in between. My position is that you are using proper grammar for a language if a native speaker of that language can easily understand your intentions. The idea that some self-appointed authority can tell me what is and isn't proper is laughable. It's also insulting that these authorities only say that the grammatical style of the elites is the "right" grammar. This is nothing more than status dominating behavior. SOURCE from wikipedia: "The spoken and written language usages of the authorities (state, military, church) are preserved as the standard language to emulate for social success (see social class)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription It is a fact that languages morph over time. This is a point of contention for prescriptivist theories. Since many native speakers of english write or say "could of" and any native speaker of english knows immediately what this means it has become a normal part of the english language and is therefore "proper." That the language authorities say otherwise has no merit because their authority is illegitimate. EDIT: Just wanted to say that I don't care you are downvoting me. Since language changes over time, I'll probably be proven right - some time in the future.

t3_2f34k0

CMV: I believe that voter ID laws are completely logical and don't compromise people's freedom to vote.

So there are a lot of people who are upset with voter ID laws in lots of states here in the US. I have heard that in some areas, you can vote if you bring in your birth certificate, rental contract, and other such documents. Frankly, it seems to me that those documents would be much easier to forge than a photo ID. In addition, a photo ID makes it quick and easy for people working at the poling locations to both verify voter information and appearance. Some people say that since you have to pay to get a photo ID, then you have to pay to vote. While this is technically true, you need a photo ID to do just about anything. Why are individuals not complaining about discrimination in getting jobs or finding living space? And since most states and cities are in debt, it doesn't make sense for them to provide them by means of citizens tax dollars. Sum up: I don't believe that the politicians who made voter ID laws did so to discriminate against poor minorities. I believe that they did it reduce voter fraud and increase the efficiency of poling locations. _____ > *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 voter ID laws are completely logical and don't compromise people's freedom to vote. So there are a lot of people who are upset with voter ID laws in lots of states here in the US. I have heard that in some areas, you can vote if you bring in your birth certificate, rental contract, and other such documents. Frankly, it seems to me that those documents would be much easier to forge than a photo ID. In addition, a photo ID makes it quick and easy for people working at the poling locations to both verify voter information and appearance. Some people say that since you have to pay to get a photo ID, then you have to pay to vote. While this is technically true, you need a photo ID to do just about anything. Why are individuals not complaining about discrimination in getting jobs or finding living space? And since most states and cities are in debt, it doesn't make sense for them to provide them by means of citizens tax dollars. Sum up: I don't believe that the politicians who made voter ID laws did so to discriminate against poor minorities. I believe that they did it reduce voter fraud and increase the efficiency of poling locations.

t3_20t5jg

Stadiums should let people sit in the best available seats once an event starts and its clear there isn't a sell out. CMV

_____ To highlight my point I will use the Philadelphia 76'ers as an example. The 76'ers just set a franchise record for losses at 21 straight, and are on course to set the league record. There is speculation that they wont win a game for the rest of the season. It has been no secret that they are basically tanking on purpose to get a top draft pick and begin rebuilding next year. Their motto for the season, plastered on billboards and even their own website, is ["Together we build"](http://www.nba.com/sixers/tickets/index.html). Despite this, their ticket prices have not gone down at all. 100 level seats are going anywhere from $100-$300 a piece. No one in their right mind is going to pay that kind of money to see a team this bad, and it shows during the games. When you watch on TV the place is empty. A D III college game would be better attended. I believe if a fan pays for a ticket to a game, they should be able to get the best available seat when there isn't a sell out. In the case of the Sixers, the franchise should be ECSTATIC that anyone would be willing to pay for a ticket to one of their games. Those fans should be rewarded by getting the best seat possible. I feel this would be beneficial for sports franchises by giving the appearance of a sell out on television with all the on screen seats filled. People may be more inclined to buy tickets based on the appearance of a great atmosphere and the idea that they're missing out on an exciting experience. Most importantly, if those seats aren't being filled then it isnt hurting the team anyway. This could come with a stipulation that if the seat you are moved to is purchased during the event, you have to relocate or go back to your own. This way there is still potential to make money off the seat. CMV! EDIT: Formatting EDIT 2: (3:35 EST) Great responses everyone! My view has been changed in regards to theater shows. This would probably be a disaster for an opera, comedy, musical, or play. HOWEVER, I still feel like there could be a logical way to implement this in sporting events without all hell breaking out! Keep in mind, we are talking about a situation where there ISNT A SELLOUT, so theoretically the seats you could move to are lower level seats that have not been sold. Lets keep the discussion going!

Stadiums should let people sit in the best available seats once an event starts and its clear there isn't a sell out. CMV. _____ To highlight my point I will use the Philadelphia 76'ers as an example. The 76'ers just set a franchise record for losses at 21 straight, and are on course to set the league record. There is speculation that they wont win a game for the rest of the season. It has been no secret that they are basically tanking on purpose to get a top draft pick and begin rebuilding next year. Their motto for the season, plastered on billboards and even their own website, is ["Together we build"](http://www.nba.com/sixers/tickets/index.html). Despite this, their ticket prices have not gone down at all. 100 level seats are going anywhere from $100-$300 a piece. No one in their right mind is going to pay that kind of money to see a team this bad, and it shows during the games. When you watch on TV the place is empty. A D III college game would be better attended. I believe if a fan pays for a ticket to a game, they should be able to get the best available seat when there isn't a sell out. In the case of the Sixers, the franchise should be ECSTATIC that anyone would be willing to pay for a ticket to one of their games. Those fans should be rewarded by getting the best seat possible. I feel this would be beneficial for sports franchises by giving the appearance of a sell out on television with all the on screen seats filled. People may be more inclined to buy tickets based on the appearance of a great atmosphere and the idea that they're missing out on an exciting experience. Most importantly, if those seats aren't being filled then it isnt hurting the team anyway. This could come with a stipulation that if the seat you are moved to is purchased during the event, you have to relocate or go back to your own. This way there is still potential to make money off the seat. CMV! EDIT: Formatting EDIT 2: (3:35 EST) Great responses everyone! My view has been changed in regards to theater shows. This would probably be a disaster for an opera, comedy, musical, or play. HOWEVER, I still feel like there could be a logical way to implement this in sporting events without all hell breaking out! Keep in mind, we are talking about a situation where there ISNT A SELLOUT, so theoretically the seats you could move to are lower level seats that have not been sold. Lets keep the discussion going!

t3_1lfbiq

I think reddit is unjustifiably biased against teenagers and rap music for no good reason. CMV

Let's get some things out of the way first. I am a teenager who enjoys rap music. I *do* think that some rap is bad, and that is what's played on the radio. You don't hear Joey Bada$$ and underground rappers, and instead you hear Lil Wayne/2chainz and what reddit defines as shitty rap. But this gives hip hop a bad rep. Most redditors I encounter just think rap is "nigga nigga nigga imma go kill a hoe and fuck a bitch" and refuse to change their views. Most redditors think that rap is stupid and can't be compared to bands like Queen and the Beatles (who ***I*** find overrated). The same applies to teenagers. Redditors see posts from /r/cringepics and just assume all teenagers are brain dead fucks who only care about swag. CMV?

I think reddit is unjustifiably biased against teenagers and rap music for no good reason. CMV. Let's get some things out of the way first. I am a teenager who enjoys rap music. I *do* think that some rap is bad, and that is what's played on the radio. You don't hear Joey Bada$$ and underground rappers, and instead you hear Lil Wayne/2chainz and what reddit defines as shitty rap. But this gives hip hop a bad rep. Most redditors I encounter just think rap is "nigga nigga nigga imma go kill a hoe and fuck a bitch" and refuse to change their views. Most redditors think that rap is stupid and can't be compared to bands like Queen and the Beatles (who ***I*** find overrated). The same applies to teenagers. Redditors see posts from /r/cringepics and just assume all teenagers are brain dead fucks who only care about swag. CMV?

t3_3w0207

CMV: Employers with a bias against men with long hair are demonstrating sexism.

There are beyond feasible ways to professionally present and upkeep long hair, regardless of gender. The notion that "businessmen" ought have short hair, is sexist given that the same standard does not apply to "businesswomen". I realize that many men with long hair do not upkeep theirs to near as high a standard that long haired women do, however this isn't directly relevant to the view. This is in response to my friend, at the fox school of business, being strongly urged to cut his long hair and shave his beard entirely (this isn't to say wrongs have been done to him or that the "urgers" are bad, because they simply have his future employment in mind). however, I do not see anything unprofessional about having long hair, facial hair, or hair anywhere for that matter, so long as it is not unkempt and/or distracting. 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: Employers with a bias against men with long hair are demonstrating sexism. There are beyond feasible ways to professionally present and upkeep long hair, regardless of gender. The notion that "businessmen" ought have short hair, is sexist given that the same standard does not apply to "businesswomen". I realize that many men with long hair do not upkeep theirs to near as high a standard that long haired women do, however this isn't directly relevant to the view. This is in response to my friend, at the fox school of business, being strongly urged to cut his long hair and shave his beard entirely (this isn't to say wrongs have been done to him or that the "urgers" are bad, because they simply have his future employment in mind). however, I do not see anything unprofessional about having long hair, facial hair, or hair anywhere for that matter, so long as it is not unkempt and/or distracting. CMV

t3_2wtv5j

CMV: The US Dept. of Health and Human Services should release official guidelines on pregnancy, including its definition, and what can and cannot cause it.

I barely had any sex ed in school. In 7th grade, there was one day of sex education during gym class. I still don't have all the information. This is in part due to misinformation out there. I googled "can pregnancy be caused pre-ejaculate ("precum" semen that slips out before climax)" [Here is a website that contradicts itself](http://americanpregnancy.org/getting-pregnant/can-you-get-pregnant-with-precum/) It says in bold that no you cannot get pregnant by with pre-ejactulate, but then in the next sentence it says yes there is a possibility that pre-ejaculate can get you pregnant. Can you get pregnant without penetration? It says no in bold, the but then a paragraph later the site says yes you can. I'm confused by the mixed messages this site sends. Kids (shit, adults for that matter) should not be forced to rely on the internet for this information (because anyone can post anything online). This site answered no questions, only increased my confusion. **Problem:** As it stands today, we as a country are doing a shit job of informing kids about this stuff. Resources like this link that send mixed messages, and a lot of mis information put out there by conservatives (that's another debate though). Combine that with kids who don't know shit and spread rumors. In 11th grade, a whole group of kids seriously believed there is only one single day per month that a woman could possibly get pregnant. They are way to old to believing this nonsense. But of course my high school is a catholic school so the only sex ed was "if you have any type of sex whatsoever outside of marriage, you deserve to go to hell" In fact, there are many adults who truly believe that OTC Plan B pill causes abortion (IT DOES NOT). [There was once a change.org petition to "remove the abortion pill from vending machines"](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01/29/1508841/fda-plan-b-vending-machine/) **Solution: ** Just like the USDA releases guideline on how long to cook a steak, the government should release official guidelines on what can and cannot cause pregnancy and when it begins. And sex ed classes in public schools (which all public schools should have) should be required to teach from these guidelines. So there's no confusion. This is science, there's only one correct answer. There shouldn't be debate over facts. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The US Dept. of Health and Human Services should release official guidelines on pregnancy, including its definition, and what can and cannot cause it. I barely had any sex ed in school. In 7th grade, there was one day of sex education during gym class. I still don't have all the information. This is in part due to misinformation out there. I googled "can pregnancy be caused pre-ejaculate ("precum" semen that slips out before climax)" [Here is a website that contradicts itself](http://americanpregnancy.org/getting-pregnant/can-you-get-pregnant-with-precum/) It says in bold that no you cannot get pregnant by with pre-ejactulate, but then in the next sentence it says yes there is a possibility that pre-ejaculate can get you pregnant. Can you get pregnant without penetration? It says no in bold, the but then a paragraph later the site says yes you can. I'm confused by the mixed messages this site sends. Kids (shit, adults for that matter) should not be forced to rely on the internet for this information (because anyone can post anything online). This site answered no questions, only increased my confusion. **Problem:** As it stands today, we as a country are doing a shit job of informing kids about this stuff. Resources like this link that send mixed messages, and a lot of mis information put out there by conservatives (that's another debate though). Combine that with kids who don't know shit and spread rumors. In 11th grade, a whole group of kids seriously believed there is only one single day per month that a woman could possibly get pregnant. They are way to old to believing this nonsense. But of course my high school is a catholic school so the only sex ed was "if you have any type of sex whatsoever outside of marriage, you deserve to go to hell" In fact, there are many adults who truly believe that OTC Plan B pill causes abortion (IT DOES NOT). [There was once a change.org petition to "remove the abortion pill from vending machines"](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/01/29/1508841/fda-plan-b-vending-machine/) **Solution: ** Just like the USDA releases guideline on how long to cook a steak, the government should release official guidelines on what can and cannot cause pregnancy and when it begins. And sex ed classes in public schools (which all public schools should have) should be required to teach from these guidelines. So there's no confusion. This is science, there's only one correct answer. There shouldn't be debate over facts.

t3_1k5pj6

I think the Humanities are useless. CMV

To elaborate, I am a college student with many friends who are majoring in non-STEM majors. I hate to stereotype but I go to a fairly reputable university where there seems to be an obvious separation in the quality of the student body amongst STEM and non-STEM majors. For one thing, I notice that the work load of Art History or English majors requires far fewer hours of intensive studying than does a more math-intensive subject such as Electrical Engineering. I was hoping someone could explain to me how expertise in these subjects contributes to our society in a way comparable to STEM focused subjects.

I think the Humanities are useless. CMV. To elaborate, I am a college student with many friends who are majoring in non-STEM majors. I hate to stereotype but I go to a fairly reputable university where there seems to be an obvious separation in the quality of the student body amongst STEM and non-STEM majors. For one thing, I notice that the work load of Art History or English majors requires far fewer hours of intensive studying than does a more math-intensive subject such as Electrical Engineering. I was hoping someone could explain to me how expertise in these subjects contributes to our society in a way comparable to STEM focused subjects.

t3_1g7iet

I believe that your fate is largely the result of personal choices rather than circumstance. CMV

While I understand that some are born into a family/culture/geographical location that *promotes* poverty, obesity, or other unfortunate circumstances, I believe that you always have the **choice** to change it. The existence of rags-to-riches stories from those born into poor families, as well as the choice to live an unhealthy lifestyle and become obese despite good education, indicates that some people will go to great lengths to change what they are given while others choose to not change due to convenience. Change my view. Please explain how one does *not* have a choice, particularly in the case of obesity.

I believe that your fate is largely the result of personal choices rather than circumstance. CMV. While I understand that some are born into a family/culture/geographical location that *promotes* poverty, obesity, or other unfortunate circumstances, I believe that you always have the **choice** to change it. The existence of rags-to-riches stories from those born into poor families, as well as the choice to live an unhealthy lifestyle and become obese despite good education, indicates that some people will go to great lengths to change what they are given while others choose to not change due to convenience. Change my view. Please explain how one does *not* have a choice, particularly in the case of obesity.

t3_1eh1l9

I think that America's government should be given an ultimatum: "In God We Trust" will not be printed on our money and the pledge of allegiance is changed, or we take out the right to choose our own religion.

I'm an atheist and I take some offense to "In God We Trust" and "One nation, under God". Why can't we change this? Atheists and polytheists are being suppressed in this nation, how can we even pretend to have the right to free religion? This will probably be hard to argue with since I believe most Redditors either are atheist or don't care much about Christianity. Edit: probably take out the ultimatum part, I'm a little tired, not sure why I put that.

I think that America's government should be given an ultimatum: "In God We Trust" will not be printed on our money and the pledge of allegiance is changed, or we take out the right to choose our own religion. I'm an atheist and I take some offense to "In God We Trust" and "One nation, under God". Why can't we change this? Atheists and polytheists are being suppressed in this nation, how can we even pretend to have the right to free religion? This will probably be hard to argue with since I believe most Redditors either are atheist or don't care much about Christianity. Edit: probably take out the ultimatum part, I'm a little tired, not sure why I put that.

t3_1xecbw

Brony's obsession with a child show is unhealthy and they should seek psychiatric help. Please CMV.

It actually sickens me to see grown men watching a children's show with the level obsession it has. It makes me uncomfortable and when I have kids I probably will even feel uncomfortable with stumbling upon the weird sexualized (I know its only sexualized to some, but its still out there) undertone the community full of "mature" adults has put around it. The reason I think they should seek psychiatric help is because it seems to be a reversion to a younger age type thing in my book. I've only taken an intro level psychology course in high school but one thing I learned was that trying to revert back to a more immature age is a sign of frustration or anger at themselves. TL;DR It's a kids show and I think that the people who watch it have actual mental issues including frustration towards their own lives. Thanks, and please CMV edit: **View changed, deltas awarded. That'll do donkey, that'll do.**

Brony's obsession with a child show is unhealthy and they should seek psychiatric help. Please CMV. It actually sickens me to see grown men watching a children's show with the level obsession it has. It makes me uncomfortable and when I have kids I probably will even feel uncomfortable with stumbling upon the weird sexualized (I know its only sexualized to some, but its still out there) undertone the community full of "mature" adults has put around it. The reason I think they should seek psychiatric help is because it seems to be a reversion to a younger age type thing in my book. I've only taken an intro level psychology course in high school but one thing I learned was that trying to revert back to a more immature age is a sign of frustration or anger at themselves. TL;DR It's a kids show and I think that the people who watch it have actual mental issues including frustration towards their own lives. Thanks, and please CMV edit: **View changed, deltas awarded. That'll do donkey, that'll do.**

t3_6i76py

CMV: Not all jobs should be required to pay a livable wage.

There was a [recent post](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6i0riv/400_burger_per_hour_robot_will_put_teenagers_out/) about automation taking over jobs of "burger flippers". The comments that followed largely spoke to the idea that: a) most of those jobs are not done by just teenages, but of people of all ages b) because it's not "just teens", those jobs should be paying out a higher wage, enough for someone (or a family) to live on My view point is that not all jobs are complex or specialized enough to justify the payout of what could be considered "livable" for the following reasons: 1) Job pay rates are determined by the job's complexity and available workforce. Highly skilled jobs limit the available amount of local candidates, low skill jobs increase the amount of local candidates. High skill jobs pay more because there is less competition to get the work done and done correctly. Low skill jobs can be done with minimal training and (sometimes) tend to have product quality that is fairly relaxed. 2) The term "livable wage" varies wildly from state to state and even county to county. What does "livable" mean? Afford rent and food? Does that mean by yourself, or with roommates? Do you get paid less if you have more roommates to split rent? It is my view, there is no real measure by which to define this legally speaking. 3) Wages are/should NOT set based on personal situation. I hear this a lot, and it drives me crazy. "A 27 year old mother should be able to work a job to feed her child/children". While I agree, this situation is one of complexity and (I'd say) tragedy, I would argue there is no reason a wage should consider an employee's personal situation (note: I am not saying this applies at the manager/employee level, but at a governmental level). Let's say there were laws to base wages on personal situation, should a man with 5 children earn more than a single woman with no children for doing the same task? At what point does that stop? There are religions that promote having as many kids as possible (looking at you TLC shows). Should a parent with 19 kids make more simply because they choose to reproduce more? I say that is a ridiculous notion. 4) Pure economics. If jobs such as a burger flipper were paid higher, there are only a few different outcomes: product prices increase, less people get hired or automation ramps up quicker. No business is going to take a loss on payroll increases. 5) This is my most opinionated argument, and likely most controversial. Certain types of work do not equal the amount of effort it takes to stay alive. A wage is an exchange of money for hours. You trade your hours in exchange for money. Therefore, your money is a direct indication of how much economic value you have contributed (not moral value, or anything like that). The things that you buy with your money are also a direct indication of their economic value in society. If you cannot afford to pay for the basics of life, you likely are not contributing much to society, again economically speaking. For clarity, a little about my background. I grew up very poor, started supporting myself around 16, lived out of a car at points of my life, spent my twenties working my ass off, and now am in my early thirties, I'm making more than most. My viewpoints likely have been skewed by "pulling myself up by my bootstraps" life thus-far. _____ > *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: Not all jobs should be required to pay a livable wage. There was a [recent post](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6i0riv/400_burger_per_hour_robot_will_put_teenagers_out/) about automation taking over jobs of "burger flippers". The comments that followed largely spoke to the idea that: a) most of those jobs are not done by just teenages, but of people of all ages b) because it's not "just teens", those jobs should be paying out a higher wage, enough for someone (or a family) to live on My view point is that not all jobs are complex or specialized enough to justify the payout of what could be considered "livable" for the following reasons: 1) Job pay rates are determined by the job's complexity and available workforce. Highly skilled jobs limit the available amount of local candidates, low skill jobs increase the amount of local candidates. High skill jobs pay more because there is less competition to get the work done and done correctly. Low skill jobs can be done with minimal training and (sometimes) tend to have product quality that is fairly relaxed. 2) The term "livable wage" varies wildly from state to state and even county to county. What does "livable" mean? Afford rent and food? Does that mean by yourself, or with roommates? Do you get paid less if you have more roommates to split rent? It is my view, there is no real measure by which to define this legally speaking. 3) Wages are/should NOT set based on personal situation. I hear this a lot, and it drives me crazy. "A 27 year old mother should be able to work a job to feed her child/children". While I agree, this situation is one of complexity and (I'd say) tragedy, I would argue there is no reason a wage should consider an employee's personal situation (note: I am not saying this applies at the manager/employee level, but at a governmental level). Let's say there were laws to base wages on personal situation, should a man with 5 children earn more than a single woman with no children for doing the same task? At what point does that stop? There are religions that promote having as many kids as possible (looking at you TLC shows). Should a parent with 19 kids make more simply because they choose to reproduce more? I say that is a ridiculous notion. 4) Pure economics. If jobs such as a burger flipper were paid higher, there are only a few different outcomes: product prices increase, less people get hired or automation ramps up quicker. No business is going to take a loss on payroll increases. 5) This is my most opinionated argument, and likely most controversial. Certain types of work do not equal the amount of effort it takes to stay alive. A wage is an exchange of money for hours. You trade your hours in exchange for money. Therefore, your money is a direct indication of how much economic value you have contributed (not moral value, or anything like that). The things that you buy with your money are also a direct indication of their economic value in society. If you cannot afford to pay for the basics of life, you likely are not contributing much to society, again economically speaking. For clarity, a little about my background. I grew up very poor, started supporting myself around 16, lived out of a car at points of my life, spent my twenties working my ass off, and now am in my early thirties, I'm making more than most. My viewpoints likely have been skewed by "pulling myself up by my bootstraps" life thus-far.

t3_1kxpkd

I think homeschooling is inherently wrong for the majority of the population. CMV

Giving a child no say in homeschooling is wrong I believe. This is coming from personal bias, so I want to see if someone can change my view. I was homeschooled until 9th grade, when I got to high school my social skills were absolutely horrifying. My 9th and 10th grade years were miserable. I started doing drugs and smoking cigarettes (still addicted) just to be cool and fit in. I had now idea how to talk to girls, I currently hold resentment for my parents over a decade later and I was bullied like crazy. It took a LOT of work to get out my shell and learn to socialize, even college was spent without a girlfriend. I've finally reached a point in life where I feel normal and have incredible friendships and a great relationship, but there were many years of battling social understanding that I believe could have been avoided if I was able to have a normal childhood in school. For special needs children I don't have a stance on homeschooling. EDIT: I have to run to work but I will catch up on this thread and read all the responses this afternoon. Thanks for taking the time.

I think homeschooling is inherently wrong for the majority of the population. CMV. Giving a child no say in homeschooling is wrong I believe. This is coming from personal bias, so I want to see if someone can change my view. I was homeschooled until 9th grade, when I got to high school my social skills were absolutely horrifying. My 9th and 10th grade years were miserable. I started doing drugs and smoking cigarettes (still addicted) just to be cool and fit in. I had now idea how to talk to girls, I currently hold resentment for my parents over a decade later and I was bullied like crazy. It took a LOT of work to get out my shell and learn to socialize, even college was spent without a girlfriend. I've finally reached a point in life where I feel normal and have incredible friendships and a great relationship, but there were many years of battling social understanding that I believe could have been avoided if I was able to have a normal childhood in school. For special needs children I don't have a stance on homeschooling. EDIT: I have to run to work but I will catch up on this thread and read all the responses this afternoon. Thanks for taking the time.

t3_231b00

CMV:I believe Deaf culture is bad because it prevents deaf people getting CI which could improve their life significantly and because it prides on the fact deaf is not disability. The culture shouldn't exist.

1. I believe deaf culture isn't something that deaf people should be proud of, in fact it's something they should be feeling ashamed of. The culture essentially promotes that deaf isn't a disability and the fact they should be trying everything they can to get a deaf child. Many deaf children are prevented from getting their CI because of deaf culture. How could they deny deaf children something that will improve their quality of life significantly? Isn't that basically same as abusing the children? 2. In some western countries, disabled people receive their benefits from government in a form of SSDI, DLA, etc. I feel this is a waste of money as deaf people usually do not incur additional expenses due to their disability. Everything they need due to their disability is already covered by the government such as needing to pay for an interpreter. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I believe Deaf culture is bad because it prevents deaf people getting CI which could improve their life significantly and because it prides on the fact deaf is not disability. The culture shouldn't exist. 1. I believe deaf culture isn't something that deaf people should be proud of, in fact it's something they should be feeling ashamed of. The culture essentially promotes that deaf isn't a disability and the fact they should be trying everything they can to get a deaf child. Many deaf children are prevented from getting their CI because of deaf culture. How could they deny deaf children something that will improve their quality of life significantly? Isn't that basically same as abusing the children? 2. In some western countries, disabled people receive their benefits from government in a form of SSDI, DLA, etc. I feel this is a waste of money as deaf people usually do not incur additional expenses due to their disability. Everything they need due to their disability is already covered by the government such as needing to pay for an interpreter.

t3_4o8ubr

CMV: We should tie all restrictions on voting and gun ownership together with one caveat.

Edit VIEW CHANGED the caveat is obvious physical conditions (eg blindness/low vision) which don't effect mental capacity but do effect ability to safely use a gun. Firstly, I think this would encourage both sides of the isle to stop trying so aggressively to limit these two rights. Second and more tying together. If we cannot trust someone to own a gun why would we trust them to vote. We as a society have already come to some conclusions limiting both these rights. Felons, for example, cannot have either right. Many states prevent the mentally handicapped from voting. Frankly I don't see why we should let someone we think is incapable of safely owning a gun have a say in who represents them. Voting is far more dangerous it decides who is in congress and who the president is, which in turn decides when and how we go to war, how the police work, general government stuff, but those two seem to be the most likely to hurt people. So if we decide that we think people on the no fly list shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns, why should we let those people vote? Or when we say you need a lot of I.D. To vote why should we allow someone to purchase firearms without the same identification? It seems like common sense seeing as they are both constitutional rights which invariably effect a lot of people. I don't want terrorists or people under FBI investigation or mentally unstable people voting any more than I want unidentified people owning guns. This seems like a reasonable solution, but feels wrong so can someone please CMV? Editing to clarify a few things. on the FBI investigation, I only want people under FBI investigation to be unable to vote if we have decided as a society that we do not trust them to own guns. _____ > *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 tie all restrictions on voting and gun ownership together with one caveat. Edit VIEW CHANGED the caveat is obvious physical conditions (eg blindness/low vision) which don't effect mental capacity but do effect ability to safely use a gun. Firstly, I think this would encourage both sides of the isle to stop trying so aggressively to limit these two rights. Second and more tying together. If we cannot trust someone to own a gun why would we trust them to vote. We as a society have already come to some conclusions limiting both these rights. Felons, for example, cannot have either right. Many states prevent the mentally handicapped from voting. Frankly I don't see why we should let someone we think is incapable of safely owning a gun have a say in who represents them. Voting is far more dangerous it decides who is in congress and who the president is, which in turn decides when and how we go to war, how the police work, general government stuff, but those two seem to be the most likely to hurt people. So if we decide that we think people on the no fly list shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns, why should we let those people vote? Or when we say you need a lot of I.D. To vote why should we allow someone to purchase firearms without the same identification? It seems like common sense seeing as they are both constitutional rights which invariably effect a lot of people. I don't want terrorists or people under FBI investigation or mentally unstable people voting any more than I want unidentified people owning guns. This seems like a reasonable solution, but feels wrong so can someone please CMV? Editing to clarify a few things. on the FBI investigation, I only want people under FBI investigation to be unable to vote if we have decided as a society that we do not trust them to own guns.

t3_2yq22e

CMV: "Doxxing", or the posting and sharing of personal information, is not wrong if said information is openly and freely available. Moderators of websites should only crack down on doxxing if it can be proven that said information was obtained illegally.

"Doxxing" has become a hot-button topic on Reddit in the past six months and it has reared its head again due to allegations of moderator corruption. A lot of actions (that cause some to cry "censorship") taken by the moderators of Reddit and other sites are justified by stating that they are taken to preemptively stymie "doxxing." I understand that doxxing is against the rules of Reddit and many other websites, and said sites are private enterprises well within their rights to set their own rules; that being said, I fail to see why "doxxing" is considered to be such a terrible thing when a preponderance of people these days freely share their information to others via social media and other methods. I was raised by early adopters of the internet. My parents taught me to be extremely judicious with what information I posted publicly, something which I hew to this day. Even so, I doubt it would not be difficult for anyone to link my various online personae to my real name and from there derive my contact information (and were it not against the site's rules, I would have no issue with you posting that information in this thread) because I, through my own choice, have made that information publicly available. I **firmly** believe that it should neither be a crime nor publicly condemnable to **share publicly available information**. I believe that the technological and social advances of the 21st century have made it such that actively engaging in discussions on fora such as social media have made it so that, at the very least, participants qualify as "*limited purpose public figures*" under United States Law and similar statutes in other nations. Ultimately, however, I believe that discussion should not be censored because certain individuals were not judicious with what information they have put up on the internet. _____ > *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: "Doxxing", or the posting and sharing of personal information, is not wrong if said information is openly and freely available. Moderators of websites should only crack down on doxxing if it can be proven that said information was obtained illegally. "Doxxing" has become a hot-button topic on Reddit in the past six months and it has reared its head again due to allegations of moderator corruption. A lot of actions (that cause some to cry "censorship") taken by the moderators of Reddit and other sites are justified by stating that they are taken to preemptively stymie "doxxing." I understand that doxxing is against the rules of Reddit and many other websites, and said sites are private enterprises well within their rights to set their own rules; that being said, I fail to see why "doxxing" is considered to be such a terrible thing when a preponderance of people these days freely share their information to others via social media and other methods. I was raised by early adopters of the internet. My parents taught me to be extremely judicious with what information I posted publicly, something which I hew to this day. Even so, I doubt it would not be difficult for anyone to link my various online personae to my real name and from there derive my contact information (and were it not against the site's rules, I would have no issue with you posting that information in this thread) because I, through my own choice, have made that information publicly available. I **firmly** believe that it should neither be a crime nor publicly condemnable to **share publicly available information**. I believe that the technological and social advances of the 21st century have made it such that actively engaging in discussions on fora such as social media have made it so that, at the very least, participants qualify as "*limited purpose public figures*" under United States Law and similar statutes in other nations. Ultimately, however, I believe that discussion should not be censored because certain individuals were not judicious with what information they have put up on the internet.

t3_60u4pf

CMV: Everything happens for a reason.

I think this is a thought that many people hold, and certainly in the communities (20-30 year old women) I'm affiliated with. The main reasoning is this: Everything that happens to us, good or bad, has a reason behind it happening. That relationship you thought was unsinkable ended so you could meet the right person. That job you love is over so you can find a new path. Even in death, there is a reason why that person was lost. We might not know why at first, but nothing in life is random, nothing in life is down to chance, and behind everything we do and every experience is a reason why it is the way it is. Everything that happens, even meeting people, can become a learning experience. Basically, there is no such thing as coincidence because everything has a reason behind it. This gives life meaning, that we're not here one day and gone the next with no point to being alive. This quote pretty much sums it up: **Realize that if a door closed, it’s because what was behind it wasn’t meant for you.** I don't necessarily think you need to be religious to believe in such a concept either. It's not about God guiding you or altering your life plans. It's about trusting everything that happens to you will have the outcome that was intended. I've had people say believing everything happens for a reason is just a way for people to see the optimism in bad times, but that doesn't account for the reason WHY it happened. To summarise: - everything that happens to us has a reason why it has happened - we might not understand, we might not ever understand, but that doesn't nullify the reason is there - it's not about believing in god or fate - it's not an optimistic way of dealing with bad times, or trying to see the best in a bad situation - coincidence in the universe is impossible to believe, even at a universal level - it helps give life meaning and is a comfort that things don't just 'happen' I'd really like my viewpoint challenged. While it's comforting to know that everything is part of the Universe's Plan, I also think this reasoning can be used either as an excuse to just let things happen, or to overanalyse everything that happens trying to find the ultimate reason behind WHY. Any viewpoints, especially with a scientific basis, would be helpful but I'm happy to hear all opinions.

CMV: Everything happens for a reason. I think this is a thought that many people hold, and certainly in the communities (20-30 year old women) I'm affiliated with. The main reasoning is this: Everything that happens to us, good or bad, has a reason behind it happening. That relationship you thought was unsinkable ended so you could meet the right person. That job you love is over so you can find a new path. Even in death, there is a reason why that person was lost. We might not know why at first, but nothing in life is random, nothing in life is down to chance, and behind everything we do and every experience is a reason why it is the way it is. Everything that happens, even meeting people, can become a learning experience. Basically, there is no such thing as coincidence because everything has a reason behind it. This gives life meaning, that we're not here one day and gone the next with no point to being alive. This quote pretty much sums it up: **Realize that if a door closed, it’s because what was behind it wasn’t meant for you.** I don't necessarily think you need to be religious to believe in such a concept either. It's not about God guiding you or altering your life plans. It's about trusting everything that happens to you will have the outcome that was intended. I've had people say believing everything happens for a reason is just a way for people to see the optimism in bad times, but that doesn't account for the reason WHY it happened. To summarise: - everything that happens to us has a reason why it has happened - we might not understand, we might not ever understand, but that doesn't nullify the reason is there - it's not about believing in god or fate - it's not an optimistic way of dealing with bad times, or trying to see the best in a bad situation - coincidence in the universe is impossible to believe, even at a universal level - it helps give life meaning and is a comfort that things don't just 'happen' I'd really like my viewpoint challenged. While it's comforting to know that everything is part of the Universe's Plan, I also think this reasoning can be used either as an excuse to just let things happen, or to overanalyse everything that happens trying to find the ultimate reason behind WHY. Any viewpoints, especially with a scientific basis, would be helpful but I'm happy to hear all opinions.

t3_33gvx6

CMV: People should't listen to music when they work out.

~This is completely personal by the way. I have no data to support these claims. This is from my personal experience.~ I believe that when you work out you are not only working yourself physically but also mentally. This means that you are building the will power in order to push yourself. Here is where the part about music comes in. I believe that when you listen to music you are making it easier for yourself and not building self determination. I run every day for 30 minutes while listening to music. Yesterday I did not have my headphones and couldn't listen to music. I found that the workout was harder and I had to mentally push myself. I hope you guys can change my view because I really like listening to music while I workout.....

CMV: People should't listen to music when they work out. ~This is completely personal by the way. I have no data to support these claims. This is from my personal experience.~ I believe that when you work out you are not only working yourself physically but also mentally. This means that you are building the will power in order to push yourself. Here is where the part about music comes in. I believe that when you listen to music you are making it easier for yourself and not building self determination. I run every day for 30 minutes while listening to music. Yesterday I did not have my headphones and couldn't listen to music. I found that the workout was harder and I had to mentally push myself. I hope you guys can change my view because I really like listening to music while I workout.....

t3_1m1jn3

I don't think all industries can be based on a capitalist structure. Some industries must necessarily be run using a non capitalist structure. CMV.

Capitalism concerns itself with the bottomline. This is fine and dandy. But there are some industries where it is either impossible or falls short. For example - you want to ration a limited resource. Like spectrum. There is no way to negate the first mover advantage, and there needs to be a regulatory body to place rules on this kind of behaviour. Where there is a danger of not getting results. For example - research. A lot of directionless research is funded without the promise of returns, but I don't see this working if the funding came based solely on results and bottomlines. Where there is a welfare issue. For example - privately run prisons might find it profitable to keep prisons filled. I recognise the utility of capitalism - I just think it would be stupid to try to apply the principles everywhere.

I don't think all industries can be based on a capitalist structure. Some industries must necessarily be run using a non capitalist structure. CMV. Capitalism concerns itself with the bottomline. This is fine and dandy. But there are some industries where it is either impossible or falls short. For example - you want to ration a limited resource. Like spectrum. There is no way to negate the first mover advantage, and there needs to be a regulatory body to place rules on this kind of behaviour. Where there is a danger of not getting results. For example - research. A lot of directionless research is funded without the promise of returns, but I don't see this working if the funding came based solely on results and bottomlines. Where there is a welfare issue. For example - privately run prisons might find it profitable to keep prisons filled. I recognise the utility of capitalism - I just think it would be stupid to try to apply the principles everywhere.

t3_3lkd6t

CMV: I think Donald Trump's business record is objectively terrible.

Trump's record is as an investor/developer in the casino and hospitality markets. Generally, the success of investments is measured against the stock market: If your investments beat the stock market, you're a good investor, if not, you are not a good investor. Using that objective measurement of success, he's a massive failure: [If Trump had put his inheritance in an index fund and done nothing else at all, he'd be twice as wealthy](http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/) Another well documented source: [Trump's returns are less even than those of an ordinary investor saving for retirement...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/03/if-donald-trump-followed-this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/) Of course, there are also his bankruptcy filings and other issues, but the nuances of each can be argued either way. Anyway, 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 think Donald Trump's business record is objectively terrible. Trump's record is as an investor/developer in the casino and hospitality markets. Generally, the success of investments is measured against the stock market: If your investments beat the stock market, you're a good investor, if not, you are not a good investor. Using that objective measurement of success, he's a massive failure: [If Trump had put his inheritance in an index fund and done nothing else at all, he'd be twice as wealthy](http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/) Another well documented source: [Trump's returns are less even than those of an ordinary investor saving for retirement...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/03/if-donald-trump-followed-this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/) Of course, there are also his bankruptcy filings and other issues, but the nuances of each can be argued either way. Anyway, CMV!

t3_3y20ls

CMV: Wooden beer caddies are stupid.

Anyone subscribing to a woodworking, craft, or DIY subreddit must surely have noticed the wooden "[beer caddy](https://imgur.com/a/ULohS)" phenomenon. Who needs one of these things? Why are they "useful"? If you are carrying beer somewhere, why is having a heavy wooden holder an improvement? It only holds a few beers, for one. Then you have to carry the extra weight of it. Then you have to schlep it home later. What's the point? A paper bag can handle any number of beers, and then be discarded and not worried about after the party. Please explain why a beer caddy is a good thing. If someone gave one to me as a present, I'd view it as a burden. Not useful. Takes up space. Can't throw it away because X will look for it from now on. My view is that they are just a easy-as-fuck woodworking project that people make for no good reason other than to feel minor accomplishment. [Edit]: So far I acknowledge 2 good reasons for beer caddies: (1) a simple woodworking product that give pleasure in the making. Was still my original view (see immediately above) but I now acknowledge that there is value to craft projects, regardless of results. (2) an item that fits nicely into *one particular* home brewer's means for distributing and collecting his wares. _____ > *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: Wooden beer caddies are stupid. Anyone subscribing to a woodworking, craft, or DIY subreddit must surely have noticed the wooden "[beer caddy](https://imgur.com/a/ULohS)" phenomenon. Who needs one of these things? Why are they "useful"? If you are carrying beer somewhere, why is having a heavy wooden holder an improvement? It only holds a few beers, for one. Then you have to carry the extra weight of it. Then you have to schlep it home later. What's the point? A paper bag can handle any number of beers, and then be discarded and not worried about after the party. Please explain why a beer caddy is a good thing. If someone gave one to me as a present, I'd view it as a burden. Not useful. Takes up space. Can't throw it away because X will look for it from now on. My view is that they are just a easy-as-fuck woodworking project that people make for no good reason other than to feel minor accomplishment. [Edit]: So far I acknowledge 2 good reasons for beer caddies: (1) a simple woodworking product that give pleasure in the making. Was still my original view (see immediately above) but I now acknowledge that there is value to craft projects, regardless of results. (2) an item that fits nicely into *one particular* home brewer's means for distributing and collecting his wares.

t3_1m1m8u

The current state of compulsory schooling has absolutely ruined our youth and it needs to be replaced. CMV.

I completely, 100% believe that the current state of compulsory schooling has done absolutely nothing for our students but to: * Stifle their creativity and motivation for learning by having them learn rigid material and bashing them for speaking out or questioning anything. * Have them learn things that have absolutely **no** impact or aid in their lives outside of school (When is learning about the Great Wall of China going to help students hold down a job, pay rent or learn how to drive a car?) * Have them worship teachers like gods with little to no option of dissent. * Poison their minds with worthless idealistic dribble ("You can grow up to be *anything* you want to be because you're special!"). * Have them locked them up with other hyperactive, immature, depressive and temperamental students for 9 months straight, worsening all their behavior overall. * Act like a nanny service for parents with students who obviously don't want to be there and are ruining everything around them * [Kids getting arrested, tased for whimsical things.](http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/18-signs-that-life-in-u-s-public-schools-is-now-essentially-equivalent-to-life-in-u-s-prisons) * Make their young bodies and minds exhausted by having them get up at 5, 6, or 7 in the morning and not getting out for at least 5 at night. Not including homework, studying, projects, free time and getting ready for school. Repeat this for 9 months or up to a whole year. * Create mindless workers for the state. I wholeheartedly believe it needs to be reformed **now** and replaced with other methods like [Montessori-type schooling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_method), [homeschooling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling), online schooling and [unschooling or natural learning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling). And anyone who is interested should read almost any the book by Alfie Kohn, John Taylor Gatto, John Holt, since they can elaborate far better than I could. CMV?

The current state of compulsory schooling has absolutely ruined our youth and it needs to be replaced. CMV. I completely, 100% believe that the current state of compulsory schooling has done absolutely nothing for our students but to: * Stifle their creativity and motivation for learning by having them learn rigid material and bashing them for speaking out or questioning anything. * Have them learn things that have absolutely **no** impact or aid in their lives outside of school (When is learning about the Great Wall of China going to help students hold down a job, pay rent or learn how to drive a car?) * Have them worship teachers like gods with little to no option of dissent. * Poison their minds with worthless idealistic dribble ("You can grow up to be *anything* you want to be because you're special!"). * Have them locked them up with other hyperactive, immature, depressive and temperamental students for 9 months straight, worsening all their behavior overall. * Act like a nanny service for parents with students who obviously don't want to be there and are ruining everything around them * [Kids getting arrested, tased for whimsical things.](http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/18-signs-that-life-in-u-s-public-schools-is-now-essentially-equivalent-to-life-in-u-s-prisons) * Make their young bodies and minds exhausted by having them get up at 5, 6, or 7 in the morning and not getting out for at least 5 at night. Not including homework, studying, projects, free time and getting ready for school. Repeat this for 9 months or up to a whole year. * Create mindless workers for the state. I wholeheartedly believe it needs to be reformed **now** and replaced with other methods like [Montessori-type schooling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_method), [homeschooling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling), online schooling and [unschooling or natural learning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling). And anyone who is interested should read almost any the book by Alfie Kohn, John Taylor Gatto, John Holt, since they can elaborate far better than I could. CMV?

t3_31j3qn

CMV: Heterosexual and homosexual polygamy should be legal

Starting out, I want to ignore dual sovereignty and the federalist arguments about what should and should not be legal based upon the preferences on the citizens of the states because I, ultimately, believe that people living in a state should be able to define their own marriage laws. Personal and sexual relationships between consenting adults should be legal and recognized by society. However, while the government does not need to regulate the marriage itself, it is free to regulate the adults' duties and obligations to offspring once the marriage decides to have children. Even if one can show that heterosexual and homosexual polygamy does present some detriment to society, society should collectively carry that burden for the sake of personal liberty until that liberty infringes upon the rights of other citizens. Let's have a discussion. > *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: Heterosexual and homosexual polygamy should be legal. Starting out, I want to ignore dual sovereignty and the federalist arguments about what should and should not be legal based upon the preferences on the citizens of the states because I, ultimately, believe that people living in a state should be able to define their own marriage laws. Personal and sexual relationships between consenting adults should be legal and recognized by society. However, while the government does not need to regulate the marriage itself, it is free to regulate the adults' duties and obligations to offspring once the marriage decides to have children. Even if one can show that heterosexual and homosexual polygamy does present some detriment to society, society should collectively carry that burden for the sake of personal liberty until that liberty infringes upon the rights of other citizens. Let's have a discussion. > *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_2f0a4a

CMV: Welfare you receive isn't "your money", and things like food stamps that make welfare non-discretionary are a good idea.

A social safety net is a good idea, and money is spent with the intent of providing a specific kind of help. In many places this includes a cash handout. I believe this is wrong on many levels. * The money may be misspent. This idea is NOT based on the assumption that poor people are all stupid or drug addicts. It's simply the fact that there's no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose. The best assumption you can make is that people would be so desperately craving the thing you give them extra money for that they would almost certainly spend it on that, but people may end up endure forms of squalor that were far from what the well intentioned policy makers had in mind. * From the government's perspective, money is also being spent inefficiently. Let's say a program wanted to ensure that people were well fed. They'd have to find a cash amount that would buy enough healthy food to feed the recipients, but people have different needs, so they'll have to provide to the upper percentile of demand (the alternative is weighing people, paying women less etc.) This not only will result in discretionary income, but inequality in how much everyone gets. A food stamp system would allow everyone to get as much food as they need, and the money left over is still in the governments hands to spend on other initiatives. * Things like food stamps are patronising, and that's a good thing. A cash handout creates a sense of entitlement beyond what something "patronising" like food stamps, rent vouchers etc. create. By the time money's in your pocket or bank account, there's several layers between you and the people providing that service. Food stamps create a meaningful difference between working poor and welfare recipients to encourage escaping the system. There's also the huge benefit of less resentment of those on welfare. * In general they communicate purpose more clearly. Too often there's an attitude of getting as much money as you can from the government, and paying as little tax as possible. It seems like people would be less likely to trick their way into receiving food stamps, education and other initiatives purpose built to meet needs. On the other side, I would think policies would allow people to see their taxes as less of a redistribution of wealth, and more as funding for benevolent programs to create a better society. I think as much welfare as possible should be in the form of vouchers and other purpose specific, non discretionary forms. I like food stamps, I like rent vouchers, I like free healthcare and education. Things like these over cash seem like the best way to prevent the safety net becoming a fishing net. I can't think of many situations where cash is the best option, which is why I'm here. The other aspect to this changemyview is that I'm ok with policies that "patronise" the less fortunate. Being well fed, healthy, comfortably sheltered, continually educated to eventually earn the life you want are more important than not being insulted. If anyone can enlighten me on what it's like to be offended by a government policy assuming you're stupid or malevolent (especially if you don't pay taxes), that would be helpful.

CMV: Welfare you receive isn't "your money", and things like food stamps that make welfare non-discretionary are a good idea. A social safety net is a good idea, and money is spent with the intent of providing a specific kind of help. In many places this includes a cash handout. I believe this is wrong on many levels. * The money may be misspent. This idea is NOT based on the assumption that poor people are all stupid or drug addicts. It's simply the fact that there's no way of ensuring that the cash is used for its intended purpose. The best assumption you can make is that people would be so desperately craving the thing you give them extra money for that they would almost certainly spend it on that, but people may end up endure forms of squalor that were far from what the well intentioned policy makers had in mind. * From the government's perspective, money is also being spent inefficiently. Let's say a program wanted to ensure that people were well fed. They'd have to find a cash amount that would buy enough healthy food to feed the recipients, but people have different needs, so they'll have to provide to the upper percentile of demand (the alternative is weighing people, paying women less etc.) This not only will result in discretionary income, but inequality in how much everyone gets. A food stamp system would allow everyone to get as much food as they need, and the money left over is still in the governments hands to spend on other initiatives. * Things like food stamps are patronising, and that's a good thing. A cash handout creates a sense of entitlement beyond what something "patronising" like food stamps, rent vouchers etc. create. By the time money's in your pocket or bank account, there's several layers between you and the people providing that service. Food stamps create a meaningful difference between working poor and welfare recipients to encourage escaping the system. There's also the huge benefit of less resentment of those on welfare. * In general they communicate purpose more clearly. Too often there's an attitude of getting as much money as you can from the government, and paying as little tax as possible. It seems like people would be less likely to trick their way into receiving food stamps, education and other initiatives purpose built to meet needs. On the other side, I would think policies would allow people to see their taxes as less of a redistribution of wealth, and more as funding for benevolent programs to create a better society. I think as much welfare as possible should be in the form of vouchers and other purpose specific, non discretionary forms. I like food stamps, I like rent vouchers, I like free healthcare and education. Things like these over cash seem like the best way to prevent the safety net becoming a fishing net. I can't think of many situations where cash is the best option, which is why I'm here. The other aspect to this changemyview is that I'm ok with policies that "patronise" the less fortunate. Being well fed, healthy, comfortably sheltered, continually educated to eventually earn the life you want are more important than not being insulted. If anyone can enlighten me on what it's like to be offended by a government policy assuming you're stupid or malevolent (especially if you don't pay taxes), that would be helpful.

t3_1u47i6

I don't understand the difference in the type of animal that people choose to eat or not eat. CMV

I have been a non-meat eater for more than 20 years, so let me be clear: *that* is not the view I want changed/ talked about in this thread. My reasons for being a vegetarian are more topical, less moralistic. I also am not a fanatic about it, at all. I come from a meat-and-potatoes culture and see very little wrong with it (especially ethical meat sources), it's just not for me. That said, I can't fathom eating *any* animal, pet-like or otherwise, but, if I did, I don't think I'd see the difference in breed/ species/ type of animal. That said, there is a debate going on in my hometown right now about the 'ethical feasibility' of eating horse meat. As I see it, there is no difference between that and cow meat. I had a pet pig so don't think of them as food, but people seem APPALLED that some cultures eat dog or cat. I don't see the difference - if you eat pig and cow, why not cat or horse? Where do people draw the line and why?

I don't understand the difference in the type of animal that people choose to eat or not eat. CMV. I have been a non-meat eater for more than 20 years, so let me be clear: *that* is not the view I want changed/ talked about in this thread. My reasons for being a vegetarian are more topical, less moralistic. I also am not a fanatic about it, at all. I come from a meat-and-potatoes culture and see very little wrong with it (especially ethical meat sources), it's just not for me. That said, I can't fathom eating *any* animal, pet-like or otherwise, but, if I did, I don't think I'd see the difference in breed/ species/ type of animal. That said, there is a debate going on in my hometown right now about the 'ethical feasibility' of eating horse meat. As I see it, there is no difference between that and cow meat. I had a pet pig so don't think of them as food, but people seem APPALLED that some cultures eat dog or cat. I don't see the difference - if you eat pig and cow, why not cat or horse? Where do people draw the line and why?

t3_1hitz3

I think a strict separation of church and state should be enforced. CMV

If a politician publicly condones or condemns a religion, or lack thereof, they should be barred from seeking public office. If the media persuades the public to vote one way or another based on a candidates personal beliefs they should be punished by the law and be forced to apologize. If a priest/imam/rabbi tells followers which candidate is better they should be punished as well. * It's not okay that in a "secular nation" (I live in the United States) politicians can run on the fact that "God told me to run for office" because this takes away from issues at hand. * If someone happens to be a Jain, Sikh, or a Muslim, they are practically barred from holding any major position in government because of the fearmongering that can be used against them by the media. JFK was a Catholic and it made a lot of people uncomfortable. Something like 50% of Americans would not vote for an Atheist for president despite what his stances on political issues were. The fact the Obama might have been a Muslim caused a huge outrage. * By electing officials based on their beliefs we are embodying the essence of a theocratic rule. * Topics like abortion, gay marriage, and others would not be able to be argued from a religious standpoint, which cannot be argued against, but would have to be debated based on arguments that may have valid counter-arguments.

I think a strict separation of church and state should be enforced. CMV. If a politician publicly condones or condemns a religion, or lack thereof, they should be barred from seeking public office. If the media persuades the public to vote one way or another based on a candidates personal beliefs they should be punished by the law and be forced to apologize. If a priest/imam/rabbi tells followers which candidate is better they should be punished as well. * It's not okay that in a "secular nation" (I live in the United States) politicians can run on the fact that "God told me to run for office" because this takes away from issues at hand. * If someone happens to be a Jain, Sikh, or a Muslim, they are practically barred from holding any major position in government because of the fearmongering that can be used against them by the media. JFK was a Catholic and it made a lot of people uncomfortable. Something like 50% of Americans would not vote for an Atheist for president despite what his stances on political issues were. The fact the Obama might have been a Muslim caused a huge outrage. * By electing officials based on their beliefs we are embodying the essence of a theocratic rule. * Topics like abortion, gay marriage, and others would not be able to be argued from a religious standpoint, which cannot be argued against, but would have to be debated based on arguments that may have valid counter-arguments.

t3_3d0d6p

CMV: I think a 'twist' in a movie, however well done, is a cheap (but nevertheless amusing) way to appear 'smart' (SPOILERS)

A multitude of films have twists in the plot, for example Gone Girl, Memento, a lot of films of M. Night Shyamalan, the Usual Suspects, Shutter Island, Fight club, well I can go on and on. [Here is a list of 100 twists](http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070836741/). It usually consists of a plot that advances, but with hidden information not completely revealed yet. When the information is revealed, it will heighten the liking of the plot. It feels 'Mind blowing', the movie instantly goes deeper, it is suddenly a more complex movie, and twists are ideal for deep analysis and allegories. Adding a twist to a plot can make it everyone say 'Wow' and that one guy say: 'I knew it all along'. I think an analogy of showing why people like this so much, because it is abit like being in the plato's cave and then suddenly showing the light and deeper meaning. However, and this is my point, it is a simple and cheap way to make the movie much smarter than it initially was. I think there is also a high amount of plot twist movies in the IMDB top 250 (By no means a standard, but a good representative what is liked by movie-goers). Adding a well written plot twist makes a movie ripe for people to laud it, even though it is done to dead. Basically my point is that it is a too simple way to make a movie 'smarter' and an overdone method of 'blowing peoples minds'. It instantly adds points for movie-goers. As I said in the title, my point is not that is a non-amusing 'plot device'. But it is a simple way to add layers in a movie. While watching a movie myself I always seem to like a twist (I thought Gone Girl did this very well and it sincerely surprised me) but afterwards when I am out of the cinema and more rational again I think 'hmm, just another twistmovie'. And apart from the twist nothing really interesting going on. A well regarded movie where I didn't like the twist was 'The Usual Suspects'. The cinematography and acting was obviously well done, but only looking at the plot I thought it wasn't impressive taking away the twist. I am probably triggering now a couple readers, for that I am sorry. However this is not a critique of this movie, but more of an example. I also think this is the reason why M. Night Shyamalan was so well recieved in the start of his career and now he is way less regarded than at that time. Because he does it all the time, and then it surfaces that it is a cheap movie 'plot device'. If he did it only once or twice people wouldn't have noticed it significantly. (I am sorry for spelling mistakes, I am not a native speaker) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think a 'twist' in a movie, however well done, is a cheap (but nevertheless amusing) way to appear 'smart' (SPOILERS). A multitude of films have twists in the plot, for example Gone Girl, Memento, a lot of films of M. Night Shyamalan, the Usual Suspects, Shutter Island, Fight club, well I can go on and on. [Here is a list of 100 twists](http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070836741/). It usually consists of a plot that advances, but with hidden information not completely revealed yet. When the information is revealed, it will heighten the liking of the plot. It feels 'Mind blowing', the movie instantly goes deeper, it is suddenly a more complex movie, and twists are ideal for deep analysis and allegories. Adding a twist to a plot can make it everyone say 'Wow' and that one guy say: 'I knew it all along'. I think an analogy of showing why people like this so much, because it is abit like being in the plato's cave and then suddenly showing the light and deeper meaning. However, and this is my point, it is a simple and cheap way to make the movie much smarter than it initially was. I think there is also a high amount of plot twist movies in the IMDB top 250 (By no means a standard, but a good representative what is liked by movie-goers). Adding a well written plot twist makes a movie ripe for people to laud it, even though it is done to dead. Basically my point is that it is a too simple way to make a movie 'smarter' and an overdone method of 'blowing peoples minds'. It instantly adds points for movie-goers. As I said in the title, my point is not that is a non-amusing 'plot device'. But it is a simple way to add layers in a movie. While watching a movie myself I always seem to like a twist (I thought Gone Girl did this very well and it sincerely surprised me) but afterwards when I am out of the cinema and more rational again I think 'hmm, just another twistmovie'. And apart from the twist nothing really interesting going on. A well regarded movie where I didn't like the twist was 'The Usual Suspects'. The cinematography and acting was obviously well done, but only looking at the plot I thought it wasn't impressive taking away the twist. I am probably triggering now a couple readers, for that I am sorry. However this is not a critique of this movie, but more of an example. I also think this is the reason why M. Night Shyamalan was so well recieved in the start of his career and now he is way less regarded than at that time. Because he does it all the time, and then it surfaces that it is a cheap movie 'plot device'. If he did it only once or twice people wouldn't have noticed it significantly. (I am sorry for spelling mistakes, I am not a native speaker)

t3_3ycfdj

CMV:I think illegal immigration in Los Angeles does not increase rent prices in better neighborhoods even if apartments are limited because it only affects poor neighborhoods

I don't think it will cause any change in the apartment prices of better neighborhoods even if there is overpopulation in the area like in Los Angeles because illegals usually live in poorer neighborhoods. People in those poorer neighborhoods normally won't move out of them even if they don't like their neighbors and are willing to deal with higher crime rates. Higher crime rates are usually expected in poorer neighborhoods (not talking about the crime being from illegals, but just higher crime in the neigborhood from other people).

CMV:I think illegal immigration in Los Angeles does not increase rent prices in better neighborhoods even if apartments are limited because it only affects poor neighborhoods. I don't think it will cause any change in the apartment prices of better neighborhoods even if there is overpopulation in the area like in Los Angeles because illegals usually live in poorer neighborhoods. People in those poorer neighborhoods normally won't move out of them even if they don't like their neighbors and are willing to deal with higher crime rates. Higher crime rates are usually expected in poorer neighborhoods (not talking about the crime being from illegals, but just higher crime in the neigborhood from other people).

t3_3hlkht

CMV: A third party candidate has no chance in the United States and therefore has to declare R or D to have any chance at the Presidency at all.

It seems to me that even if an amazing candidate ran for POTUS as a Libertarian, Green Party, etc. they would not have a realistic chance based solely on the fact that they have not declared as one of Americas only two 'relevant' parties. This upsets people like me that find themselves very fiscally conservative but socially liberal. My views align with most Libertarians, but I find that I have to vote for the most moderate conservative candidate to find the best match with any kind of chance. _____ > *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 third party candidate has no chance in the United States and therefore has to declare R or D to have any chance at the Presidency at all. It seems to me that even if an amazing candidate ran for POTUS as a Libertarian, Green Party, etc. they would not have a realistic chance based solely on the fact that they have not declared as one of Americas only two 'relevant' parties. This upsets people like me that find themselves very fiscally conservative but socially liberal. My views align with most Libertarians, but I find that I have to vote for the most moderate conservative candidate to find the best match with any kind of chance.