id
stringlengths 9
9
| title
stringlengths 9
300
| selftext
stringlengths 9
9.73k
| text
stringlengths 53
9.81k
|
|---|---|---|---|
t3_4l1asd | CMV: Marijuana should be legal in the US | The way I see it, it poses no major issues. Study after study seems to show it is harmless, and was only banned because of racial ties to Mexico. Personally, I do not use and probably never will, but I know people who do and can easily get in anywhere. Why not legalize it, so we can generate massive tax income, rather than letting it go to support organized crime? If someone wants to smoke it, they are gonna find a source, legal or not. Colorado seems to be pulling in massive amounts of tax dollars, which can go towards education and social reform programs, which is always a win-win.
(I mean for recreational use, not medical.)
_____
> *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: Marijuana should be legal in the US. The way I see it, it poses no major issues. Study after study seems to show it is harmless, and was only banned because of racial ties to Mexico. Personally, I do not use and probably never will, but I know people who do and can easily get in anywhere. Why not legalize it, so we can generate massive tax income, rather than letting it go to support organized crime? If someone wants to smoke it, they are gonna find a source, legal or not. Colorado seems to be pulling in massive amounts of tax dollars, which can go towards education and social reform programs, which is always a win-win.
(I mean for recreational use, not medical.) |
t3_1iasp5 | I believe the "two-party" system in America isn't working. CMV. | I follow political news extensively, and it seems that all I ever see is how bi-partisan agreement can never be reached on important issues. The 113th Congress has passed only 15 bills in the past 6 months, in which only 2 were on "major" issues. That's the lowest since the United States has started recording this type of Congressional history in the 1940's. I know that without the two-party system, we wouldn't be a democratic nation, but how do we expect to move forward as a "progressive nation" if our elected senators and representatives are too caught up in "partisan loyalty" and can't look past their differences to do their job, which is serve the citizens of the United States. | I believe the "two-party" system in America isn't working. CMV. I follow political news extensively, and it seems that all I ever see is how bi-partisan agreement can never be reached on important issues. The 113th Congress has passed only 15 bills in the past 6 months, in which only 2 were on "major" issues. That's the lowest since the United States has started recording this type of Congressional history in the 1940's. I know that without the two-party system, we wouldn't be a democratic nation, but how do we expect to move forward as a "progressive nation" if our elected senators and representatives are too caught up in "partisan loyalty" and can't look past their differences to do their job, which is serve the citizens of the United States. |
t3_369rqe | CMV: New Futurama is inferior to Old Futurama | Old Futurama is one of my favorite shows ever. It's smart, sweet and funny. However when Comedy Central started producing the show, its quality took a dive. The characters became flatter, caricatures of themselves. The jokes shifted from witty and smart, to pop culture references and cheap lazy jokes.
~~I suspect the reason for this is Comedy Central just didn't have the budget to hire as many experienced writers as Fox. The major networks have much deeper pockets than basic cable and the original writers fees increased substantially since the show first aired.~~ **/u/DaytimeWhisky pointed out many of the original writers stayed on the show, so I'm not sure what to point to for the cause.**
But that's neither here nor there. The gauntlet has been thrown, and I genuinely would like someone to change my view by demonstrating the reboot was as well written as the original. I stopped watching about halfway through the CC series and if someone could point to episodes that could stand against the original I will watch them.
Also, inb4 comedy is subjective, yadda, yadda,
*Edited grammatical errors
_____
> *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: New Futurama is inferior to Old Futurama. Old Futurama is one of my favorite shows ever. It's smart, sweet and funny. However when Comedy Central started producing the show, its quality took a dive. The characters became flatter, caricatures of themselves. The jokes shifted from witty and smart, to pop culture references and cheap lazy jokes.
~~I suspect the reason for this is Comedy Central just didn't have the budget to hire as many experienced writers as Fox. The major networks have much deeper pockets than basic cable and the original writers fees increased substantially since the show first aired.~~ **/u/DaytimeWhisky pointed out many of the original writers stayed on the show, so I'm not sure what to point to for the cause.**
But that's neither here nor there. The gauntlet has been thrown, and I genuinely would like someone to change my view by demonstrating the reboot was as well written as the original. I stopped watching about halfway through the CC series and if someone could point to episodes that could stand against the original I will watch them.
Also, inb4 comedy is subjective, yadda, yadda,
*Edited grammatical errors |
t3_24torv | CMV: Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday in the United States. | **EDIT: For clarification, I mean Christmas should no longer be defined in a legal sense as a Christian holiday, or a holiday that promotes Christianity. I think that will clear things up about my intentions.**
For the record, I am an atheist and was never truly religious, and I have celebrated Christmas ever year of my life.
I believe Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday because the themes and traditions associated with the Christmas season are no longer exclusively Christian in nature, and the holiday itself has been secularized. My arguments include:
**1. Most Americans celebrate Christmas but not all of those are Christians.** A significant minority of people who celebrate who celebrate Christmas are not Christian, and therefore do not uphold many of the Christian traditions associated with the holiday. There is even an alternative reason for Christmas, the spirit of giving and family, that replaces the Christian meaning behind it so that Christmas can be celebrated secularly.
**2. The widespread traditions and images associated with Christmas have nothing to do with Christianity.** While not every person who celebrates Christmas goes to mass on Christmas Day, most of them do have a Christmas tree and give presents to each other on these days. Santa Claus is far more associated with Christmas than Baby Jesus and the Nativity. Many of these secular associations can be traced back to Christmas’ pagan origins, celebrating the winter solstice. Santa Claus went from being a figure of Christianity (Saint Nicholas) to a secular gift-giver.
**3. Christmas is more celebratory of capitalism and consumerism than Christianity.** While there are some people who do hold a strong religious association with Christmas, only Christmas Day and Eve are the ones with any religious significance. Most of the hubbub around the holiday is after Thanksgiving and during December, where the “Christmas season” is going on. This season has no religious significance but instead encourage the buying of gifts for family and friends, which is more representative of consumerism in the American conscious than Christianity.
In conclusion, I make the argument that Christmas is no longer religious because it is possible to celebrate it without being Christian, the common conscious on the holiday is completely secular, and the Christmas season is more representative of American capitalism and consumerism than any sort of Christianity.
I feel there are some ramifications that can be drawn from this conclusion as well:
* Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday, but an American one. It is a part of our identity as a nation.
* Christians can still celebrate Christmas with religious meaning but any association with Christmas is separate from the national definition. It is an optional part of the holiday.
* Christmas is now considered a secular holiday officially. The government and other public institutions can endorse the secular side of Christmas without repercussion in court.
In effect this makes Christmas similar to Thanksgiving. While there are religious Americans who put a significant religious meaning towards Thanksgiving, Thanksgiving is primarily American and not religious, as all Americans can celebrate it.
Most of these are based on my personal experience growing up in the United States, and my non-religious perspective may be thoroughly biased at only seeing the non-religious aspects of Christianity.
_____
> *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: Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday in the United States. **EDIT: For clarification, I mean Christmas should no longer be defined in a legal sense as a Christian holiday, or a holiday that promotes Christianity. I think that will clear things up about my intentions.**
For the record, I am an atheist and was never truly religious, and I have celebrated Christmas ever year of my life.
I believe Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday because the themes and traditions associated with the Christmas season are no longer exclusively Christian in nature, and the holiday itself has been secularized. My arguments include:
**1. Most Americans celebrate Christmas but not all of those are Christians.** A significant minority of people who celebrate who celebrate Christmas are not Christian, and therefore do not uphold many of the Christian traditions associated with the holiday. There is even an alternative reason for Christmas, the spirit of giving and family, that replaces the Christian meaning behind it so that Christmas can be celebrated secularly.
**2. The widespread traditions and images associated with Christmas have nothing to do with Christianity.** While not every person who celebrates Christmas goes to mass on Christmas Day, most of them do have a Christmas tree and give presents to each other on these days. Santa Claus is far more associated with Christmas than Baby Jesus and the Nativity. Many of these secular associations can be traced back to Christmas’ pagan origins, celebrating the winter solstice. Santa Claus went from being a figure of Christianity (Saint Nicholas) to a secular gift-giver.
**3. Christmas is more celebratory of capitalism and consumerism than Christianity.** While there are some people who do hold a strong religious association with Christmas, only Christmas Day and Eve are the ones with any religious significance. Most of the hubbub around the holiday is after Thanksgiving and during December, where the “Christmas season” is going on. This season has no religious significance but instead encourage the buying of gifts for family and friends, which is more representative of consumerism in the American conscious than Christianity.
In conclusion, I make the argument that Christmas is no longer religious because it is possible to celebrate it without being Christian, the common conscious on the holiday is completely secular, and the Christmas season is more representative of American capitalism and consumerism than any sort of Christianity.
I feel there are some ramifications that can be drawn from this conclusion as well:
* Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday, but an American one. It is a part of our identity as a nation.
* Christians can still celebrate Christmas with religious meaning but any association with Christmas is separate from the national definition. It is an optional part of the holiday.
* Christmas is now considered a secular holiday officially. The government and other public institutions can endorse the secular side of Christmas without repercussion in court.
In effect this makes Christmas similar to Thanksgiving. While there are religious Americans who put a significant religious meaning towards Thanksgiving, Thanksgiving is primarily American and not religious, as all Americans can celebrate it.
Most of these are based on my personal experience growing up in the United States, and my non-religious perspective may be thoroughly biased at only seeing the non-religious aspects of Christianity. |
t3_1y44q6 | We need to abolish the current (American) child support, not for reasons of equality but because it doesn't work. CMV | I don't want to argue the merits of financial abortion as a general concept. I'm making the point that child support payments cannot make up for a parent and they are effectively useless. While the idea of ending mandated child supports seems heartless, I think its a recognition that our current system of child support does not work and needs to be scrapped. We need a different paradigm that looks less at resources and more at in person social networks.
By work I mean work to help prevent kids and their parents from falling, or staying, in poverty. | We need to abolish the current (American) child support, not for reasons of equality but because it doesn't work. CMV. I don't want to argue the merits of financial abortion as a general concept. I'm making the point that child support payments cannot make up for a parent and they are effectively useless. While the idea of ending mandated child supports seems heartless, I think its a recognition that our current system of child support does not work and needs to be scrapped. We need a different paradigm that looks less at resources and more at in person social networks.
By work I mean work to help prevent kids and their parents from falling, or staying, in poverty. |
t3_6hyi30 | CMV: Cultural differences are the result of inequality, not the cause. -- Jared Diamond |
I think he's right. I also believe that "identity politics" are toxic, and miss the point. So, they're useless.
The real cause of power imbalance is money, because money = power.
The best thing for majority races/cultures to do is to realize that they are only in the majority because of economic power. Because of luck.
And the best thing for minorities to do is to realize that they aren't just powerless (and oppressed) because of their skin tone, but *because they are poor.*
And that can be changed.
So, the best thing would be for poor whites, blacks, Latinos, or anyone else (because race is bullshit) to band together, and identify as "poor" first.
Politically, I guess I occupy some weird space between socialists and conservatives. "The real problem is wealth inequality; while you can't change your skin color, you aren't powerless to change that, if you try (and get lucky.)"
I'd advise poor, powerless people, from Ferguson to Appalachia, to learn IT and move to where the good jobs are. Regardless of race or culture.
| CMV: Cultural differences are the result of inequality, not the cause. -- Jared Diamond.
I think he's right. I also believe that "identity politics" are toxic, and miss the point. So, they're useless.
The real cause of power imbalance is money, because money = power.
The best thing for majority races/cultures to do is to realize that they are only in the majority because of economic power. Because of luck.
And the best thing for minorities to do is to realize that they aren't just powerless (and oppressed) because of their skin tone, but *because they are poor.*
And that can be changed.
So, the best thing would be for poor whites, blacks, Latinos, or anyone else (because race is bullshit) to band together, and identify as "poor" first.
Politically, I guess I occupy some weird space between socialists and conservatives. "The real problem is wealth inequality; while you can't change your skin color, you aren't powerless to change that, if you try (and get lucky.)"
I'd advise poor, powerless people, from Ferguson to Appalachia, to learn IT and move to where the good jobs are. Regardless of race or culture.
|
t3_2kdlxq | CMV: People shouldn't be allowed to publish the name of someone that died | I hate seeing on the news and other media that so and so has died. Personally, if I was to die then I wouldn't want it to be shared with everyone, unless it is people that I directly hold value to; however, they would already know if they were to check up on me.
It is disrespectful to spread the name of someone that has died, completely destroying their privacy, even though they're dead. This being because information about them gets released, often misinformation, and they can't defend themselves.
For instance, this kid died and they stated the university that he attended, major, and stupid little quotes from people about his aspirations, shortcomings, and other things. To me, that is just wrong. Then his GPA was estimated. One quote in particular stated: "he was often lazy, very smart and always loved learning, but his laziness lost him marks". Good or bad quotes, don't talk about a person that's dead, nationally.
When a celebrity dies, it is a nightmare. For instance, Robin Williams, people were releasing so many useless information that it was ridiculous. For one, it had nothing to do with anyone but Robin. However, let's do this thing where we have to publicly state everything that he's done. Not such a good guy after all, is he? Oh look, he has hardships and can't handle them. I can't stand that, man.
I would extend this to names of the living too. If you write a story about someone and they didn't give you permission then they should be allowed to fucking sue you. That goes for celebrities too. Freedom of speech is often times abused. Unless someone gives you permission, leave them alone.
So, if you really want to chat about someone without their permission then use the name anonymous, John Doe, or Jane Doe.
Tldr; names of the dead should never be published unless they explicitly stated somewhere that it was fine.
Edit: I worded it wrong. My concern is for the misinformation or even correct information about the dead person that can affect their loved ones. | CMV: People shouldn't be allowed to publish the name of someone that died. I hate seeing on the news and other media that so and so has died. Personally, if I was to die then I wouldn't want it to be shared with everyone, unless it is people that I directly hold value to; however, they would already know if they were to check up on me.
It is disrespectful to spread the name of someone that has died, completely destroying their privacy, even though they're dead. This being because information about them gets released, often misinformation, and they can't defend themselves.
For instance, this kid died and they stated the university that he attended, major, and stupid little quotes from people about his aspirations, shortcomings, and other things. To me, that is just wrong. Then his GPA was estimated. One quote in particular stated: "he was often lazy, very smart and always loved learning, but his laziness lost him marks". Good or bad quotes, don't talk about a person that's dead, nationally.
When a celebrity dies, it is a nightmare. For instance, Robin Williams, people were releasing so many useless information that it was ridiculous. For one, it had nothing to do with anyone but Robin. However, let's do this thing where we have to publicly state everything that he's done. Not such a good guy after all, is he? Oh look, he has hardships and can't handle them. I can't stand that, man.
I would extend this to names of the living too. If you write a story about someone and they didn't give you permission then they should be allowed to fucking sue you. That goes for celebrities too. Freedom of speech is often times abused. Unless someone gives you permission, leave them alone.
So, if you really want to chat about someone without their permission then use the name anonymous, John Doe, or Jane Doe.
Tldr; names of the dead should never be published unless they explicitly stated somewhere that it was fine.
Edit: I worded it wrong. My concern is for the misinformation or even correct information about the dead person that can affect their loved ones. |
t3_2yxk4r | CMV: Sunny D is the best of all orange based beverages | Of all the orange based beverages (Orange Soda, Orange Juice, Sunny D), Sunny D is the best. it is better than orange soda because most times orange soda is way too sweet or tastes nothing like oranges. Orange juice is often times to tangy or pulpy and is just very unpleasant. but Sunny D is all around good. It is the perfect balance of sweet and tangy. you know what the D in Sunny D stands for? Delight. and let me tell you they did not go wrong with that because Sunny D is an delight to drink.
_____
> *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: Sunny D is the best of all orange based beverages. Of all the orange based beverages (Orange Soda, Orange Juice, Sunny D), Sunny D is the best. it is better than orange soda because most times orange soda is way too sweet or tastes nothing like oranges. Orange juice is often times to tangy or pulpy and is just very unpleasant. but Sunny D is all around good. It is the perfect balance of sweet and tangy. you know what the D in Sunny D stands for? Delight. and let me tell you they did not go wrong with that because Sunny D is an delight to drink. |
t3_35eed1 | CMV: Suicide is the only logical option for me / someone in my situation. | I'll describe as much as I can without giving away my identity.
I have undergone in-depth analysis of my life over the last few years, and I have concluded that suicide is logical, at least for my situation.
To start with, I am a trans female. I underwent SRS (sex reassignment surgery) seven years ago, but I do not feel that medical science is advanced enough to cure my dysphoria to an acceptable extent - my physical appearance is just far too different from my inner self image.
For this reason, I have been unable to enjoy any aspect of my life. I have had numerous relationships, some short term, a couple of long term, but they have all felt "forced" - not at all natural and how I'd expect a relationship to be. As I never felt like myself, I could never really participate in the relationships in the way I'd like to - and more or less all of them ended for these reasons. To elaborate, I felt no real emotions - I told myself I was feeling them, because that's what I expected, but none of it was ever "real".
The rest of my life has followed similar patterns. It's as if I am looking at someone else's life through a window, never actually experiencing the feelings and emotions that I'd expect to feel. I am unable to experience most emotions - the only thing I feel is disappointment and frustration about my situation. Other than that, I just feel numb. Never excited, or happy.
I have tried various avenues to make my life worthwhile. I have taken up hobbies, sought medical treatment for the dysphoria as well as counselling, various anti-depressants and SSRIs, etc. (despite the fact that I do not suffer from depression) all to no avail. I know what my life is missing and I know that it will not be possible to fix it, at least not within my lifetime.
I am currently in a state of existing rather than living. I see no point in going through the motions of life, having a job, buying a house etc. I quit my fairly well paid job and took up some part time work for a small business. It's enough to pay the rent and bills, but not much more. It keeps me alive, and I have far more free time.
I have no desire to continue to live like this. In everything I do, I come across obstacles that make me more and more frustrated. I faced problems in full time employment for various reasons - I never wanted to be there, I never felt 'rewarded' despite my high pay and I had disdain for authority. Some days I just wouldn't bother to go in, because I felt like I had better things to do. In my current situation, I have constant worry about my financial situation - having just enough money to survive, I face huge problems when the unexpected happens - such as the recent head gasket failure in my car, and faced with having to move yet again in the next month or two.
In addition, I find new things to reinforce my desire to leave this life on an almost daily basis. It seems like every news article I read gives me further disdain for the human race, for the world around me.
The simple fact is, I have absolutely no desire to be here. Therefore, the logical alternative is to put an end to 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: Suicide is the only logical option for me / someone in my situation. I'll describe as much as I can without giving away my identity.
I have undergone in-depth analysis of my life over the last few years, and I have concluded that suicide is logical, at least for my situation.
To start with, I am a trans female. I underwent SRS (sex reassignment surgery) seven years ago, but I do not feel that medical science is advanced enough to cure my dysphoria to an acceptable extent - my physical appearance is just far too different from my inner self image.
For this reason, I have been unable to enjoy any aspect of my life. I have had numerous relationships, some short term, a couple of long term, but they have all felt "forced" - not at all natural and how I'd expect a relationship to be. As I never felt like myself, I could never really participate in the relationships in the way I'd like to - and more or less all of them ended for these reasons. To elaborate, I felt no real emotions - I told myself I was feeling them, because that's what I expected, but none of it was ever "real".
The rest of my life has followed similar patterns. It's as if I am looking at someone else's life through a window, never actually experiencing the feelings and emotions that I'd expect to feel. I am unable to experience most emotions - the only thing I feel is disappointment and frustration about my situation. Other than that, I just feel numb. Never excited, or happy.
I have tried various avenues to make my life worthwhile. I have taken up hobbies, sought medical treatment for the dysphoria as well as counselling, various anti-depressants and SSRIs, etc. (despite the fact that I do not suffer from depression) all to no avail. I know what my life is missing and I know that it will not be possible to fix it, at least not within my lifetime.
I am currently in a state of existing rather than living. I see no point in going through the motions of life, having a job, buying a house etc. I quit my fairly well paid job and took up some part time work for a small business. It's enough to pay the rent and bills, but not much more. It keeps me alive, and I have far more free time.
I have no desire to continue to live like this. In everything I do, I come across obstacles that make me more and more frustrated. I faced problems in full time employment for various reasons - I never wanted to be there, I never felt 'rewarded' despite my high pay and I had disdain for authority. Some days I just wouldn't bother to go in, because I felt like I had better things to do. In my current situation, I have constant worry about my financial situation - having just enough money to survive, I face huge problems when the unexpected happens - such as the recent head gasket failure in my car, and faced with having to move yet again in the next month or two.
In addition, I find new things to reinforce my desire to leave this life on an almost daily basis. It seems like every news article I read gives me further disdain for the human race, for the world around me.
The simple fact is, I have absolutely no desire to be here. Therefore, the logical alternative is to put an end to my life.
|
t3_31hyn5 | /r/changemyview report: Saturday, March 28, 2015 - Friday, April 03, 2015 | Totals: 7 days, 134 posts, 9,605 comments.
Included in this report: The top 134 posts, and 9,370 of the top comments, by 2,138 distinct authors.
No comments or posts were gilded :(
---
See the comments for detailed reports and charts.
---
**Most Popular Posts**
---
|Score|Author|Post Title|
|:-|-|-|
|1447|/u/Kirkaine|[CMV: Laws restricting the sale of alcohol, dancing, etc. on Easter have no place in a modern secular country](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31az7u/cmv_laws_restricting_the_sale_of_alcohol_dancing/)|
|953|/u/Herpderp409|[CMV: Asking me to leave the toilet seat down for their convenience is no different than me asking someone to leave it up for my convenience.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30lwfn/cmv_asking_me_to_leave_the_toilet_seat_down_for/)|
|804|/u/ps6wb|[CMV: Nurses (and any medical professional) should not work shifts greater than 12 hours.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/316szn/cmv_nurses_and_any_medical_professional_should/)|
|737|/u/honeybunchesofdope1|[CMV: Reddit is no longer a bastion of free speech on the internet](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30rmn6/cmv_reddit_is_no_longer_a_bastion_of_free_speech/)|
|362|/u/BaSh12_FoR_PrEZ|[CMV: When people are overweight there should be much more pressure to change.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30plxu/cmv_when_people_are_overweight_there_should_be/)|
|305|/u/abiathaswelter|[CMV: Poachers don't deserve to die](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30ttea/cmv_poachers_dont_deserve_to_die/)|
|205|/u/ender1944|[CMV: Race is a coherent, reality-based, biologically-based concept. It is not a "meaningless social construct."](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/317crp/cmv_race_is_a_coherent_realitybased/)|
|166|/u/nn123654|[CMV: The F-35 is the modern day equivalent of the Maginot Line and should be Canceled.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/317c4q/cmv_the_f35_is_the_modern_day_equivalent_of_the/)|
|156|/u/gobears10|[CMV: We should strengthen the traditional safety net rather than replace it with basic income](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30oi71/cmv_we_should_strengthen_the_traditional_safety/)|
|155|/u/bracs278|[CMV: If women can enter men's bathrooms theirs are busy, then men should be able to do the same](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30kum5/cmv_if_women_can_enter_mens_bathrooms_theirs_are/)|
|136|/u/goombawars|[CMV: Apple Mac OS X is confusing and unpractical](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/311flc/cmv_apple_mac_os_x_is_confusing_and_unpractical/)|
|128|/u/micahjin|[CMV:Online interactions, relationships and obligations aren't inherently inferior to "real life" ones.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30lpdi/cmvonline_interactions_relationships_and/)|
|126|/u/Laika_Come_Home|[CMV: The government's response against mutants was not only justified, it was necessary.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30tljl/cmv_the_governments_response_against_mutants_was/)|
|114|/u/burgintime|[CMV: I don't believe that artists owe anything to society other than self-expression.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30t38b/cmv_i_dont_believe_that_artists_owe_anything_to/)|
|83|/u/Torn8oz|[CMV:April Fools jokes have become so predictable and obvious, they are just annoying now.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30zm6i/cmvapril_fools_jokes_have_become_so_predictable/)|
|83|/u/jrafferty|[CMV: Debt collectors should not be able to offset or intercept tax returns](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30ty26/cmv_debt_collectors_should_not_be_able_to_offset/)|
|80|/u/beq451991|[CMV: Andrew Jackson was a low class thug, a lousy president, and should be taken off the $20 bill.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30j3sy/cmv_andrew_jackson_was_a_low_class_thug_a_lousy/)|
|75|/u/DangerouslyUnstable|[CMV: I'm not sure that the government should be intervening in private businesses to force them to provide service to gays or other groups.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/313bkp/cmv_im_not_sure_that_the_government_should_be/)|
|71|/u/tiredofoldvalues1|[CMV: High Schools need to start later](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30s384/cmv_high_schools_need_to_start_later/)|
|66|/u/bramley|[CMV: It IS hard being a baby.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/316t8m/cmv_it_is_hard_being_a_baby/)|
|60|/u/skilliard4|[CMV: Piracy Is No Worse Than Using Adblock(Both have exceptions)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3169ov/cmv_piracy_is_no_worse_than_using_adblockboth/)|
|59|/u/Ennuiandthensome|[CMV: Homeschooling should no longer be an option](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/317cs6/cmv_homeschooling_should_no_longer_be_an_option/)|
|54|/u/mizz_kittay|[CMV: TwoXChromosomes is the worst subreddit of all for people actually wanting to participate in a subreddit because it positions itself as one thing but delivers another in a personally offensive way.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30zgez/cmv_twoxchromosomes_is_the_worst_subreddit_of_all/)|
|50|/u/I-WON-THE-MONEY|[CMV: /r/AskHistorians April Fools' Day prank demonstrates the kind of wit /r/circlejerk SHOULD have](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31090y/cmv_raskhistorians_april_fools_day_prank/)|
|38|/u/bamfbarber|[CMV: Jar Jar Binks is a good character for the Star Wars series and the hate he get from the fandom is unfair.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/312iqg/cmv_jar_jar_binks_is_a_good_character_for_the/)|
|34|/u/cp5184|[CMV: sweat shop workers today can have worse lives than slaves have had in the past and in the present](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/316f5q/cmv_sweat_shop_workers_today_can_have_worse_lives/)|
|33|/u/Fiddler_Jones|[CMV: People sentenced to death should be used in experiments with high risk of the subjects dying](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3173dl/cmv_people_sentenced_to_death_should_be_used_in/)|
|31|/u/rickthehatman|[CMV: Business owners should have the right to refuse service whatever the reason.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30piom/cmv_business_owners_should_have_the_right_to/)|
|29|/u/IAmFern|[CMV: Almost all the pain that patients feel when visiting a dentist is unnecessary, and is often the result of dentists not taking the time to make it painless.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/319doq/cmv_almost_all_the_pain_that_patients_feel_when/)|
|27|/u/CMarlowe|[CMV: In all-volunteer military, to kill in an unjust war is tantamount to murder.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30nhhs/cmv_in_allvolunteer_military_to_kill_in_an_unjust/)|
|26|/u/Bunny_Wabbit|[CMV: Mega Man isn't difficult by design](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/313bc1/cmv_mega_man_isnt_difficult_by_design/)|
|26|/u/AutoModerator|[Sexless Saturday - 03/28/15](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30lcdh/sexless_saturday_032815/)|
|25|/u/Helicase21|[CMV: Every state should adopt the "Idaho stop"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31btbz/cmv_every_state_should_adopt_the_idaho_stop/)|
|25|/u/moemoezkyun|[CMV: The up/downvote mechanic of websites like reddit, imgur, and tumblr cause a mob mentality and a boxed-in, ignorant view of the world](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3164cs/cmv_the_updownvote_mechanic_of_websites_like/)|
|25|/u/QuantumTangler|[CMV: Intellectual elitism is a good thing](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30qaon/cmv_intellectual_elitism_is_a_good_thing/)|
|22|/u/Troy_And_Abed_In_The|[CMV: I think healthcare should be 100% privatized.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/312quo/cmv_i_think_healthcare_should_be_100_privatized/)|
|22|/u/resonator97|[CMV: If you are not comfortable having your daughter doing porn you should not watch it.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30rk8b/cmv_if_you_are_not_comfortable_having_your/)|
|21|/u/gugam99|[CMV: Piracy is a Worse Crime than Public Nudity](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30q23r/cmv_piracy_is_a_worse_crime_than_public_nudity/)|
|20|/u/DoneDigging|[CMV: Pessimism is no more "realistic" than optimism.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31c9im/cmv_pessimism_is_no_more_realistic_than_optimism/)|
|20|/u/kabbotta|[CMV: Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" Is Probably Factually Correct In Its Claims About Violence, But It Ignores A Crucial Point About Value.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/314nu3/cmv_pinkers_the_better_angels_of_our_nature_is/)|
---
^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.) | /r/changemyview report: Saturday, March 28, 2015 - Friday, April 03, 2015. Totals: 7 days, 134 posts, 9,605 comments.
Included in this report: The top 134 posts, and 9,370 of the top comments, by 2,138 distinct authors.
No comments or posts were gilded :(
---
See the comments for detailed reports and charts.
---
**Most Popular Posts**
---
|Score|Author|Post Title|
|:-|-|-|
|1447|/u/Kirkaine|[CMV: Laws restricting the sale of alcohol, dancing, etc. on Easter have no place in a modern secular country](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31az7u/cmv_laws_restricting_the_sale_of_alcohol_dancing/)|
|953|/u/Herpderp409|[CMV: Asking me to leave the toilet seat down for their convenience is no different than me asking someone to leave it up for my convenience.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30lwfn/cmv_asking_me_to_leave_the_toilet_seat_down_for/)|
|804|/u/ps6wb|[CMV: Nurses (and any medical professional) should not work shifts greater than 12 hours.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/316szn/cmv_nurses_and_any_medical_professional_should/)|
|737|/u/honeybunchesofdope1|[CMV: Reddit is no longer a bastion of free speech on the internet](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30rmn6/cmv_reddit_is_no_longer_a_bastion_of_free_speech/)|
|362|/u/BaSh12_FoR_PrEZ|[CMV: When people are overweight there should be much more pressure to change.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30plxu/cmv_when_people_are_overweight_there_should_be/)|
|305|/u/abiathaswelter|[CMV: Poachers don't deserve to die](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30ttea/cmv_poachers_dont_deserve_to_die/)|
|205|/u/ender1944|[CMV: Race is a coherent, reality-based, biologically-based concept. It is not a "meaningless social construct."](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/317crp/cmv_race_is_a_coherent_realitybased/)|
|166|/u/nn123654|[CMV: The F-35 is the modern day equivalent of the Maginot Line and should be Canceled.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/317c4q/cmv_the_f35_is_the_modern_day_equivalent_of_the/)|
|156|/u/gobears10|[CMV: We should strengthen the traditional safety net rather than replace it with basic income](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30oi71/cmv_we_should_strengthen_the_traditional_safety/)|
|155|/u/bracs278|[CMV: If women can enter men's bathrooms theirs are busy, then men should be able to do the same](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30kum5/cmv_if_women_can_enter_mens_bathrooms_theirs_are/)|
|136|/u/goombawars|[CMV: Apple Mac OS X is confusing and unpractical](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/311flc/cmv_apple_mac_os_x_is_confusing_and_unpractical/)|
|128|/u/micahjin|[CMV:Online interactions, relationships and obligations aren't inherently inferior to "real life" ones.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30lpdi/cmvonline_interactions_relationships_and/)|
|126|/u/Laika_Come_Home|[CMV: The government's response against mutants was not only justified, it was necessary.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30tljl/cmv_the_governments_response_against_mutants_was/)|
|114|/u/burgintime|[CMV: I don't believe that artists owe anything to society other than self-expression.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30t38b/cmv_i_dont_believe_that_artists_owe_anything_to/)|
|83|/u/Torn8oz|[CMV:April Fools jokes have become so predictable and obvious, they are just annoying now.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30zm6i/cmvapril_fools_jokes_have_become_so_predictable/)|
|83|/u/jrafferty|[CMV: Debt collectors should not be able to offset or intercept tax returns](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30ty26/cmv_debt_collectors_should_not_be_able_to_offset/)|
|80|/u/beq451991|[CMV: Andrew Jackson was a low class thug, a lousy president, and should be taken off the $20 bill.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30j3sy/cmv_andrew_jackson_was_a_low_class_thug_a_lousy/)|
|75|/u/DangerouslyUnstable|[CMV: I'm not sure that the government should be intervening in private businesses to force them to provide service to gays or other groups.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/313bkp/cmv_im_not_sure_that_the_government_should_be/)|
|71|/u/tiredofoldvalues1|[CMV: High Schools need to start later](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30s384/cmv_high_schools_need_to_start_later/)|
|66|/u/bramley|[CMV: It IS hard being a baby.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/316t8m/cmv_it_is_hard_being_a_baby/)|
|60|/u/skilliard4|[CMV: Piracy Is No Worse Than Using Adblock(Both have exceptions)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3169ov/cmv_piracy_is_no_worse_than_using_adblockboth/)|
|59|/u/Ennuiandthensome|[CMV: Homeschooling should no longer be an option](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/317cs6/cmv_homeschooling_should_no_longer_be_an_option/)|
|54|/u/mizz_kittay|[CMV: TwoXChromosomes is the worst subreddit of all for people actually wanting to participate in a subreddit because it positions itself as one thing but delivers another in a personally offensive way.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30zgez/cmv_twoxchromosomes_is_the_worst_subreddit_of_all/)|
|50|/u/I-WON-THE-MONEY|[CMV: /r/AskHistorians April Fools' Day prank demonstrates the kind of wit /r/circlejerk SHOULD have](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31090y/cmv_raskhistorians_april_fools_day_prank/)|
|38|/u/bamfbarber|[CMV: Jar Jar Binks is a good character for the Star Wars series and the hate he get from the fandom is unfair.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/312iqg/cmv_jar_jar_binks_is_a_good_character_for_the/)|
|34|/u/cp5184|[CMV: sweat shop workers today can have worse lives than slaves have had in the past and in the present](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/316f5q/cmv_sweat_shop_workers_today_can_have_worse_lives/)|
|33|/u/Fiddler_Jones|[CMV: People sentenced to death should be used in experiments with high risk of the subjects dying](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3173dl/cmv_people_sentenced_to_death_should_be_used_in/)|
|31|/u/rickthehatman|[CMV: Business owners should have the right to refuse service whatever the reason.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30piom/cmv_business_owners_should_have_the_right_to/)|
|29|/u/IAmFern|[CMV: Almost all the pain that patients feel when visiting a dentist is unnecessary, and is often the result of dentists not taking the time to make it painless.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/319doq/cmv_almost_all_the_pain_that_patients_feel_when/)|
|27|/u/CMarlowe|[CMV: In all-volunteer military, to kill in an unjust war is tantamount to murder.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30nhhs/cmv_in_allvolunteer_military_to_kill_in_an_unjust/)|
|26|/u/Bunny_Wabbit|[CMV: Mega Man isn't difficult by design](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/313bc1/cmv_mega_man_isnt_difficult_by_design/)|
|26|/u/AutoModerator|[Sexless Saturday - 03/28/15](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30lcdh/sexless_saturday_032815/)|
|25|/u/Helicase21|[CMV: Every state should adopt the "Idaho stop"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31btbz/cmv_every_state_should_adopt_the_idaho_stop/)|
|25|/u/moemoezkyun|[CMV: The up/downvote mechanic of websites like reddit, imgur, and tumblr cause a mob mentality and a boxed-in, ignorant view of the world](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3164cs/cmv_the_updownvote_mechanic_of_websites_like/)|
|25|/u/QuantumTangler|[CMV: Intellectual elitism is a good thing](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30qaon/cmv_intellectual_elitism_is_a_good_thing/)|
|22|/u/Troy_And_Abed_In_The|[CMV: I think healthcare should be 100% privatized.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/312quo/cmv_i_think_healthcare_should_be_100_privatized/)|
|22|/u/resonator97|[CMV: If you are not comfortable having your daughter doing porn you should not watch it.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30rk8b/cmv_if_you_are_not_comfortable_having_your/)|
|21|/u/gugam99|[CMV: Piracy is a Worse Crime than Public Nudity](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/30q23r/cmv_piracy_is_a_worse_crime_than_public_nudity/)|
|20|/u/DoneDigging|[CMV: Pessimism is no more "realistic" than optimism.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/31c9im/cmv_pessimism_is_no_more_realistic_than_optimism/)|
|20|/u/kabbotta|[CMV: Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" Is Probably Factually Correct In Its Claims About Violence, But It Ignores A Crucial Point About Value.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/314nu3/cmv_pinkers_the_better_angels_of_our_nature_is/)|
---
^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.) |
t3_2zn9r7 | CMV: I should be able to have blue hair at my Engineering job. | Edit: From the conversation, it seems that the view should be "I think I can be professional while having blue hair in my engineering job"
I recently started an Engineering job in the past year with brown hair. I had blue hair prior to starting and my boss knows this, however I made it a normal color so I could get to know people without having a nickname. My company does not have a hair policy. I do not work with clients or anyone outside of the company. I do work with many people inside the company of differing roles, levels, and ages. I get my hair professionally dyed and I keep it clean and well maintained, as well as dressing and acting like a professional. Tell me why you think this is a bad idea.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I should be able to have blue hair at my Engineering job. Edit: From the conversation, it seems that the view should be "I think I can be professional while having blue hair in my engineering job"
I recently started an Engineering job in the past year with brown hair. I had blue hair prior to starting and my boss knows this, however I made it a normal color so I could get to know people without having a nickname. My company does not have a hair policy. I do not work with clients or anyone outside of the company. I do work with many people inside the company of differing roles, levels, and ages. I get my hair professionally dyed and I keep it clean and well maintained, as well as dressing and acting like a professional. Tell me why you think this is a bad idea. |
t3_1ey9ba | I do not think that 'gnostic agnosticism', the position as a few people in /r/agnostic claim to hold, is a logical and justified philosophical position. | I have been arguing with some people on /r/agnosticism and occasionally I come along and find somebody claiming to be a "gnostic agnostic". I mean, there is actually a guy with the name "gnosticagnostic" who defends his position in that subreddit, and he isn't the only one. These are typically individuals who try to claim that weak atheism is literally the same thing as agnosticism. They also *usually* claim that anybody who is an atheist is a person making an assertion just in the same way that a theist makes an assertion.
Mainly my issue is this: according to the most commonly understood definitions of these two words, putting them together to describe a position seems to be one giant contradiction.
So what the hell is this position? I can't even find an explanation from google. CMV | I do not think that 'gnostic agnosticism', the position as a few people in /r/agnostic claim to hold, is a logical and justified philosophical position. I have been arguing with some people on /r/agnosticism and occasionally I come along and find somebody claiming to be a "gnostic agnostic". I mean, there is actually a guy with the name "gnosticagnostic" who defends his position in that subreddit, and he isn't the only one. These are typically individuals who try to claim that weak atheism is literally the same thing as agnosticism. They also *usually* claim that anybody who is an atheist is a person making an assertion just in the same way that a theist makes an assertion.
Mainly my issue is this: according to the most commonly understood definitions of these two words, putting them together to describe a position seems to be one giant contradiction.
So what the hell is this position? I can't even find an explanation from google. CMV |
t3_2g2dg1 | CMV: People who praise Android phones to deviate from the iPhone "bandwagon/circle-jerk" are in a bandwagon/circle-jerk themselves | I personally think it's interesting how people can get so caught up in bandwagons in the attempt to disassociate from one. Apple versus Samsung and Call of Duty versus Battlefield, even 9gag versus Reddit a while ago (?)... typically the same thing.
I notice that it starts with a bunch of people who call out Apple and praise Samsung for having more functional products, an argument that can have merit. But after this initial wave of people, a second wave of often bigoted teenagers (and adults, more often than not) espouse statements like "Apple fanboy alert" or "ipoop mainstream and overpriced", etc, you know what I mean.
So this "follower" wave of people who try to leave the "mainstream bandwagon" actually fall into this secondary mainstream bandwagon, which pretends to be pragmatic but just ends up being another circle-jerk and even going as far as to bash "the ignorant" when they've become pretty ignorant themselves. Obviously not everyone but particularly the many commenters on YouTube.
I share the same thoughts with Call Of Duty and Battlefield for those familiar; I'm a big fan of both CoD and BF but after a while, the hate talk towards CoD is IMO often undeserved, irrational, and personally annoying.
Examples: look at the comments of any Apple or CoD video on YouTube.
Back to topic, I'm not trying to trigger a phone vs phone debate; I've owned a Windows Phone and now an iPhone 5; I've used my friends' Android phones.
Please change my view if it's unreasonable.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: People who praise Android phones to deviate from the iPhone "bandwagon/circle-jerk" are in a bandwagon/circle-jerk themselves. I personally think it's interesting how people can get so caught up in bandwagons in the attempt to disassociate from one. Apple versus Samsung and Call of Duty versus Battlefield, even 9gag versus Reddit a while ago (?)... typically the same thing.
I notice that it starts with a bunch of people who call out Apple and praise Samsung for having more functional products, an argument that can have merit. But after this initial wave of people, a second wave of often bigoted teenagers (and adults, more often than not) espouse statements like "Apple fanboy alert" or "ipoop mainstream and overpriced", etc, you know what I mean.
So this "follower" wave of people who try to leave the "mainstream bandwagon" actually fall into this secondary mainstream bandwagon, which pretends to be pragmatic but just ends up being another circle-jerk and even going as far as to bash "the ignorant" when they've become pretty ignorant themselves. Obviously not everyone but particularly the many commenters on YouTube.
I share the same thoughts with Call Of Duty and Battlefield for those familiar; I'm a big fan of both CoD and BF but after a while, the hate talk towards CoD is IMO often undeserved, irrational, and personally annoying.
Examples: look at the comments of any Apple or CoD video on YouTube.
Back to topic, I'm not trying to trigger a phone vs phone debate; I've owned a Windows Phone and now an iPhone 5; I've used my friends' Android phones.
Please change my view if it's unreasonable.
|
t3_5c1xhc | CMV: The 2016 US Election Results Have All but Assured the Final Destruction of the Environment | Ignoring all of the horrible things surrounding this election, I tried my best to stay focused on the one thing that was the most important to me: Climate Policy. Who was going to actually try their hardest to bring about wide, sweeping change to our society to attempt staving off the more permanent effects of global climate change.
Then last night we as a nation elected a Climate Change Denier and gave him a majority in both houses of congress which in turn gives him the supreme court. All three branches of our government will be controlled by people that do not believe what is happening to our planet is caused by humankind.
I will admit a lot of what I know about climate science comes from pop science channels like TV documentaries (i.e. Before the Flood), YouTube channels that cover scientific news (TYT, VlogBros, SciShow, anything with Bill Nye), etc. However, all of these sources have one thing in common and that is a call for massive and immediate change. My current view is that because of this election we have effectively killed any hope of achieving those changes that are so needed to slow down climate change, and it's inevitable effects that will lead to global strife on a truly apocalyptic scale (famine, drought, war, once arable land becoming uninhabitable, etc.). I truly feel like I have lost the will to continue the fight knowing the odds of overcoming all 3 branches of government.
So my hope of posting this here is this: maybe someone out in the vastness of the internet can maybe give me the slightest bit of hope that I don't have another 60-80 years of horrendous effects of climate change to deal with because of this election. I want someone to give me a reason to one day, with any luck, have a child without feeling guilty for sending them off into a world I know will be worse than it is now. | CMV: The 2016 US Election Results Have All but Assured the Final Destruction of the Environment. Ignoring all of the horrible things surrounding this election, I tried my best to stay focused on the one thing that was the most important to me: Climate Policy. Who was going to actually try their hardest to bring about wide, sweeping change to our society to attempt staving off the more permanent effects of global climate change.
Then last night we as a nation elected a Climate Change Denier and gave him a majority in both houses of congress which in turn gives him the supreme court. All three branches of our government will be controlled by people that do not believe what is happening to our planet is caused by humankind.
I will admit a lot of what I know about climate science comes from pop science channels like TV documentaries (i.e. Before the Flood), YouTube channels that cover scientific news (TYT, VlogBros, SciShow, anything with Bill Nye), etc. However, all of these sources have one thing in common and that is a call for massive and immediate change. My current view is that because of this election we have effectively killed any hope of achieving those changes that are so needed to slow down climate change, and it's inevitable effects that will lead to global strife on a truly apocalyptic scale (famine, drought, war, once arable land becoming uninhabitable, etc.). I truly feel like I have lost the will to continue the fight knowing the odds of overcoming all 3 branches of government.
So my hope of posting this here is this: maybe someone out in the vastness of the internet can maybe give me the slightest bit of hope that I don't have another 60-80 years of horrendous effects of climate change to deal with because of this election. I want someone to give me a reason to one day, with any luck, have a child without feeling guilty for sending them off into a world I know will be worse than it is now. |
t3_1g36ih | I am having an existential crisis: I believe life is not worth continuing if you do not contribute anything relevant and substantial to the advancement of the human race. Please CMV! | I suffer clinical depression* and am having an 'existential crisis' which exacerbates it. I would like to change my view on existence to help ease my depression.
I do not see a point in living without contributing something to society and to the human race. I think I am a parasite - ie: I use fuel and resources from a dying planet to perpetuate a pointless existence. By existing, I am polluting the environment and destroying the planet, consuming more then my share of resources which in turn deprives those in 3rd world countries.
I do believe there is hope for humanity. I believe that most of the environmental issues will be solved by science. My heros are scientists, particularly those working in green energy and space exploration. However, as I do not contribute to these things, I am in fact a drain on this.
I would greatly like to contribute to these but I am not financially capable or have the knowledge.
Can anyone change my view on this? Thanks!
*I am aware that many people do not fully understand how depression works and may even not like that I am posting this. Please; I urge you to consider it is a very real disease that has many negative side effects. | I am having an existential crisis: I believe life is not worth continuing if you do not contribute anything relevant and substantial to the advancement of the human race. Please CMV!. I suffer clinical depression* and am having an 'existential crisis' which exacerbates it. I would like to change my view on existence to help ease my depression.
I do not see a point in living without contributing something to society and to the human race. I think I am a parasite - ie: I use fuel and resources from a dying planet to perpetuate a pointless existence. By existing, I am polluting the environment and destroying the planet, consuming more then my share of resources which in turn deprives those in 3rd world countries.
I do believe there is hope for humanity. I believe that most of the environmental issues will be solved by science. My heros are scientists, particularly those working in green energy and space exploration. However, as I do not contribute to these things, I am in fact a drain on this.
I would greatly like to contribute to these but I am not financially capable or have the knowledge.
Can anyone change my view on this? Thanks!
*I am aware that many people do not fully understand how depression works and may even not like that I am posting this. Please; I urge you to consider it is a very real disease that has many negative side effects. |
t3_2h1si0 | CMV: When dating, it is a waste of time to try to win someone over. If you have to win them over now, you run the risk of losing them later. | I don't like to have to win someone over in order to have any sort of relationship with them. I believe that relationships should happen organically, originating from natural attraction and compatibility, and that if you have to win them over now, you're going to have to continue to win them over. Then, when you are unable to win them over later, it takes away the thing that made the relationship in the first place and therefore putting the relationship as a whole in jeopardy, even if the couple is overall a very good match (socio-economic status, interests, sexually, etc.).
I do believe that you should flirt and woo and do your best to make them feel desired and cared for. I think that it is a balance of both parties putting effort toward the other that makes a relationship. People need to feel cared for and important. But I think that can be different from having to win someone over. One is directed toward making them feel good, while the other is making yourself look good (selling yourself). When I need to win someone over in order to gain their interest, I am having to compete for your attention, and if I have to compete now, I'm going to have to later.
Furthermore, I don't think that having to win someone over while in a relationship is a good thing. IMO, it shows lack of trust and commitment of the other person. I believe that a healthy relationship is founded on mutual trust and compatibility, and primarily commitment to the other person. If you need me to win you over, it shows me that you're not really committed or invested in the relationship.
Edit: Thanks for all the opinions, guys! I don't know that I've completely changed my view, but you have definitely made me think about it a lot more in ways I was unable to myself. Sorry I haven't been able to more actively engage in discussion, because I've been at work. I'll try to reply where I can. | CMV: When dating, it is a waste of time to try to win someone over. If you have to win them over now, you run the risk of losing them later. I don't like to have to win someone over in order to have any sort of relationship with them. I believe that relationships should happen organically, originating from natural attraction and compatibility, and that if you have to win them over now, you're going to have to continue to win them over. Then, when you are unable to win them over later, it takes away the thing that made the relationship in the first place and therefore putting the relationship as a whole in jeopardy, even if the couple is overall a very good match (socio-economic status, interests, sexually, etc.).
I do believe that you should flirt and woo and do your best to make them feel desired and cared for. I think that it is a balance of both parties putting effort toward the other that makes a relationship. People need to feel cared for and important. But I think that can be different from having to win someone over. One is directed toward making them feel good, while the other is making yourself look good (selling yourself). When I need to win someone over in order to gain their interest, I am having to compete for your attention, and if I have to compete now, I'm going to have to later.
Furthermore, I don't think that having to win someone over while in a relationship is a good thing. IMO, it shows lack of trust and commitment of the other person. I believe that a healthy relationship is founded on mutual trust and compatibility, and primarily commitment to the other person. If you need me to win you over, it shows me that you're not really committed or invested in the relationship.
Edit: Thanks for all the opinions, guys! I don't know that I've completely changed my view, but you have definitely made me think about it a lot more in ways I was unable to myself. Sorry I haven't been able to more actively engage in discussion, because I've been at work. I'll try to reply where I can. |
t3_1nyesx | I believe political science should not be considered a science. [CMV] | I've been in college for 2 years now studying computer engineering. Looking back to when I started, I've noticed many changes on things that I find interesting. However, the one thing I still find dull and unnecessary is politics.
Don't get me wrong, I stay informed and up to date with current events in the world, and I understand, to an extent, what is going on. But I can't see why it takes up such a big part of the world's attention.
What really bothers me is the fact that it is called a science. The very definition of science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws, gained through observation and experimentation. I cannot see how this applies to politics at all.
If you asked me to give you my own personal definition of political science, I would say it is the study of manipulating the public to conform to one's own opinion. How do you win an election? You convince people that your opinion is the right opinion, and that it is the opinion they should also have.
I think humanity as a whole wastes far too much time with politics. It should play a much smaller role in the world. I think humans would progress much more rapidly if greater emphasis was placed on the sciences and the arts. | I believe political science should not be considered a science. [CMV]. I've been in college for 2 years now studying computer engineering. Looking back to when I started, I've noticed many changes on things that I find interesting. However, the one thing I still find dull and unnecessary is politics.
Don't get me wrong, I stay informed and up to date with current events in the world, and I understand, to an extent, what is going on. But I can't see why it takes up such a big part of the world's attention.
What really bothers me is the fact that it is called a science. The very definition of science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws, gained through observation and experimentation. I cannot see how this applies to politics at all.
If you asked me to give you my own personal definition of political science, I would say it is the study of manipulating the public to conform to one's own opinion. How do you win an election? You convince people that your opinion is the right opinion, and that it is the opinion they should also have.
I think humanity as a whole wastes far too much time with politics. It should play a much smaller role in the world. I think humans would progress much more rapidly if greater emphasis was placed on the sciences and the arts. |
t3_2w0gm3 | CMV: Medical background checks to purchase a gun is not a good idea. | I believe that a medical back ground to purchase a gun, or anything is not a good idea.
* I think it takes away from the judicial system and increases bureaucracy
* It leaves too much up to subjective views
* Only a judge should be able to take away, what are widely considered rights (ie Stuff in the bill of rights)
To expand:
1)The way I see it: you want to buy a gun, so you go to the store and buy one. The store says "We need to wait x days so we can preform a background check." The background check is done by a government board, a bureaucratic group. They look at your medical record and decide if you should or shouldn't own it based upon what they see.
My problem with this is the following:
* They may or may not be experts in the field (ie not Dr's or have a medical background therefore do not understand the materiel they see)
* The person has not proven themselves inept, or criminally negligent, in a court of law.
2) This is more or less a expansion upon the first point. The bureaucracy can say that any mental illness is ground to ban you from buying the gun. Be it psychosis, or ADD. Though it may be more confined in the law, every person who has these mental disabilities are not equally likely to shoot and kill someone.
3) The only fair a just way to take away someones rights. This is because the judge is a public figure, and we can see his reasoning and if it's deemed to be unfair/unjust we can overrule it using the judicial system already in place. I think that a bureaucratic group lacks this public oversight.
I do think that judges can and should take away you right to own a gun, and a check for that is more than reasonable. Also a wait time is more than reasonable. I am only not convinced that a medical background check is reasonable.
If anything is unclear please let me know
Edit 1:
When I said 'bureaucracy' what I mean is a group who is not in the public light. A group who is not elected and whose decisions the public can not see. A judges verdict is available to the public.
_____
> *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: Medical background checks to purchase a gun is not a good idea. I believe that a medical back ground to purchase a gun, or anything is not a good idea.
* I think it takes away from the judicial system and increases bureaucracy
* It leaves too much up to subjective views
* Only a judge should be able to take away, what are widely considered rights (ie Stuff in the bill of rights)
To expand:
1)The way I see it: you want to buy a gun, so you go to the store and buy one. The store says "We need to wait x days so we can preform a background check." The background check is done by a government board, a bureaucratic group. They look at your medical record and decide if you should or shouldn't own it based upon what they see.
My problem with this is the following:
* They may or may not be experts in the field (ie not Dr's or have a medical background therefore do not understand the materiel they see)
* The person has not proven themselves inept, or criminally negligent, in a court of law.
2) This is more or less a expansion upon the first point. The bureaucracy can say that any mental illness is ground to ban you from buying the gun. Be it psychosis, or ADD. Though it may be more confined in the law, every person who has these mental disabilities are not equally likely to shoot and kill someone.
3) The only fair a just way to take away someones rights. This is because the judge is a public figure, and we can see his reasoning and if it's deemed to be unfair/unjust we can overrule it using the judicial system already in place. I think that a bureaucratic group lacks this public oversight.
I do think that judges can and should take away you right to own a gun, and a check for that is more than reasonable. Also a wait time is more than reasonable. I am only not convinced that a medical background check is reasonable.
If anything is unclear please let me know
Edit 1:
When I said 'bureaucracy' what I mean is a group who is not in the public light. A group who is not elected and whose decisions the public can not see. A judges verdict is available to the public. |
t3_5k4x03 | CMV: Everything is Connected to Everything | “To develop a complete mind: Study the art of science; study the science of art. Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else” – Leonardo DaVinci
Every action has a cause and effect. Therefore, you can theoretically replicate any and any and every instance with precise accuracy. Now, I’m entirely unaware of any experiment or project that has done that with the precise accuracy I have in mind. In part, I believe, due to the insufficient number of variables taken into account. The variables selected, although seemingly complete, are devoid of nearly everything our reality has to offer us. How can one understand the nature of conflict without studying how cells engage in warfare with themselves or how other species hunt or prey upon each other. How can we change habits and patterns without recognizing the infinite amount of variables that have led to their occurrence and manipulating them until achieving the desired result? How can we truly create a divide between artificial constructs and natural occurrences if we, as a species, have only been allowed to manipulate nature by her consent? This is why I'm inclined to think everything is inherently connected to everything else.
Now, I by no means wish to promote or indulge in pseudoscience of any kind, and I can see how a lot of this sounds like spiritual nonsense. I value truth, reason, and curiosity above nearly everything else. And this self-awareness allows me sufficient room for insecurity and doubt, namely lying in the inherent imperfection in human perception, the kind of judgment we are unfortunate enough to rely on when conducting research and experiments.
I see our reality as a complex machine with limitless variables to be documented and manipulated for our benefit. I am a strong believer in the power of pattern recognition, and as such, believe sufficiently complex mathematics can explain everything. I am all too aware of my insufficient experience and intellect to think I have more to offer than all of you fine folks on this subreddit. I don’t want to base my perspective on pseudo-scientific or religious nonsense; I understand how intuition is unreliable. I just want to learn and accomplish something great within my lifetime, and thus, desire a correct foundation. I don’t know if this the right one, and if it isn’t, I’m far more than willing to change my view. But it seems that I keep coming back to the flawed nature of humanity, so much so, that I find it hard to take input sincerely enough to serve as a foundation.
Quick Note: I don’t want to come off as arrogant or standoffish, it’s just kind of how I work, so I don’t want anyone to take it the wrong way. But please, do tell me why I can potentially come off that way and how to improve my communication skills. Above all else, I just want to grow and learn, and I think this is a pretty good step in doing 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: Everything is Connected to Everything. “To develop a complete mind: Study the art of science; study the science of art. Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else” – Leonardo DaVinci
Every action has a cause and effect. Therefore, you can theoretically replicate any and any and every instance with precise accuracy. Now, I’m entirely unaware of any experiment or project that has done that with the precise accuracy I have in mind. In part, I believe, due to the insufficient number of variables taken into account. The variables selected, although seemingly complete, are devoid of nearly everything our reality has to offer us. How can one understand the nature of conflict without studying how cells engage in warfare with themselves or how other species hunt or prey upon each other. How can we change habits and patterns without recognizing the infinite amount of variables that have led to their occurrence and manipulating them until achieving the desired result? How can we truly create a divide between artificial constructs and natural occurrences if we, as a species, have only been allowed to manipulate nature by her consent? This is why I'm inclined to think everything is inherently connected to everything else.
Now, I by no means wish to promote or indulge in pseudoscience of any kind, and I can see how a lot of this sounds like spiritual nonsense. I value truth, reason, and curiosity above nearly everything else. And this self-awareness allows me sufficient room for insecurity and doubt, namely lying in the inherent imperfection in human perception, the kind of judgment we are unfortunate enough to rely on when conducting research and experiments.
I see our reality as a complex machine with limitless variables to be documented and manipulated for our benefit. I am a strong believer in the power of pattern recognition, and as such, believe sufficiently complex mathematics can explain everything. I am all too aware of my insufficient experience and intellect to think I have more to offer than all of you fine folks on this subreddit. I don’t want to base my perspective on pseudo-scientific or religious nonsense; I understand how intuition is unreliable. I just want to learn and accomplish something great within my lifetime, and thus, desire a correct foundation. I don’t know if this the right one, and if it isn’t, I’m far more than willing to change my view. But it seems that I keep coming back to the flawed nature of humanity, so much so, that I find it hard to take input sincerely enough to serve as a foundation.
Quick Note: I don’t want to come off as arrogant or standoffish, it’s just kind of how I work, so I don’t want anyone to take it the wrong way. But please, do tell me why I can potentially come off that way and how to improve my communication skills. Above all else, I just want to grow and learn, and I think this is a pretty good step in doing that.
|
t3_26wcad | CMV: The US Social Security system could be easily solved, but isn't simply because of government inaction. | Currently the social security system is a hotly debated issue. Many people like to act like it's some insurmountable issue that is hopelessly complicated. But it is rather quite simple.
We currently have more going out than into the social security trust fund. This is due to a few reasons. The main one is that we didn't expect to be paying so much out because people are now living longer.
So how do we solve this insurmountable issue. Well we can do it two ways, either pay less out or take more in. Currently the SS tax is horrible designed. We have a regressive tax system where there is no minimum amount but we do max it out. Currently the max is at 117K dollars a year. All money made after 117K is social security tax free.
We can simply put no max in the social security tax. This would make it a flat tax. I don't see how that can be seen as unfair to anyone, except the poor because they are still getting the short end of the stick.
Next we can simply reduce how much social security we give out. We can very simply not give as much to rich people. The social security service was created to help the elderly poor, but we give it to the elderly blindly. Warren Buffet gets a social security check every month that he is not allowed to turn down. He obviously does not need it.
We can simply say that you get X less for how much capital investment money you get.
We can also just raise the age that we give out social security and put it directly in line with the average life expectancy. Perhaps it changes so that social security is meant to go for an average of X years.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: The US Social Security system could be easily solved, but isn't simply because of government inaction. Currently the social security system is a hotly debated issue. Many people like to act like it's some insurmountable issue that is hopelessly complicated. But it is rather quite simple.
We currently have more going out than into the social security trust fund. This is due to a few reasons. The main one is that we didn't expect to be paying so much out because people are now living longer.
So how do we solve this insurmountable issue. Well we can do it two ways, either pay less out or take more in. Currently the SS tax is horrible designed. We have a regressive tax system where there is no minimum amount but we do max it out. Currently the max is at 117K dollars a year. All money made after 117K is social security tax free.
We can simply put no max in the social security tax. This would make it a flat tax. I don't see how that can be seen as unfair to anyone, except the poor because they are still getting the short end of the stick.
Next we can simply reduce how much social security we give out. We can very simply not give as much to rich people. The social security service was created to help the elderly poor, but we give it to the elderly blindly. Warren Buffet gets a social security check every month that he is not allowed to turn down. He obviously does not need it.
We can simply say that you get X less for how much capital investment money you get.
We can also just raise the age that we give out social security and put it directly in line with the average life expectancy. Perhaps it changes so that social security is meant to go for an average of X years. |
t3_63r5o8 | CMV: Buying dogs from responsible breeders is the superior way to purchase a dog. | Pretty straightforward CMV. Not sure how to go about explaining my position so I'll just shoot it from the hip;
Responsible breeders can help the buyer in many ways both before and after purchase. A breeder will make sure their dogs are finding a home that is a correct fit. Someone could walk into a shelter and buy a incredibly active or defensive dog without know beforehand, a breeder will be able to give you a general description of their dog's temperament and make sure you are a good fit. You should be able to obtain information about previous litters/your dog's relatives which can help the buyer find a healthy dog. Breeders also can provide a lot after purchase as well, they will take the dog back if it can no longer be cared at any time in it's life and can provide general help. While shelters typically neuter dogs, breeders will put in the contract that you must neuter your dog which would reduce unwanted/irresponsible litters. Knowing your dog was raised in a proper environment at a young age is also incredibly valuable.
Shelters can also indirectly support puppy mills, whether it's the breeder dumping unwanted dogs or their irresponsible customers. By reducing our need for shelters we can make it harder for puppy mills to operate. The way we rely on shelters to house unwanted dogs also seems like a poor way to deal with the problem.
In a perfect world all dogs would be raised in a proper environment and sold to a suitable owner who can care for them. If something happens, and the dog can't be cared for, the breeder will take in/rehome the dog. I don't see how this could be achievable using the current shelter system.
Things that wont CMV:
*Adopted dogs would otherwise live in a shelter forever/die; this is just perpetuating the cycle. I think there's a net benefit in the long term to buy from breeders.
*Anecdotal situations; these will always exist and are missing the big picture
*Breeds are unhealthy; Some are, but some are very healthy. No reason someone couldn't breed mixes in a responsible manner as well.
*Not enough breeders; This doesn't need to be done overnight
> *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: Buying dogs from responsible breeders is the superior way to purchase a dog. Pretty straightforward CMV. Not sure how to go about explaining my position so I'll just shoot it from the hip;
Responsible breeders can help the buyer in many ways both before and after purchase. A breeder will make sure their dogs are finding a home that is a correct fit. Someone could walk into a shelter and buy a incredibly active or defensive dog without know beforehand, a breeder will be able to give you a general description of their dog's temperament and make sure you are a good fit. You should be able to obtain information about previous litters/your dog's relatives which can help the buyer find a healthy dog. Breeders also can provide a lot after purchase as well, they will take the dog back if it can no longer be cared at any time in it's life and can provide general help. While shelters typically neuter dogs, breeders will put in the contract that you must neuter your dog which would reduce unwanted/irresponsible litters. Knowing your dog was raised in a proper environment at a young age is also incredibly valuable.
Shelters can also indirectly support puppy mills, whether it's the breeder dumping unwanted dogs or their irresponsible customers. By reducing our need for shelters we can make it harder for puppy mills to operate. The way we rely on shelters to house unwanted dogs also seems like a poor way to deal with the problem.
In a perfect world all dogs would be raised in a proper environment and sold to a suitable owner who can care for them. If something happens, and the dog can't be cared for, the breeder will take in/rehome the dog. I don't see how this could be achievable using the current shelter system.
Things that wont CMV:
*Adopted dogs would otherwise live in a shelter forever/die; this is just perpetuating the cycle. I think there's a net benefit in the long term to buy from breeders.
*Anecdotal situations; these will always exist and are missing the big picture
*Breeds are unhealthy; Some are, but some are very healthy. No reason someone couldn't breed mixes in a responsible manner as well.
*Not enough breeders; This doesn't need to be done overnight
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* |
t3_1hsqae | CMV Black Butler is a boring show, because the main character is God, and none of the conflicts he is faced with come even close to convincing us that he is in any real danger. | This girl I'm dating recently told me of an anime called Black Butler, which is after watching the first four episodes, about a bratty little kid and his butler (pictured) who is basically a completely infalible fucking god.
I really can't get into it. I've never said this about any anime, but the main character, the butler, is god. He cannot be hurt by anything, so I just completely fail to see the appeal of the show of a show that completely lacks any convincing conflict.
Does Black Butler get any better? I recently asked a question about another anime, and I got spammed with spoilers, but with this series, I cannot imagine giving a fuck, so if you think letting me in on what happens later in this show will entice me to watch it, feel free.
As an anime fan, I want to share as much as I can with this girl, but I need some hope that this is worth sitting through. If any of you can give me that, it would make my year. | CMV Black Butler is a boring show, because the main character is God, and none of the conflicts he is faced with come even close to convincing us that he is in any real danger. This girl I'm dating recently told me of an anime called Black Butler, which is after watching the first four episodes, about a bratty little kid and his butler (pictured) who is basically a completely infalible fucking god.
I really can't get into it. I've never said this about any anime, but the main character, the butler, is god. He cannot be hurt by anything, so I just completely fail to see the appeal of the show of a show that completely lacks any convincing conflict.
Does Black Butler get any better? I recently asked a question about another anime, and I got spammed with spoilers, but with this series, I cannot imagine giving a fuck, so if you think letting me in on what happens later in this show will entice me to watch it, feel free.
As an anime fan, I want to share as much as I can with this girl, but I need some hope that this is worth sitting through. If any of you can give me that, it would make my year. |
t3_3mmgzr | CMV: Criticizing a nation today for an atrocity committed by people who are mostly dead now is like slapping a child for what his father did. | People often talk about horrible things a country has done as if it's representative of the current socio-political atmosphere of a country, even when they have publicly apologized or made reparations. For example, people still use white people having slaves (or African people having white slaves) as a reason to hate or demand recompense, despite the fact that anyone in those situations are now dead. Other examples are claiming Germans should still be held accountable for the Holocaust and the Japanese for The rape of Nanjing. I'm not saying that everyone should just up and forgive or forget what happened, or that these events didn't leave a lasting impact that needs to be resolved, but getting angry at people for something either their ancestors or countrymen did is like punishing a child because their parents beat you up in school. It is in no way their fault, why should they be treated poorly as a result?
\*Side note: I am not applying this to the displacement and genocide of Native Americans, because while steps have been made, they have not been adequate to resolve tensions IMO.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Criticizing a nation today for an atrocity committed by people who are mostly dead now is like slapping a child for what his father did. People often talk about horrible things a country has done as if it's representative of the current socio-political atmosphere of a country, even when they have publicly apologized or made reparations. For example, people still use white people having slaves (or African people having white slaves) as a reason to hate or demand recompense, despite the fact that anyone in those situations are now dead. Other examples are claiming Germans should still be held accountable for the Holocaust and the Japanese for The rape of Nanjing. I'm not saying that everyone should just up and forgive or forget what happened, or that these events didn't leave a lasting impact that needs to be resolved, but getting angry at people for something either their ancestors or countrymen did is like punishing a child because their parents beat you up in school. It is in no way their fault, why should they be treated poorly as a result?
\*Side note: I am not applying this to the displacement and genocide of Native Americans, because while steps have been made, they have not been adequate to resolve tensions IMO. |
t3_23gitu | CMV: I think that the daily mail newspaper is a perfectly reasnable source of news | I recently moved to England, and i have little knowlage about many news papers. I picked up the daily mail and despite it being a bit silly, I thought that it suffices for a quick skim through as a news paper. But after I invited a friend and he saw it he accused me of being a racist for reading the newspaper, a comment I do not understand. I talked to other friends who greed with him, saying that it was trash. It may be a bit silly, but I do not understand the racist comments. SO please, CMV
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I think that the daily mail newspaper is a perfectly reasnable source of news. I recently moved to England, and i have little knowlage about many news papers. I picked up the daily mail and despite it being a bit silly, I thought that it suffices for a quick skim through as a news paper. But after I invited a friend and he saw it he accused me of being a racist for reading the newspaper, a comment I do not understand. I talked to other friends who greed with him, saying that it was trash. It may be a bit silly, but I do not understand the racist comments. SO please, CMV
|
t3_1a29o0 | I think that homosexuality is a choice. CMV | Disclaimer: I have the utmost respect for homosexuals and respect their rights and decisions. Also, I got the idea for this CMV from /u/babycakesss when he made a CMV post concerning the topic of transsexuals.
I believe this is pretty self-explanatory. I think the vast majority of homosexuals aren't homosexual because they were born that way, but because they chose it. Their reasons for choosing it could be due to a number of different reasons ranging from sexual abuse at a young age to boredom to reasons that I can't understand.
If homosexuality is *not* a choice, then wouldn't it be considered a mutation? (I admit that this statement is a weak point in my argument and may be wrong.)
And if it's a mutation, is it very likely that ~10% of the population was born with a such a mutation? Or is it more likely that homosexuality is not something that one is born with but is instead due to that person's experiences and observations in life?
Again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful by labeling homosexuality as a mutation. Please Change My View, Reddit! :D
**EDIT:** Alright, awesome. That was really quick! I didn't necessarily change my view but I did realize that my wording was terrible. That's probably why I shouldn't start a debate after midnight. ;D If I were to do it over again, I would say debate the *cause* of homosexuality. Is it nature or nurture? Genetic mutation or environmental interference? And it seems the general consensus is that no one is completely sure. I'm leaning more toward environmental interference, but /u/TRAIN_INSANE made a good point when he said:
>There is strong evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. For example, there is the presence of homosexual behaviors in animals. Animals have no society to pressure them, if homosexuality was driven by society, why would animals display homosexual behaviors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
If what he said is true (and it is to a certain extent b/c sexually confused dogs that I witnessed at a young age) then that could mean that it *isn't* society and environmental interference.
In any case, I'm too tired to keep thinking and thanks for the open minds, everyone! I love CMV. :D | I think that homosexuality is a choice. CMV. Disclaimer: I have the utmost respect for homosexuals and respect their rights and decisions. Also, I got the idea for this CMV from /u/babycakesss when he made a CMV post concerning the topic of transsexuals.
I believe this is pretty self-explanatory. I think the vast majority of homosexuals aren't homosexual because they were born that way, but because they chose it. Their reasons for choosing it could be due to a number of different reasons ranging from sexual abuse at a young age to boredom to reasons that I can't understand.
If homosexuality is *not* a choice, then wouldn't it be considered a mutation? (I admit that this statement is a weak point in my argument and may be wrong.)
And if it's a mutation, is it very likely that ~10% of the population was born with a such a mutation? Or is it more likely that homosexuality is not something that one is born with but is instead due to that person's experiences and observations in life?
Again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful by labeling homosexuality as a mutation. Please Change My View, Reddit! :D
**EDIT:** Alright, awesome. That was really quick! I didn't necessarily change my view but I did realize that my wording was terrible. That's probably why I shouldn't start a debate after midnight. ;D If I were to do it over again, I would say debate the *cause* of homosexuality. Is it nature or nurture? Genetic mutation or environmental interference? And it seems the general consensus is that no one is completely sure. I'm leaning more toward environmental interference, but /u/TRAIN_INSANE made a good point when he said:
>There is strong evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. For example, there is the presence of homosexual behaviors in animals. Animals have no society to pressure them, if homosexuality was driven by society, why would animals display homosexual behaviors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
If what he said is true (and it is to a certain extent b/c sexually confused dogs that I witnessed at a young age) then that could mean that it *isn't* society and environmental interference.
In any case, I'm too tired to keep thinking and thanks for the open minds, everyone! I love CMV. :D |
t3_2zxuf0 | CMV: Full transparency is the only way to have a truly non-corrupt and efficient government | Sorry if my thoughts ramble a little, I'm really hung over, but I want to get this out before I forget. Never once have I seen a person in power not abuse that power in some way. It's human nature to use the resources at your disposal to their maximum benefit. Giving anyone political power to have final say on any decision without having to post every detail for possible public scrutiny, financial and otherwise, has proven to be flawed and will always result in corruption. That might be a huge amount of information, but it already exists somewhere, we just need put it in one place. I understand some things should be top secret, but the vast majority of information can and should be made public. This would force politicians to own up to their actions, and give the public real power to make change by finding discrepancies and inefficiencies in the system, and the end result would be near-perfectly efficient political system. Politicians would become spokespeople, which is what they were originally intended to be. The public is forced to pay taxes but have no access to information they deserve and which impacts their daily lives greatly, sometimes causing death or worse.
I truly don't see any reason for this to not be implemented in the digital age, and I think people would be appalled to the point of revolution if past history was suddenly released for review.
Please do your best to CMV | CMV: Full transparency is the only way to have a truly non-corrupt and efficient government. Sorry if my thoughts ramble a little, I'm really hung over, but I want to get this out before I forget. Never once have I seen a person in power not abuse that power in some way. It's human nature to use the resources at your disposal to their maximum benefit. Giving anyone political power to have final say on any decision without having to post every detail for possible public scrutiny, financial and otherwise, has proven to be flawed and will always result in corruption. That might be a huge amount of information, but it already exists somewhere, we just need put it in one place. I understand some things should be top secret, but the vast majority of information can and should be made public. This would force politicians to own up to their actions, and give the public real power to make change by finding discrepancies and inefficiencies in the system, and the end result would be near-perfectly efficient political system. Politicians would become spokespeople, which is what they were originally intended to be. The public is forced to pay taxes but have no access to information they deserve and which impacts their daily lives greatly, sometimes causing death or worse.
I truly don't see any reason for this to not be implemented in the digital age, and I think people would be appalled to the point of revolution if past history was suddenly released for review.
Please do your best to CMV |
t3_1qrybn | I believe Jason Bourne would destroy any James Bond in hand-to-hand combat. CMV. | I think in terms of hand-to-hand combat, Jason Bourne is superior to any of the James Bonds, including Daniel Craig's Bond as portrayed in his prime in Casino Royale.
I think Jason Bourne's combat training is far superior to Bond's. He single-handedly took down all the other agents from his program that were sent to kill him. He was able to do this with almost no reliance on any gadgets, while being an amnesiac.
If Bond ever faced Bourne in combat, I simply don't see how Bond will be able to physically overcome Bourne.
| I believe Jason Bourne would destroy any James Bond in hand-to-hand combat. CMV. I think in terms of hand-to-hand combat, Jason Bourne is superior to any of the James Bonds, including Daniel Craig's Bond as portrayed in his prime in Casino Royale.
I think Jason Bourne's combat training is far superior to Bond's. He single-handedly took down all the other agents from his program that were sent to kill him. He was able to do this with almost no reliance on any gadgets, while being an amnesiac.
If Bond ever faced Bourne in combat, I simply don't see how Bond will be able to physically overcome Bourne.
|
t3_64rvjz | CMV: The police department and officer should be held accountable for what happened on the United Plane. Not United Airlines. | So with the recent United fiasco. People have been shitting on untied for the way the man was treated and their past behaviors.
Now I completely agree, that what happened to the man was immoral, illegal, and he should get millions and millions of dollars.
Now my beef is that everyone is getting mad at United. Recently, I was talking to someone about it and the thought crossed my mind, that United may have done nothing illegal.
Sure it was bullshit that they overbooked, but is that illegal?
Sure it was bullshit, that they called the officer on the doctor, but was that allowed?
Lastly, the officer who handled that situation was completely out of line. Now the officer does not work for United, he works for the police department.
Shouldn't the blame land on him or the police department in question? | CMV: The police department and officer should be held accountable for what happened on the United Plane. Not United Airlines. So with the recent United fiasco. People have been shitting on untied for the way the man was treated and their past behaviors.
Now I completely agree, that what happened to the man was immoral, illegal, and he should get millions and millions of dollars.
Now my beef is that everyone is getting mad at United. Recently, I was talking to someone about it and the thought crossed my mind, that United may have done nothing illegal.
Sure it was bullshit that they overbooked, but is that illegal?
Sure it was bullshit, that they called the officer on the doctor, but was that allowed?
Lastly, the officer who handled that situation was completely out of line. Now the officer does not work for United, he works for the police department.
Shouldn't the blame land on him or the police department in question? |
t3_1zxwo6 | CMV Libertarian justifications of property don't work | I believe property is a social construct that is only justified through appeals to utility. In other words, any particular set of property laws are only justified insofar as they make people better off, in terms of their capabilities.
Most Libertarians I've debated with either believe property rights are somehow fundamental(natural or God-given) or develop out of other moral principles, like the NAP. The first option appeals to non-existent entities. The second is circular, as what NAPer's define as aggression is violation of property rights, and violations of property rights is defined in terms of the NAP. | CMV Libertarian justifications of property don't work. I believe property is a social construct that is only justified through appeals to utility. In other words, any particular set of property laws are only justified insofar as they make people better off, in terms of their capabilities.
Most Libertarians I've debated with either believe property rights are somehow fundamental(natural or God-given) or develop out of other moral principles, like the NAP. The first option appeals to non-existent entities. The second is circular, as what NAPer's define as aggression is violation of property rights, and violations of property rights is defined in terms of the NAP. |
t3_35avuq | CMV: When abiding by all rules in any competition or game, there's no such thing as "A cheap move." | I have recently seen some rhetoric that suggests that playing to win, and attempting to capitalize on all advantages available to you somehow makes a person a bad or "cheap player." I think this idea is flawed because even moves that are considered cheap, have some level of risk assessment to them, often used in high risk and high reward scenarios. So here is my view: If you are playing a game honestly, and within the rules a win is a win and how you obtain that win mechanically has no bearing on what kind of player you are. You were playing the game to the fullest capacity and adhering to any notion of using only "not cheap" moves only inhibits you from performing at the highest level of play.
I mean for this to apply to mostly every game or competition, I'm open to the idea that there are exceptions, but keep in mind I'm talking about honest and fair play.
Edit: To clarify I'm not talking about aspects of social engineering or external factors to the game themselves. I'm merely talking about utilizing the letter of the rules to their fullest extent, even if certain rules are controversial. I am not talking about manipulating rule ambiguity either. An example of what I'm talking about would be considered cheese strategies in things like Starcraft II. Or only using the rocket launcher/explosives/noobtube whatever in a shooter.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: When abiding by all rules in any competition or game, there's no such thing as "A cheap move.". I have recently seen some rhetoric that suggests that playing to win, and attempting to capitalize on all advantages available to you somehow makes a person a bad or "cheap player." I think this idea is flawed because even moves that are considered cheap, have some level of risk assessment to them, often used in high risk and high reward scenarios. So here is my view: If you are playing a game honestly, and within the rules a win is a win and how you obtain that win mechanically has no bearing on what kind of player you are. You were playing the game to the fullest capacity and adhering to any notion of using only "not cheap" moves only inhibits you from performing at the highest level of play.
I mean for this to apply to mostly every game or competition, I'm open to the idea that there are exceptions, but keep in mind I'm talking about honest and fair play.
Edit: To clarify I'm not talking about aspects of social engineering or external factors to the game themselves. I'm merely talking about utilizing the letter of the rules to their fullest extent, even if certain rules are controversial. I am not talking about manipulating rule ambiguity either. An example of what I'm talking about would be considered cheese strategies in things like Starcraft II. Or only using the rocket launcher/explosives/noobtube whatever in a shooter.
|
t3_1z7yxz | I believe that dance is the least intellectual of all "classical" art forms. CMV | Art, writing, film, poetry, music, all have a required level of intellectual ability to be competent in the field. Dancing requires being able to move your body well. Maybe one could claim that memorizing routines is intellectually challenging, I don't know. But dancing seems the simplest of all art forms. I'm an actor, a musician, a writer and a lover of art, if you've ever seen Benjamin Button, I feel that Cate Blancett's character resembles the public opinion of dancers, consumed with only dance, talking about dance constantly, seemingly vapid. I'm curious to know about the hidden strenuous intellectual requirements that dancers feel they face.
**so far no one has actually said what is intellectually challenging about dance, they've only slagged off other art forms, which doesn't actually address my question. | I believe that dance is the least intellectual of all "classical" art forms. CMV. Art, writing, film, poetry, music, all have a required level of intellectual ability to be competent in the field. Dancing requires being able to move your body well. Maybe one could claim that memorizing routines is intellectually challenging, I don't know. But dancing seems the simplest of all art forms. I'm an actor, a musician, a writer and a lover of art, if you've ever seen Benjamin Button, I feel that Cate Blancett's character resembles the public opinion of dancers, consumed with only dance, talking about dance constantly, seemingly vapid. I'm curious to know about the hidden strenuous intellectual requirements that dancers feel they face.
**so far no one has actually said what is intellectually challenging about dance, they've only slagged off other art forms, which doesn't actually address my question. |
t3_2xxvwc | CMV: Pun threads should be actively discouraged in most subreddits. | The first thing I'd like to state that I don't think pun threads are inherently bad things, and the just-for-fun subreddits should welcome this kind of humor.
In popular / default subreddits, pun threads grow under posts like mushroom, and after years of existence, this fad just gets more and more popular, and at the same time, more and more annoying. A short list of my problems with pun threads.
- **They can and will pop up *everywhere*.** If there's a TIL about WWII, you can be dead sure you will see some "did nazi that coming" and "anne frankly" jokes in the comments section. There are some topics that somehow attract puns
- **Pun threads derail conversations.** Every time a pun thread starts, the original discussion is usually discarded, and the puns become the most upvoted content. This not only takes attention from possibly interesting and thoughtful comments, but discourages people from adding their piece of mind.
- **Low-effort puns.** I'm fine with a pun when it's clever and genuinely funny, but most of the time, replies to these puns get ruined by a bunch of karma-hungry redditors, who love to ruin a good joke with their half-assed, unimaginative replies. Sometimes the lower comments don't even try to be related to OP and just make a boring, shitty pun.
- **Pun threads get upvoted to the front and make it harder for other commenters.** You'd like to add something interesting, funny, or relevant to the original post? Too bad, nobody will read it. People will click on the post, go through the first few comment threads, and leave. I'll quote a moderator of /r/photoshopbattles (/u/RoyalPrinceSoldier) who commented not long ago about deleting a pun tread under one of their posts. I think this is policy is a good example of how to treat pun threads where they don't belong:
>We think it's unfair for contributors who got here late get their work be buried because of low effort comments.
Reddit on default shows only 200 comments on a thread and anything more than that gets hidden on the "load more comments" button.
* **It's not as funny for non-native speakers.** As someone who's primary language is not english, sometimes I don't even realize it's a pun when I read it first, and have to pronounce it in my head, and then I go "yeah, it's a pun". This kills the joke.
As I said before, puns *can* be funny, and the "funny" subreddits should embrace them, especially since it's a popular thing. But subreddits where they can take away space from quality comments, they should be actively discouraged. I know it would be hard to get rid of the pun threads, because it's ingrained in reddit's culture and so many people do it. Why change my mind then? I might have missed some key points, and while I can't see why this kind of ruling shouldn't be applied, there might be a counter-argument that convinces me that pun threads are okay as they are now.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Pun threads should be actively discouraged in most subreddits. The first thing I'd like to state that I don't think pun threads are inherently bad things, and the just-for-fun subreddits should welcome this kind of humor.
In popular / default subreddits, pun threads grow under posts like mushroom, and after years of existence, this fad just gets more and more popular, and at the same time, more and more annoying. A short list of my problems with pun threads.
- **They can and will pop up *everywhere*.** If there's a TIL about WWII, you can be dead sure you will see some "did nazi that coming" and "anne frankly" jokes in the comments section. There are some topics that somehow attract puns
- **Pun threads derail conversations.** Every time a pun thread starts, the original discussion is usually discarded, and the puns become the most upvoted content. This not only takes attention from possibly interesting and thoughtful comments, but discourages people from adding their piece of mind.
- **Low-effort puns.** I'm fine with a pun when it's clever and genuinely funny, but most of the time, replies to these puns get ruined by a bunch of karma-hungry redditors, who love to ruin a good joke with their half-assed, unimaginative replies. Sometimes the lower comments don't even try to be related to OP and just make a boring, shitty pun.
- **Pun threads get upvoted to the front and make it harder for other commenters.** You'd like to add something interesting, funny, or relevant to the original post? Too bad, nobody will read it. People will click on the post, go through the first few comment threads, and leave. I'll quote a moderator of /r/photoshopbattles (/u/RoyalPrinceSoldier) who commented not long ago about deleting a pun tread under one of their posts. I think this is policy is a good example of how to treat pun threads where they don't belong:
>We think it's unfair for contributors who got here late get their work be buried because of low effort comments.
Reddit on default shows only 200 comments on a thread and anything more than that gets hidden on the "load more comments" button.
* **It's not as funny for non-native speakers.** As someone who's primary language is not english, sometimes I don't even realize it's a pun when I read it first, and have to pronounce it in my head, and then I go "yeah, it's a pun". This kills the joke.
As I said before, puns *can* be funny, and the "funny" subreddits should embrace them, especially since it's a popular thing. But subreddits where they can take away space from quality comments, they should be actively discouraged. I know it would be hard to get rid of the pun threads, because it's ingrained in reddit's culture and so many people do it. Why change my mind then? I might have missed some key points, and while I can't see why this kind of ruling shouldn't be applied, there might be a counter-argument that convinces me that pun threads are okay as they are now. |
t3_1cw0zu | I believe that any try to change the past (using time/dimensional travel) is horribly immoral. CMV. | Hi everyone, I have an interrogation and would love to hear your thoughts about it. I recently finished a game that exploit the theory of the multiverse and that got me thinking about the morality of time/dimensional travel.
Since we don't have such technology and might never have, my question is purely theoretical but it bugs me none the less.
My question is; is it morally acceptable to change the past (I'll give some example of what I'm talking about soon). After spending the last few days thinking about that and talking with my friends/parents, I came to the conclusion that it isn't moral in any case.
Now for the sake of an example, lets godwin this thread.
Imagine that we could go back in time and find a way to kill Hitler at the very moment he is about to become "Hitler" (after he is rejected from art school one might guess).
Now lets imagine that doing this stop World War 2 right on track (very debatable), it would have a really deep impact in the worlds (like ours) where WW2 happened.
My point is that, paradoxes aside, even if doing such a thing wouldn't cause the collapse of the universe it affects, it still wouldn't be morally acceptable because you would change drastically the lives of billions of people. A lot of people wouldn't be the same or cease to be altogether (their parent never met/ conceived on another date, etc.)
My point being that the past is the past and that we should concentrate on the present, because the life of those who are here right now matter more than the hypothetic life of the people that would exist in their place.
What are your though on this, am-I forgetting something?
| I believe that any try to change the past (using time/dimensional travel) is horribly immoral. CMV. Hi everyone, I have an interrogation and would love to hear your thoughts about it. I recently finished a game that exploit the theory of the multiverse and that got me thinking about the morality of time/dimensional travel.
Since we don't have such technology and might never have, my question is purely theoretical but it bugs me none the less.
My question is; is it morally acceptable to change the past (I'll give some example of what I'm talking about soon). After spending the last few days thinking about that and talking with my friends/parents, I came to the conclusion that it isn't moral in any case.
Now for the sake of an example, lets godwin this thread.
Imagine that we could go back in time and find a way to kill Hitler at the very moment he is about to become "Hitler" (after he is rejected from art school one might guess).
Now lets imagine that doing this stop World War 2 right on track (very debatable), it would have a really deep impact in the worlds (like ours) where WW2 happened.
My point is that, paradoxes aside, even if doing such a thing wouldn't cause the collapse of the universe it affects, it still wouldn't be morally acceptable because you would change drastically the lives of billions of people. A lot of people wouldn't be the same or cease to be altogether (their parent never met/ conceived on another date, etc.)
My point being that the past is the past and that we should concentrate on the present, because the life of those who are here right now matter more than the hypothetic life of the people that would exist in their place.
What are your though on this, am-I forgetting something?
|
t3_4y0xuh | CMV: Shooting based sports should not be part of the Olympics | In watching the Olympics, I think that shooting events in particular (https://www.olympic.org/shooting) don't fit the spirit of the games. To me, and I assume most other people, the Olympics are about showing outstanding physical athleticism. Citius, altius, fortius is the olympic motto - faster, higher, stronger. The olympic events should show us the athletes that are the fastest, strongest, most agile, most powerful, have the best coordination, or have an outstanding combination of those traits etc. I don't believe shooting based sports do that.
I want to change not my view (which hasn't budged) but my justification (but I'm leaving everything I said previously so you can see what I said). I think I was trying to over justify my view and want to make it much simpler.
I do not debate that shooting is something that takes skill, precision, etc. I'm debating its inclusion in the olympics because I do not believe it takes the *athleticism* from the competitor that other sports require (a few questionable examples exist, curling and dressage for example that I'm not trying to debate right now). I believe every other sport at the olympic level requires some level of physical fitness that is not present in an average to above-average person. It takes some muscle to hold a gun, but not an exceptional amount, and it takes fast reaction time, but so do video games, and it takes focus and a steady hand but so does brain surgery.
To change my view, expose to me the athleticism in the sport.
~~I'm not debating that shooting takes skill and practice to do well. I'm also not making the argument that it doesn't take physical conditioning at all to shoot. The same could be said for something like a long open heart surgery, but that isn't an olympic event.~~
~~Possibly one of the things that makes me discard shooting as a sport is my belief that it seems like anyone could pick up a gun and shoot it and possibly hit a target. I'm not saying that a rando could compete against olympians in any way, or that practice isn't a key component of shooting. It just seems like a machine is doing a lot of the work. But in any other sport you have 0% chance of basically scoring a single point in a point based sport, or getting anything but last place in a racing based sport. A rando could not just hop on the high bar and do some flips, or stand their ground in a race in the pool or on the track, or throw something heavy really far.~~
~~Note: Something that will not change my view is making the argument that something like dressage also doesn't fit my requirements. I'm not going to open that whole can of worms in this post, but lets just say there are more events that I'm skeptical of their olympic inclusion besides just shooting.~~
Alright, see who can change my view!
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Shooting based sports should not be part of the Olympics. In watching the Olympics, I think that shooting events in particular (https://www.olympic.org/shooting) don't fit the spirit of the games. To me, and I assume most other people, the Olympics are about showing outstanding physical athleticism. Citius, altius, fortius is the olympic motto - faster, higher, stronger. The olympic events should show us the athletes that are the fastest, strongest, most agile, most powerful, have the best coordination, or have an outstanding combination of those traits etc. I don't believe shooting based sports do that.
I want to change not my view (which hasn't budged) but my justification (but I'm leaving everything I said previously so you can see what I said). I think I was trying to over justify my view and want to make it much simpler.
I do not debate that shooting is something that takes skill, precision, etc. I'm debating its inclusion in the olympics because I do not believe it takes the *athleticism* from the competitor that other sports require (a few questionable examples exist, curling and dressage for example that I'm not trying to debate right now). I believe every other sport at the olympic level requires some level of physical fitness that is not present in an average to above-average person. It takes some muscle to hold a gun, but not an exceptional amount, and it takes fast reaction time, but so do video games, and it takes focus and a steady hand but so does brain surgery.
To change my view, expose to me the athleticism in the sport.
~~I'm not debating that shooting takes skill and practice to do well. I'm also not making the argument that it doesn't take physical conditioning at all to shoot. The same could be said for something like a long open heart surgery, but that isn't an olympic event.~~
~~Possibly one of the things that makes me discard shooting as a sport is my belief that it seems like anyone could pick up a gun and shoot it and possibly hit a target. I'm not saying that a rando could compete against olympians in any way, or that practice isn't a key component of shooting. It just seems like a machine is doing a lot of the work. But in any other sport you have 0% chance of basically scoring a single point in a point based sport, or getting anything but last place in a racing based sport. A rando could not just hop on the high bar and do some flips, or stand their ground in a race in the pool or on the track, or throw something heavy really far.~~
~~Note: Something that will not change my view is making the argument that something like dressage also doesn't fit my requirements. I'm not going to open that whole can of worms in this post, but lets just say there are more events that I'm skeptical of their olympic inclusion besides just shooting.~~
Alright, see who can change my view! |
t3_1jcezx | I think having children is a terrible thing in an overpopulated world, there is also nothing enjoyable about having a child CMV | Prompted by the Redditors who never want kids, what's your reason? I posted this response:
I think a better question is why would you WANT kids? All they do is grow from screaming shit machines into little assholes, and then into slightly bigger assholes. Everyone who has kids is constantly telling me how WONDERFUL it IS having kids, but the examples they give are always "you had to be there" things. It's like they're all in a cult and I don't get the dogma.
In addition, the western world is overpopulated, we are rapidly running out of resources so to add to this burden is harmful to humanity. I believe that hormone driven empathy overrides the rational mind to make people want to procreate against their own, and everyone else's best interests.
I also believe the stories of parents about how "wonderful" their children are, simply get created so they don't have to face up to the fact that they have made a life-altering mistake. | I think having children is a terrible thing in an overpopulated world, there is also nothing enjoyable about having a child CMV. Prompted by the Redditors who never want kids, what's your reason? I posted this response:
I think a better question is why would you WANT kids? All they do is grow from screaming shit machines into little assholes, and then into slightly bigger assholes. Everyone who has kids is constantly telling me how WONDERFUL it IS having kids, but the examples they give are always "you had to be there" things. It's like they're all in a cult and I don't get the dogma.
In addition, the western world is overpopulated, we are rapidly running out of resources so to add to this burden is harmful to humanity. I believe that hormone driven empathy overrides the rational mind to make people want to procreate against their own, and everyone else's best interests.
I also believe the stories of parents about how "wonderful" their children are, simply get created so they don't have to face up to the fact that they have made a life-altering mistake. |
t3_5a2gak | CMV: Even if elected, Clinton will not make the US better off for the majority, and the forces that created Trump will only get worse. This is because the world is lacking visionary political and social leaders. | This isn't just a problem for the US, Brexit and other movements in Europe and elsewhere in industrialized countries will also be subject to these forces continuing to grow.
Globalism and automation are the two major forces that I believe are causing the greatest disruption to the status quo. To effectively deal with these disruptors, we need visionary leaders who have new ideas about how to safely and effectively transition their people to a new society.
Instead, we are being presented either with politicians with no vision, who can only think of maintaining the status quo - or those like Trump who use nostalgia as their guide. One side just wants things to stay the same, the other is a reaction that wants to go back to the past. Neither have any idea about how to deal with the future.
There are some visionary leaders in other areas, notably in the tech industry, where much of the disruption is coming from. But they are content to mostly deal with other technologists, and only in their own domain, walled off from the rest of society. That's not enough to manage a whole nation, which is what is needed, because the angry masses can't be ignored.
If we don't get better leaders, willing and able to reshape society to deal with the current and future disruptions, the current state of affairs will only get worse. The status quo is untenable and reactionaries will only get more attention as people realize that and clamour for change. Without a vision of a better future, they will instead seek the next best thing, their rose-tinted vision of the past.
CMV that things will not get worse without better visionary leaders, or that nostalgic thinking isn't as bad as it seems. Or that there's some other solution.
_____
> *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: Even if elected, Clinton will not make the US better off for the majority, and the forces that created Trump will only get worse. This is because the world is lacking visionary political and social leaders. This isn't just a problem for the US, Brexit and other movements in Europe and elsewhere in industrialized countries will also be subject to these forces continuing to grow.
Globalism and automation are the two major forces that I believe are causing the greatest disruption to the status quo. To effectively deal with these disruptors, we need visionary leaders who have new ideas about how to safely and effectively transition their people to a new society.
Instead, we are being presented either with politicians with no vision, who can only think of maintaining the status quo - or those like Trump who use nostalgia as their guide. One side just wants things to stay the same, the other is a reaction that wants to go back to the past. Neither have any idea about how to deal with the future.
There are some visionary leaders in other areas, notably in the tech industry, where much of the disruption is coming from. But they are content to mostly deal with other technologists, and only in their own domain, walled off from the rest of society. That's not enough to manage a whole nation, which is what is needed, because the angry masses can't be ignored.
If we don't get better leaders, willing and able to reshape society to deal with the current and future disruptions, the current state of affairs will only get worse. The status quo is untenable and reactionaries will only get more attention as people realize that and clamour for change. Without a vision of a better future, they will instead seek the next best thing, their rose-tinted vision of the past.
CMV that things will not get worse without better visionary leaders, or that nostalgic thinking isn't as bad as it seems. Or that there's some other solution. |
t3_6y5eub | CMV: In a democracy with one person one vote, privately funded candidates undermines that principle | If every member of a democracy is supposedly [equal](http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/) in the eyes [of the law](http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend14) then it can't be possible for some citizens to be allowed to express their support multiple times over that of the fellow citizens, through giving maximum campaign contributions (in federal elections in the US that happens to be $2,700 or ~5% of the median income) that aren't available to the vast majority of the voters. When most citizens couldn't possibly imagine being separated from $2,700 that could a couple of months of rent or mortgage payments, yet there are over a hundred thousand donors that can make those maximum contributions to candidates who will either bend to the whim of those donors or self-selected candidates that are acceptable to the donors; the will of the people disregarded whenever it is in contradicts with the will of the donors. I hold the belief that each individual in a democracy are equal, and as long as some citizens get their political expression hyperserved then that equality can never exist.
Other forms of government have different values and priorities than democracy, monarchy isn't dependent on the the popular will but inherited title, plutocracy depends on individuals wealth and are given relative weight to political matters based upon the individual's wealth. I have a bias in favor of democracy, of course, and believe that currently the American political state is a mix of democracy and plutocracy and is a corrupted version of both presenting itself as a democracy with remnants still existing and de facto plutocracy on the downlow. So as long as we call our American system a democracy and it exists as a disingenuous version of a democracy, I believe that it is due to corruption of funding elections by those who have a conflicting interest than those who don't have the financial capability to fund elections.
**Edit:** the speech of individuals [who are not eligible to vote](Fake Russian Facebook Accounts Bought $100,000 in Political Ads https://nyti.ms/2xPJ0m9), should not be considered equal to eligible voters. The revelation that political ads were purchased by a foreign government, indistinguishable from "political speech" by US citizens is troubling. I'm of the opinion that participation in the electoral process should be limited to citizens of that democracy. | CMV: In a democracy with one person one vote, privately funded candidates undermines that principle. If every member of a democracy is supposedly [equal](http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/) in the eyes [of the law](http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend14) then it can't be possible for some citizens to be allowed to express their support multiple times over that of the fellow citizens, through giving maximum campaign contributions (in federal elections in the US that happens to be $2,700 or ~5% of the median income) that aren't available to the vast majority of the voters. When most citizens couldn't possibly imagine being separated from $2,700 that could a couple of months of rent or mortgage payments, yet there are over a hundred thousand donors that can make those maximum contributions to candidates who will either bend to the whim of those donors or self-selected candidates that are acceptable to the donors; the will of the people disregarded whenever it is in contradicts with the will of the donors. I hold the belief that each individual in a democracy are equal, and as long as some citizens get their political expression hyperserved then that equality can never exist.
Other forms of government have different values and priorities than democracy, monarchy isn't dependent on the the popular will but inherited title, plutocracy depends on individuals wealth and are given relative weight to political matters based upon the individual's wealth. I have a bias in favor of democracy, of course, and believe that currently the American political state is a mix of democracy and plutocracy and is a corrupted version of both presenting itself as a democracy with remnants still existing and de facto plutocracy on the downlow. So as long as we call our American system a democracy and it exists as a disingenuous version of a democracy, I believe that it is due to corruption of funding elections by those who have a conflicting interest than those who don't have the financial capability to fund elections.
**Edit:** the speech of individuals [who are not eligible to vote](Fake Russian Facebook Accounts Bought $100,000 in Political Ads https://nyti.ms/2xPJ0m9), should not be considered equal to eligible voters. The revelation that political ads were purchased by a foreign government, indistinguishable from "political speech" by US citizens is troubling. I'm of the opinion that participation in the electoral process should be limited to citizens of that democracy. |
t3_2fj8vc | CMV: If Scotland becomes independent, the UK will (and should) become a smaller power on a par with the Netherlands or Spain | This is a twofer: 1) Scottish independence will damage the UK's global standing 2) The rUK (rest of the UK) should concede this and withdraw from the international arena
The UK is already a small country (in terms of geographical area and population) punching above it's weight. But with the loss of Scotland, the rUK will have a smaller population, area and GDP and so the rUK's reputation will take a hit and the country will be less respected internationally.
Britain has had it's heyday and it's time for the country to take a step back and be replaced by the likes of the G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, Japan, India) and other emerging powers. Therefore the rUK should scale back it's military and diplomatic reach and give up it's UN Security Council seat.
EDIT: Particularly interested in hearing from non-Brits!
_____
> *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 Scotland becomes independent, the UK will (and should) become a smaller power on a par with the Netherlands or Spain. This is a twofer: 1) Scottish independence will damage the UK's global standing 2) The rUK (rest of the UK) should concede this and withdraw from the international arena
The UK is already a small country (in terms of geographical area and population) punching above it's weight. But with the loss of Scotland, the rUK will have a smaller population, area and GDP and so the rUK's reputation will take a hit and the country will be less respected internationally.
Britain has had it's heyday and it's time for the country to take a step back and be replaced by the likes of the G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, Japan, India) and other emerging powers. Therefore the rUK should scale back it's military and diplomatic reach and give up it's UN Security Council seat.
EDIT: Particularly interested in hearing from non-Brits!
|
t3_228wwf | CMV: I don't think consumers should have to subsidize anyone else's wages (for example, through tips) | This perspective probably differs depending on region, but for arguments sake, let's assume all workers must be paid the same minimum wage. For example, in Canada, waiters make minimum wage (I know I'm oversimplifying this, but just assume this is how it works for arguments sake), unlike in some states where waiters can be paid less than minimum wage.
Why are consumers essentially "forced" to subsidize the wages of other workers? Shouldn't the incentive come from the fact that these people have a job instead of the expectation of a tip? And as far as waiting tables goes (I'm just singling this out for the purposes of argument), it isn't exactly highly skilled work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit the work that waitstaff do, but what is so special about what they do that demands 20% extra? If this is so, why aren't we expected to tip anyone that works in a service business? Why don't I tip my bank teller, my McDonalds cashier, or the retail salesperson who helped me find my item? | CMV: I don't think consumers should have to subsidize anyone else's wages (for example, through tips). This perspective probably differs depending on region, but for arguments sake, let's assume all workers must be paid the same minimum wage. For example, in Canada, waiters make minimum wage (I know I'm oversimplifying this, but just assume this is how it works for arguments sake), unlike in some states where waiters can be paid less than minimum wage.
Why are consumers essentially "forced" to subsidize the wages of other workers? Shouldn't the incentive come from the fact that these people have a job instead of the expectation of a tip? And as far as waiting tables goes (I'm just singling this out for the purposes of argument), it isn't exactly highly skilled work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discredit the work that waitstaff do, but what is so special about what they do that demands 20% extra? If this is so, why aren't we expected to tip anyone that works in a service business? Why don't I tip my bank teller, my McDonalds cashier, or the retail salesperson who helped me find my item? |
t3_1khnl6 | The Proliferation of Networking and other Professional/Social Advancement Techniques Invalidates Any Notion of Meritocracy. CMV. | I believe that networking is simply nepotism by another name - not that nepotism has ceased, but it has gone out of fashion - and that this and other professional/social advancement techniques undermine the premise that we live in a meritocracy. When who you know is more important than what you know in terms of landing a job, running for political office or simply living day to day, then I don't see how a meritocracy can exist.
Furthermore, I don't see how the idea of an existing meritocracy can be justified historically, as most societies were/are run on a who you know basis.
However, CMV. | The Proliferation of Networking and other Professional/Social Advancement Techniques Invalidates Any Notion of Meritocracy. CMV. I believe that networking is simply nepotism by another name - not that nepotism has ceased, but it has gone out of fashion - and that this and other professional/social advancement techniques undermine the premise that we live in a meritocracy. When who you know is more important than what you know in terms of landing a job, running for political office or simply living day to day, then I don't see how a meritocracy can exist.
Furthermore, I don't see how the idea of an existing meritocracy can be justified historically, as most societies were/are run on a who you know basis.
However, CMV. |
t3_1tlada | I believe opinions can be incorrect. CMV | I often hear people claim that while the basis of an opinion can be flawed, the opinion itself can't be wrong. This doesn't make sense to me, and I think this mentality allows people to affirm their own views and feel as though they are immune to criticism. I think for an opinion to be correct and valid, it must stem from a sound, factual basis and not be based on emotional or irrational feelings toward the subject.
I'll give an example: Jeff thinks that homosexuals are evil, and that they've made the wrong choice in life. No matter what counter-arguments Jeff may encounter, he will avoid the debate by saying 'well it's just my opinion, it's just how I feel' etc. By doing this, Jeff is immunising his view from criticism and justifying what is essentially bigotry and intolerance. So I think Jeff's opinion should be considered incorrect as it is not supported by scientific fact and is based on irrational emotions. I think people can't hold whatever view they want and claim that they're entitled to their opinion to avoid criticism. CMV | I believe opinions can be incorrect. CMV. I often hear people claim that while the basis of an opinion can be flawed, the opinion itself can't be wrong. This doesn't make sense to me, and I think this mentality allows people to affirm their own views and feel as though they are immune to criticism. I think for an opinion to be correct and valid, it must stem from a sound, factual basis and not be based on emotional or irrational feelings toward the subject.
I'll give an example: Jeff thinks that homosexuals are evil, and that they've made the wrong choice in life. No matter what counter-arguments Jeff may encounter, he will avoid the debate by saying 'well it's just my opinion, it's just how I feel' etc. By doing this, Jeff is immunising his view from criticism and justifying what is essentially bigotry and intolerance. So I think Jeff's opinion should be considered incorrect as it is not supported by scientific fact and is based on irrational emotions. I think people can't hold whatever view they want and claim that they're entitled to their opinion to avoid criticism. CMV |
t3_1dqlrg | In my opinion black people are ugly, especially the females | I feel like a racist but I think that every human should have equal rights. I don't want to be a racist. I want to judge a person on his deeds and opinions not on his/her looks, but yet I do, can I stop doing this? I feel disgust thinking about sexualities with a black person :(
| In my opinion black people are ugly, especially the females. I feel like a racist but I think that every human should have equal rights. I don't want to be a racist. I want to judge a person on his deeds and opinions not on his/her looks, but yet I do, can I stop doing this? I feel disgust thinking about sexualities with a black person :(
|
t3_1jp0lu | I feel that like all art work, you should be able to openly comment on a person's tattoo. CMV | Painting's, drawings, fashion and other forms of art are voluntary images and expressions that people are displaying to the public. Being considered artistic or a personal preference, the community is able to give positive or negative opinions of these. I feel tattoos are the same thing. The only difference is that said person chose to put this design on their body in a permanent way. If the tattoo being displayed is commented on in a negative light, it should be taken as constructive criticism instead of an personal insult, just like an article of clothing that someone would choose to wear out in public. | I feel that like all art work, you should be able to openly comment on a person's tattoo. CMV. Painting's, drawings, fashion and other forms of art are voluntary images and expressions that people are displaying to the public. Being considered artistic or a personal preference, the community is able to give positive or negative opinions of these. I feel tattoos are the same thing. The only difference is that said person chose to put this design on their body in a permanent way. If the tattoo being displayed is commented on in a negative light, it should be taken as constructive criticism instead of an personal insult, just like an article of clothing that someone would choose to wear out in public. |
t3_30i8ih | CMV: I believe that the whole concept of your twenties being a growth period and too early to settle down is counterproductive. | I’m in my early twenties, and I’m exposed to a lot of messaging that portrays your twenties as the time to screw around and figure things out, and your thirties as more of a time to settle down and figure things out.
Basically, I think the age at which you’re expected to act like an adult and expected to be capable of making mature decisions has gone up significantly.
It used to be:
0-15ish childhood > 16-60 adulthood > 65+ senior
Then it became:
0-12ish childhood > 13-18 teenage years > 18-65 adulthood > 65+ senior
And now it’s:
0-12ish childhood > 12-18 teenage years > 18-26 semi-adulthood > 26-65 adulthood > 65+ senior
The increased financial dependency is likely due to the recession, and I’m not faulting anyone for that, I know it’s not our generation’s fault that it’s harder for us to afford a house.
But I think there’s this general sense that we as twenty somethings are simply destined to not know what we’re doing and to screw up. It’s the whole “Your brain doesn’t finish developing until you’re 25” thing.
I want to be clear that I’m certainly not judging anyone for wanting to have fun or for spending their twenties traveling, I just think the cultural idea has shifted to the idea that settling down at 23 is weird and not something you’re supposed to do. Or even that a 23-year-old is somehow developmentally incapable of handling the responsibilities that come with settling down.
The only way to learn how to function in the adult world is to actually learn, and it’s like some people think that they’ll be hit with a magical bolt of lightning on their 30th birthday that teaches them how to buy a house, marry the right person, raise a kid, and open an IRA.
For centuries, people my age raised children, married, bought/built a home, etc. There is no reason why I wouldn’t be able to learn to do the same, but it’s like that option isn’t really presented to me.
I’m a 23-year-old woman, and it is weird and socially unacceptable for me to be actively thinking about whether a guy is marriage-material or actively wanting a baby.
My friends are getting married straight out of college (after 5 years of dating), and a number of people have basically tried to tell them that they’re too young. I think the common rhetoric is that “I’m a totally different person at 30 than I was at 22, therefore the same thing will happen to you. So you shouldn’t make that decision when you’re only 22, you don’t know who you’re going to be.”
Which I think is kind of bullshit. You can grow as a person after getting married to someone. The solid majority of people get married before they have kids, and both of their personalities, hobbies, and worldviews will change tremendously. However, no one tells you that you shouldn’t get married until you’ve already have kids because you’re going to be a completely different person post-kids.
I know that marriages at a young age fail, but I think it’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy because “sensible/responsible” people are more likely to wait until they’re older because that’s what they’ve been taught to do. And if you get married young despite it not being normal for your socioeconomic group, you’re going to get a lot of negativity and you’re not going to have as many friends sharing the experience with you.
And I don’t think that’s a good thing.
**TL;DR The age at which you are expected to act like an adult and want adult things like a baby or marriage has shifted, and I think it’s counterproductive.**
| CMV: I believe that the whole concept of your twenties being a growth period and too early to settle down is counterproductive. I’m in my early twenties, and I’m exposed to a lot of messaging that portrays your twenties as the time to screw around and figure things out, and your thirties as more of a time to settle down and figure things out.
Basically, I think the age at which you’re expected to act like an adult and expected to be capable of making mature decisions has gone up significantly.
It used to be:
0-15ish childhood > 16-60 adulthood > 65+ senior
Then it became:
0-12ish childhood > 13-18 teenage years > 18-65 adulthood > 65+ senior
And now it’s:
0-12ish childhood > 12-18 teenage years > 18-26 semi-adulthood > 26-65 adulthood > 65+ senior
The increased financial dependency is likely due to the recession, and I’m not faulting anyone for that, I know it’s not our generation’s fault that it’s harder for us to afford a house.
But I think there’s this general sense that we as twenty somethings are simply destined to not know what we’re doing and to screw up. It’s the whole “Your brain doesn’t finish developing until you’re 25” thing.
I want to be clear that I’m certainly not judging anyone for wanting to have fun or for spending their twenties traveling, I just think the cultural idea has shifted to the idea that settling down at 23 is weird and not something you’re supposed to do. Or even that a 23-year-old is somehow developmentally incapable of handling the responsibilities that come with settling down.
The only way to learn how to function in the adult world is to actually learn, and it’s like some people think that they’ll be hit with a magical bolt of lightning on their 30th birthday that teaches them how to buy a house, marry the right person, raise a kid, and open an IRA.
For centuries, people my age raised children, married, bought/built a home, etc. There is no reason why I wouldn’t be able to learn to do the same, but it’s like that option isn’t really presented to me.
I’m a 23-year-old woman, and it is weird and socially unacceptable for me to be actively thinking about whether a guy is marriage-material or actively wanting a baby.
My friends are getting married straight out of college (after 5 years of dating), and a number of people have basically tried to tell them that they’re too young. I think the common rhetoric is that “I’m a totally different person at 30 than I was at 22, therefore the same thing will happen to you. So you shouldn’t make that decision when you’re only 22, you don’t know who you’re going to be.”
Which I think is kind of bullshit. You can grow as a person after getting married to someone. The solid majority of people get married before they have kids, and both of their personalities, hobbies, and worldviews will change tremendously. However, no one tells you that you shouldn’t get married until you’ve already have kids because you’re going to be a completely different person post-kids.
I know that marriages at a young age fail, but I think it’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy because “sensible/responsible” people are more likely to wait until they’re older because that’s what they’ve been taught to do. And if you get married young despite it not being normal for your socioeconomic group, you’re going to get a lot of negativity and you’re not going to have as many friends sharing the experience with you.
And I don’t think that’s a good thing.
**TL;DR The age at which you are expected to act like an adult and want adult things like a baby or marriage has shifted, and I think it’s counterproductive.**
|
t3_52zpjg | CMV: It seems unlikely that people who use adblockers would unblock most ads they view as acceptable. | With an adblocker, you can either block almost everything, or have a whitelist of "good" websites/ads that you do not block. (Edit: or a "blacklist", the opposite of a whitelist, where everything is *not* blocked, except what's on the blacklist, etc, there might be many more options, but I hope you get the point)
If you wish to use such a whitelist, you could create such a whitelist yourself, based on the websites that you visit, or you could have the adblock do it for you with pre-made whitelists, assuming the adblocker's own whitelist is good and can be trusted.
Adblock Plus did this with its "Acceptable Ads" program. Some people did not like it, and in my opinion, it may not be as bad or scary as some people think it is, however, I do not particularly like it, nor do I "hate" it either.
Now, I could create my own whitelist, but I knew that I was not going to bother.
There are some ad technologies that I personally dislike, such as targeted personalization, and there could be a problem if some ads have acceptable content and acceptable placement/position/size/etc on a webpage, but the ad technology powering them being the issue.
If the ad technology becomes better, and the ads themselves becomes better, I still don't think I would really bother to create a whitelist of "good" ads, and with the stereotype around online ads in general, I don't think I would use pre-made whitelists either, at least not anytime soon.
Given all of this, my position is that, it seems unlikely (*unlikely*, not impossible) that people who currently utilize ablockers would unblock most ads they view as acceptable, whether by manual or automated means.
_____
> *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 seems unlikely that people who use adblockers would unblock most ads they view as acceptable. With an adblocker, you can either block almost everything, or have a whitelist of "good" websites/ads that you do not block. (Edit: or a "blacklist", the opposite of a whitelist, where everything is *not* blocked, except what's on the blacklist, etc, there might be many more options, but I hope you get the point)
If you wish to use such a whitelist, you could create such a whitelist yourself, based on the websites that you visit, or you could have the adblock do it for you with pre-made whitelists, assuming the adblocker's own whitelist is good and can be trusted.
Adblock Plus did this with its "Acceptable Ads" program. Some people did not like it, and in my opinion, it may not be as bad or scary as some people think it is, however, I do not particularly like it, nor do I "hate" it either.
Now, I could create my own whitelist, but I knew that I was not going to bother.
There are some ad technologies that I personally dislike, such as targeted personalization, and there could be a problem if some ads have acceptable content and acceptable placement/position/size/etc on a webpage, but the ad technology powering them being the issue.
If the ad technology becomes better, and the ads themselves becomes better, I still don't think I would really bother to create a whitelist of "good" ads, and with the stereotype around online ads in general, I don't think I would use pre-made whitelists either, at least not anytime soon.
Given all of this, my position is that, it seems unlikely (*unlikely*, not impossible) that people who currently utilize ablockers would unblock most ads they view as acceptable, whether by manual or automated means.
|
t3_299tjy | CMV: I think the concept of sociological 'privilege' is damaging when used anywhere outside a Sociology book | As an academic definition it makes sense- some people benefit from characteristics they are born with based on historical and present discrimination- but it seems like wherever it's used outside sociological theory it instead is an excuse to simply dismiss the arguments of those you disagree with.
E.g., "You're privileged, so your opinion on this issue is invalid"
I feel like using privilege in any kind of discussion is just an indirect way of arguing ad hominem, rather than actually engaging the other person in a reasonable debate. Even if someone's opinions really are biased due to their differing experiences caused by social privilege, I don't think that pointing out that privilege is at all a valid way to prove them wrong. | CMV: I think the concept of sociological 'privilege' is damaging when used anywhere outside a Sociology book. As an academic definition it makes sense- some people benefit from characteristics they are born with based on historical and present discrimination- but it seems like wherever it's used outside sociological theory it instead is an excuse to simply dismiss the arguments of those you disagree with.
E.g., "You're privileged, so your opinion on this issue is invalid"
I feel like using privilege in any kind of discussion is just an indirect way of arguing ad hominem, rather than actually engaging the other person in a reasonable debate. Even if someone's opinions really are biased due to their differing experiences caused by social privilege, I don't think that pointing out that privilege is at all a valid way to prove them wrong. |
t3_27hzbk | CMV: In the ongoing spat between Netflix and Verizon, Netflix is wrong and Verizon is right. | There is a public feud going on right now between Verizon and Netflix. The long and short of it is, Netflix has been displaying messages, when some users experience speed or connection issues, that say “The Verizon network is crowded right now. Adjusting video for smoother playback.” You can read Verizon's entire cease-and-desist letter, as well as Netflix's response, [here](http://qz.com/217486/verizon-demands-that-netflix-stop-blaming-it-for-choppy-video-netflix-says-no/).
Verizon's argument is that there are lots of reasons why a user's Netflix experience could be slow. They correctly point out that Netflix's content distribution system has the potential to create issues (as a Netflix user for years, I know I've often had problems) and that user-side issues can always affect connectivity. At the very least, they say, if Verizon is part of the problem, it's not the entire problem, and it's not fair to place the blame solely on the shoulders of Version, in an attempt to shift all blame away from Netflix.
I know people on Reddit are very pro-Netflix and anti-Verizon, but in this case, I think Verizon is totally justified. Netflix is palpably damaging Verizon's brand by insinuating that network problems are entirely attributable to Verizon, when in reality there is (a) no basis for that and (b) no good way to determine whether Verizon is at fault case-by-case. Netflix has been very vocal about net neutrality recently, and this is clearly a way for them to get their message out, but they have gone way too far in this case and are doing something that is malicious toward Verizon and actually puts bad information into the marketplace. Given the fact that Netflix and Verizon recently began a business partnership, I'm as surprised as Verizon is that Netflix would pull something like this.
Netflix, for their part, released a statement where, rather than answering any of Verizon's complaints, simply provided a non-answer to Verizon's allegations and basically just said "We're not going to stop and you can't make us." Their terse response was a childish reaction to a legitimate complaint, and anyone who cares about malicious business practices should view Netflix as a company that is trying to bolster its own reputation with baseless assertions at the expense of Verizon.
Change my view.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: In the ongoing spat between Netflix and Verizon, Netflix is wrong and Verizon is right. There is a public feud going on right now between Verizon and Netflix. The long and short of it is, Netflix has been displaying messages, when some users experience speed or connection issues, that say “The Verizon network is crowded right now. Adjusting video for smoother playback.” You can read Verizon's entire cease-and-desist letter, as well as Netflix's response, [here](http://qz.com/217486/verizon-demands-that-netflix-stop-blaming-it-for-choppy-video-netflix-says-no/).
Verizon's argument is that there are lots of reasons why a user's Netflix experience could be slow. They correctly point out that Netflix's content distribution system has the potential to create issues (as a Netflix user for years, I know I've often had problems) and that user-side issues can always affect connectivity. At the very least, they say, if Verizon is part of the problem, it's not the entire problem, and it's not fair to place the blame solely on the shoulders of Version, in an attempt to shift all blame away from Netflix.
I know people on Reddit are very pro-Netflix and anti-Verizon, but in this case, I think Verizon is totally justified. Netflix is palpably damaging Verizon's brand by insinuating that network problems are entirely attributable to Verizon, when in reality there is (a) no basis for that and (b) no good way to determine whether Verizon is at fault case-by-case. Netflix has been very vocal about net neutrality recently, and this is clearly a way for them to get their message out, but they have gone way too far in this case and are doing something that is malicious toward Verizon and actually puts bad information into the marketplace. Given the fact that Netflix and Verizon recently began a business partnership, I'm as surprised as Verizon is that Netflix would pull something like this.
Netflix, for their part, released a statement where, rather than answering any of Verizon's complaints, simply provided a non-answer to Verizon's allegations and basically just said "We're not going to stop and you can't make us." Their terse response was a childish reaction to a legitimate complaint, and anyone who cares about malicious business practices should view Netflix as a company that is trying to bolster its own reputation with baseless assertions at the expense of Verizon.
Change my view. |
t3_2wvkm2 | CMV: Most people don't care about what people are wearing to awards show. In fact, most people don't care about the awards show either. This is some sort of Hollywood/media hegemony that is trying to make us care about something that we really don't or perhaps to distract us. | I seriously must need a different group of friends or something because I don't think I know anyone who truly cares what someone is wearing to awards, hell I don't know that many people who seem to actually care about the awards, yet I must be missing something because this crap is everywhere. Is this just some sort of Hollywood/media driven drivel to make people care about something that we really don't? I can't imagine there is any credible research that indicates there is a high percentage of people that care or even watch these things.
Could it be that the super wealthy actually care and their viewing habits are accounted for greater than that of the general populace?
Edit: I have slightly changed my view in that the awards shows are "cared" about enough to be more popular than most other shows on television, according to ratings companies like Nielson. I do highly question the validity and methodology of their data gathering. I also still haven't changed my view about people caring about what stars are wearing, but I doubt there is a way to quantify that part of it anyways. Who could even afford to wear 90% of what is being shown at these awards shows?
Edit 2: 1/2 view changed - people care about awards shows. view not changed: why does my media always show me what people are wearing for a week or more as their top "news." Rarely are the awards even the front news, it's the clothes. Wouldn't their be a broader range of interest in the overall awards over what people wore?
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Most people don't care about what people are wearing to awards show. In fact, most people don't care about the awards show either. This is some sort of Hollywood/media hegemony that is trying to make us care about something that we really don't or perhaps to distract us. I seriously must need a different group of friends or something because I don't think I know anyone who truly cares what someone is wearing to awards, hell I don't know that many people who seem to actually care about the awards, yet I must be missing something because this crap is everywhere. Is this just some sort of Hollywood/media driven drivel to make people care about something that we really don't? I can't imagine there is any credible research that indicates there is a high percentage of people that care or even watch these things.
Could it be that the super wealthy actually care and their viewing habits are accounted for greater than that of the general populace?
Edit: I have slightly changed my view in that the awards shows are "cared" about enough to be more popular than most other shows on television, according to ratings companies like Nielson. I do highly question the validity and methodology of their data gathering. I also still haven't changed my view about people caring about what stars are wearing, but I doubt there is a way to quantify that part of it anyways. Who could even afford to wear 90% of what is being shown at these awards shows?
Edit 2: 1/2 view changed - people care about awards shows. view not changed: why does my media always show me what people are wearing for a week or more as their top "news." Rarely are the awards even the front news, it's the clothes. Wouldn't their be a broader range of interest in the overall awards over what people wore?
|
t3_2b9gm3 | CMV: I don't think public schools should provide/sell food. All students should bring their own food. | In case it's not obvious, this is focused primarily on American public schools, though if anyone has input on how other nations operate which they think may be relevant, I would love to hear it.
Nutrition and hunger is a problem for many American children. Budgets are a problem for pretty much any level of government in general....especially when it comes to issues like welfare/entitlements. I think it's an unnecessary waste of time and money to have food service in schools.
Operating a cafeteria costs money not just for food, but extra electricity, water, and labor. I'm sure there are also considerable indirect costs when you consider the extra amount of time and paper-pushing spent bickering over political issues like how nutritious school lunch is/should be and what the school's obligation should be to lower-income families.
Get rid of the cafeterias. Students still get time and a place to eat the food they bring. If lower-income families need assistance feeding their kids, they should qualify for extra food-stamp programs which shouldn't be a problem to fund with the money saved by no longer operating a cafeteria which would have provided a free lunch for the kid in the first place.....at least now that free lunch doesn't also come with the overhead cost of paying lunch-ladies.
For families that can afford to buy and pack a lunch for their own kid to take to school, that's their obligation as parents and the school should not be expected to double as both an educational and food-service facility. For families in need of assistance with providing food for their children, that assistance should come in the more direct form of extra money to simply buy their own food.
I think such a system would be simpler and less burdensome on our schools and our cities'/states'/nation's budgets.
_____
> *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 public schools should provide/sell food. All students should bring their own food. In case it's not obvious, this is focused primarily on American public schools, though if anyone has input on how other nations operate which they think may be relevant, I would love to hear it.
Nutrition and hunger is a problem for many American children. Budgets are a problem for pretty much any level of government in general....especially when it comes to issues like welfare/entitlements. I think it's an unnecessary waste of time and money to have food service in schools.
Operating a cafeteria costs money not just for food, but extra electricity, water, and labor. I'm sure there are also considerable indirect costs when you consider the extra amount of time and paper-pushing spent bickering over political issues like how nutritious school lunch is/should be and what the school's obligation should be to lower-income families.
Get rid of the cafeterias. Students still get time and a place to eat the food they bring. If lower-income families need assistance feeding their kids, they should qualify for extra food-stamp programs which shouldn't be a problem to fund with the money saved by no longer operating a cafeteria which would have provided a free lunch for the kid in the first place.....at least now that free lunch doesn't also come with the overhead cost of paying lunch-ladies.
For families that can afford to buy and pack a lunch for their own kid to take to school, that's their obligation as parents and the school should not be expected to double as both an educational and food-service facility. For families in need of assistance with providing food for their children, that assistance should come in the more direct form of extra money to simply buy their own food.
I think such a system would be simpler and less burdensome on our schools and our cities'/states'/nation's budgets.
|
t3_33shdi | CMV:Dance is the most useless art form. | Music, Video Games, Painting, Sculptures, Dancing, Singing, etc. Of every form of art, dance is the most useless of them all.
Dancing contributes very little to society. In films, with the exception of musicals, dancing has little prevalence. The greatest paintings don't include dancing. Video games have little dancing in them. Music often incites dancing, however dancing plays little role in making music. I believe society would not change very much if dance was never introduced.
Edit: This post is focused more on dance as an art form (i.e. contemporary, ballet, etc.) rather than dancing at a rave or concert 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:Dance is the most useless art form. Music, Video Games, Painting, Sculptures, Dancing, Singing, etc. Of every form of art, dance is the most useless of them all.
Dancing contributes very little to society. In films, with the exception of musicals, dancing has little prevalence. The greatest paintings don't include dancing. Video games have little dancing in them. Music often incites dancing, however dancing plays little role in making music. I believe society would not change very much if dance was never introduced.
Edit: This post is focused more on dance as an art form (i.e. contemporary, ballet, etc.) rather than dancing at a rave or concert etc. |
t3_4zgkpp | CMV: I think people on the right (conservatives, libertarians, capitalists in general, etc.) do not have world views based in ethics or morality, but an artificial, unnatural one that has been engineered by propaganda | i think moral codes and personal ethics are so fascinating.
it is my view (to maybe be changed) that people on the right have very artificial world views on how right and wrong work that aren't actually based in ethics but are the result of capitalist propaganda that nurture value systems that prioritize private property and profit over life itself and the pursuit for security and happiness. to demonstrate my view, i'll use the issue of rioting since its relevant.
like, anti riot people don't think what rioters do is "wrong" because they view their actions as a manifestation of values that conflict with their own, but because rioters are a threat to things like property and business, two things that most people don't even realize they've been trained to worship. capitalism deifies these things as an act of self preservation. people criticizing rioters or even acting out against them is a defense mechanism that benefits capitalists and ensures their continued existence by conflating ethics with baseless principles, so when people say "these people who riot are like wild animals," they say it from a place that has been carefully designed to identify actions and beliefs that threaten capitalism, not from a place of determining what is right or wrong.
like, opposing something that threatens your dogma isn't an ethical decision. capitalism is an unnatural and predatory set of values and rules. you don't hate rioters because their actions are unethical. you hate them because propaganda has conditioned you to. it's like how antibodies work.
if people who are against rioting were because it was a question of ethics, they would consistently judge white rioters who burn cars and smash windows over their sports team losing, but they don't.
i could go on with other examples like people against workers rights or something, but i think i made my point.
_____
> *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 people on the right (conservatives, libertarians, capitalists in general, etc.) do not have world views based in ethics or morality, but an artificial, unnatural one that has been engineered by propaganda. i think moral codes and personal ethics are so fascinating.
it is my view (to maybe be changed) that people on the right have very artificial world views on how right and wrong work that aren't actually based in ethics but are the result of capitalist propaganda that nurture value systems that prioritize private property and profit over life itself and the pursuit for security and happiness. to demonstrate my view, i'll use the issue of rioting since its relevant.
like, anti riot people don't think what rioters do is "wrong" because they view their actions as a manifestation of values that conflict with their own, but because rioters are a threat to things like property and business, two things that most people don't even realize they've been trained to worship. capitalism deifies these things as an act of self preservation. people criticizing rioters or even acting out against them is a defense mechanism that benefits capitalists and ensures their continued existence by conflating ethics with baseless principles, so when people say "these people who riot are like wild animals," they say it from a place that has been carefully designed to identify actions and beliefs that threaten capitalism, not from a place of determining what is right or wrong.
like, opposing something that threatens your dogma isn't an ethical decision. capitalism is an unnatural and predatory set of values and rules. you don't hate rioters because their actions are unethical. you hate them because propaganda has conditioned you to. it's like how antibodies work.
if people who are against rioting were because it was a question of ethics, they would consistently judge white rioters who burn cars and smash windows over their sports team losing, but they don't.
i could go on with other examples like people against workers rights or something, but i think i made my point.
|
t3_6h7aw4 | CMV: Most different types of pasta should not have completely different names or should have the word pasta at the end of their name. | Most types of pasta are too similar in taste and application to have completely different names. My understanding of the reason for different types of pasta is that they serve somewhat different purposes. But the majority are made in the basically the same way and with such similar ingredients that they shouldn’t have completely different names.
Some things like gnocchi are different enough to maybe get their own name sans ‘pasta’ but [capellini](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capellini) and [spaghetti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti) should not. Nor should [cavatelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavatelli) and [conchiglie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conchiglie). They should have partly different names or a two-word naming system.
Here are two examples of food where its done logically: you might hear about cheddar, or you might hear about cheddar cheese. You might hear about rye, or you might hear about rye bread. You don’t hear about spaghetti pasta as often as you hear spaghetti without the word pasta.
This is not to say that other groups of things should not be similarly denoted and classified. You might tell me that bagels are never called bagel bread. You may say that wine is not done this way, and maybe it should be classified this way. Arguing that I’m wrong because other groups of food are not categorized this way seems like a [tu quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) fallacy or the [“And you are hanging blacks”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes) variation of it. | CMV: Most different types of pasta should not have completely different names or should have the word pasta at the end of their name. Most types of pasta are too similar in taste and application to have completely different names. My understanding of the reason for different types of pasta is that they serve somewhat different purposes. But the majority are made in the basically the same way and with such similar ingredients that they shouldn’t have completely different names.
Some things like gnocchi are different enough to maybe get their own name sans ‘pasta’ but [capellini](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capellini) and [spaghetti](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti) should not. Nor should [cavatelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavatelli) and [conchiglie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conchiglie). They should have partly different names or a two-word naming system.
Here are two examples of food where its done logically: you might hear about cheddar, or you might hear about cheddar cheese. You might hear about rye, or you might hear about rye bread. You don’t hear about spaghetti pasta as often as you hear spaghetti without the word pasta.
This is not to say that other groups of things should not be similarly denoted and classified. You might tell me that bagels are never called bagel bread. You may say that wine is not done this way, and maybe it should be classified this way. Arguing that I’m wrong because other groups of food are not categorized this way seems like a [tu quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) fallacy or the [“And you are hanging blacks”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes) variation of it. |
t3_6aoxx7 | CMV: We shouldn't force the President to divest all assets (USA) | This is completely USA oriented, anyone can chime in but keep that in mind. My view doesn't pay much attention to the benefits. It has to do with the right to run for office and the right to vote. It also has to do with my own, and others, interpretation of the Emoluments Clause. To CMV argue on the right to run for office/vote or the Emoluments Clause. I'll hear out any benefits that forceful divestment would bring but I don't see it swaying my position.
[Everyone has the right to run for office without unnecessary barriers.](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/93-access-to-the-ballot.html) Unnecessary barriers include not enough money or too many assets. While we should be incredibly worried about the president's potential conflict of interest, potential alone should disqualify anyone from running for office. Certain assets, such as real estate, is also incredibly hard to divest in a short period of time. If you argue forced divestment a necessary barrier to run for office, why?
[Everyone has the right to vote, and that includes who you want to vote for,]
(http://government.lawyers.com/your-right-to-vote.html) with [restrictions to run in mind.](https://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html) That includes voter intimidation and nominee restriction. Unnecessary barriers take away your right to vote for qualified candidates. If people want to vote for someone who has many potential conflict of interests it is their right to do so.
[Much of the legality of having assets as the president hinge on one's interpretation of the Emolument Clause.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.838d7b9b5af5) [It really is up for debate but there is little precedent. The history of the Emolument Clause makes it seem like it applies to bribes, not goods sold.](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i/the-foreign-emoluments-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-8/clause/34) I've heard Trump could be impeached due to selling goods to foreign nations. My own interpretation is Emoluments Clause refers to bribes/gifts, not goods sold fairly.
Seeing how Trump's presidency has gone, with this topic in mind, it seems pretty obvious that there should be a change of some sort to how we treat the president's assets to ensure there is no conflict of interest at play. I think forced transparency of their assets would be the best solution that maintains our rights as individuals. What those exact changes need to be, I don't know. A simpler solution is, as a country, to not vote for those with a glaring potential for conflict of interest.
EDIT: Not Trump oriented either.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: We shouldn't force the President to divest all assets (USA). This is completely USA oriented, anyone can chime in but keep that in mind. My view doesn't pay much attention to the benefits. It has to do with the right to run for office and the right to vote. It also has to do with my own, and others, interpretation of the Emoluments Clause. To CMV argue on the right to run for office/vote or the Emoluments Clause. I'll hear out any benefits that forceful divestment would bring but I don't see it swaying my position.
[Everyone has the right to run for office without unnecessary barriers.](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/93-access-to-the-ballot.html) Unnecessary barriers include not enough money or too many assets. While we should be incredibly worried about the president's potential conflict of interest, potential alone should disqualify anyone from running for office. Certain assets, such as real estate, is also incredibly hard to divest in a short period of time. If you argue forced divestment a necessary barrier to run for office, why?
[Everyone has the right to vote, and that includes who you want to vote for,]
(http://government.lawyers.com/your-right-to-vote.html) with [restrictions to run in mind.](https://www.presidentsusa.net/qualifications.html) That includes voter intimidation and nominee restriction. Unnecessary barriers take away your right to vote for qualified candidates. If people want to vote for someone who has many potential conflict of interests it is their right to do so.
[Much of the legality of having assets as the president hinge on one's interpretation of the Emolument Clause.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.838d7b9b5af5) [It really is up for debate but there is little precedent. The history of the Emolument Clause makes it seem like it applies to bribes, not goods sold.](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i/the-foreign-emoluments-clause-article-i-section-9-clause-8/clause/34) I've heard Trump could be impeached due to selling goods to foreign nations. My own interpretation is Emoluments Clause refers to bribes/gifts, not goods sold fairly.
Seeing how Trump's presidency has gone, with this topic in mind, it seems pretty obvious that there should be a change of some sort to how we treat the president's assets to ensure there is no conflict of interest at play. I think forced transparency of their assets would be the best solution that maintains our rights as individuals. What those exact changes need to be, I don't know. A simpler solution is, as a country, to not vote for those with a glaring potential for conflict of interest.
EDIT: Not Trump oriented either. |
t3_5v8rne | CMV: Ayn Rand is a Jerk | So in my Academic Writing class, we have to write an essay on the book Atlas Shrugged. This got me looking into Ayn Rand. From what I have gathered, she is basically an Anarcho-Capitalist who sees Altruism as the bane to society and that all poor people are fat, lazy, and deserve to rot (as in Atlas Shrugged). While I do see why she would have these views, since she and her family were totally ruined by the Soviet Revolution/Socialism, I think that she should not be treated like a philosopher, but as a writer who was selfish and out of touch with reality.
_____
> *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: Ayn Rand is a Jerk. So in my Academic Writing class, we have to write an essay on the book Atlas Shrugged. This got me looking into Ayn Rand. From what I have gathered, she is basically an Anarcho-Capitalist who sees Altruism as the bane to society and that all poor people are fat, lazy, and deserve to rot (as in Atlas Shrugged). While I do see why she would have these views, since she and her family were totally ruined by the Soviet Revolution/Socialism, I think that she should not be treated like a philosopher, but as a writer who was selfish and out of touch with reality.
|
t3_5hgtqs | CMV: Ranked Choice Voting would result in less polarization in politics | I believe that implementing Ranked Choice Voting [described here](http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#how_rcv_works) in the US presidential election would reduce the current polarization experienced compared to the current winner-take-all system
Here are some of the things I think could happen because of it:
* By increasing the options people could vote for there would be more opinions they would be exposed to, somewhat limiting the current echo bubble people are within
* This would decrease the current thought of *wasting a vote* by voting third party which would reduce finger pointing when elections are lost
* Voting for third parties would allow voters to feel as though their voice was more heard and statistics could be gathered to determine how different issues sway voters. This would make the issues they care about matter more when the next round of elections happen (or even when the current candidate is in office)
* There would be less attack ads- given the now much higher cost of running multiple it would be less efficient to do so. This could reduce outgroup bias
* Eventually we could see [Duverger's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) fade away and third parties gain traction, I believe this would focus more effort on the issues rather than the sides since that's how you would gain the winning votership
_____
> *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: Ranked Choice Voting would result in less polarization in politics. I believe that implementing Ranked Choice Voting [described here](http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#how_rcv_works) in the US presidential election would reduce the current polarization experienced compared to the current winner-take-all system
Here are some of the things I think could happen because of it:
* By increasing the options people could vote for there would be more opinions they would be exposed to, somewhat limiting the current echo bubble people are within
* This would decrease the current thought of *wasting a vote* by voting third party which would reduce finger pointing when elections are lost
* Voting for third parties would allow voters to feel as though their voice was more heard and statistics could be gathered to determine how different issues sway voters. This would make the issues they care about matter more when the next round of elections happen (or even when the current candidate is in office)
* There would be less attack ads- given the now much higher cost of running multiple it would be less efficient to do so. This could reduce outgroup bias
* Eventually we could see [Duverger's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law) fade away and third parties gain traction, I believe this would focus more effort on the issues rather than the sides since that's how you would gain the winning votership
|
t3_1pzdxr | I don't believe the Million Mask March can create any lasting social change. CMV. | The Million Mask March isn't really much of an effort to make a lasting change in American political organization, for a few of reasons.
I think it is a *positive* signal that people are upset enough to make some noise, but ultimately the commitment to Americanized non-violence (I say this because American non-violence movements are a bit of an anomaly) will result in inertia and burn-out. Though I generally qualify Occupy as a success and I'm supportive of acts of resistance, the reason why Occupy and other such experiments collapse is because few people are willing to stand up to police brutality, whether by taking things to the next level or actually practicing Gandhian non-violence (which isn't what most people from the West make it out to be according to Finkelstein, *What Gandhi Says*).
Indeed, I think a more likely outcome of such a huge output of energy with little success will leave most jaded and thinking "welp, we did everything we could! time to resign ourselves to our lot in life.", which would be a **terrible** outcome. (I will concede that because the MMM is happening right now, it could turn into something of an occupation and the outcome is uncertain, but it seems to be following a certain predictable trajectory right now). | I don't believe the Million Mask March can create any lasting social change. CMV. The Million Mask March isn't really much of an effort to make a lasting change in American political organization, for a few of reasons.
I think it is a *positive* signal that people are upset enough to make some noise, but ultimately the commitment to Americanized non-violence (I say this because American non-violence movements are a bit of an anomaly) will result in inertia and burn-out. Though I generally qualify Occupy as a success and I'm supportive of acts of resistance, the reason why Occupy and other such experiments collapse is because few people are willing to stand up to police brutality, whether by taking things to the next level or actually practicing Gandhian non-violence (which isn't what most people from the West make it out to be according to Finkelstein, *What Gandhi Says*).
Indeed, I think a more likely outcome of such a huge output of energy with little success will leave most jaded and thinking "welp, we did everything we could! time to resign ourselves to our lot in life.", which would be a **terrible** outcome. (I will concede that because the MMM is happening right now, it could turn into something of an occupation and the outcome is uncertain, but it seems to be following a certain predictable trajectory right now). |
t3_2060lg | "Sweatshops" are beneficial to everyone. CMV | People who live in developed countries often criticize the practice of companies setting up offices, factories, etc. in developing countries where the labor costs are a mere fraction of labor costs in developed countries. One common argument is that the laborers in the developing country are being "exploited" for the sake of profits. However, it is only exploitation within the context of a developed country's labor practices. In the context of developing countries, people are clamoring for these "sweatshop" jobs because they are much better than any local job alternatives. These jobs are simultaneously raising the labor standards in developing countries while providing cheap goods and services to developed country consumers and also providing healthy profits for the companies involved. CMV. | "Sweatshops" are beneficial to everyone. CMV. People who live in developed countries often criticize the practice of companies setting up offices, factories, etc. in developing countries where the labor costs are a mere fraction of labor costs in developed countries. One common argument is that the laborers in the developing country are being "exploited" for the sake of profits. However, it is only exploitation within the context of a developed country's labor practices. In the context of developing countries, people are clamoring for these "sweatshop" jobs because they are much better than any local job alternatives. These jobs are simultaneously raising the labor standards in developing countries while providing cheap goods and services to developed country consumers and also providing healthy profits for the companies involved. CMV. |
t3_1tpdhc | I don't believe that any freedom in America is being protected from attack by the US military. CMV | I've got a spate of facebook posts on my feed about giving thanks to those who can't enjoy dinner with their families and unwrap gifts because they're busy fighting for our freedom to do so. This got me thinking and wondering how the freedom to enjoy Christmas dinner with my family is at risk. I can't think of anything I've heard in the news that leads me to believe we're in danger of being occupied by an oppressive regime being kept at bay by the military. To me, it's a statement that many people repeat and we're not supposed to question lest we been seen as unpatriotic.
I'm willing to admit that I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make a concrete declaration one way or the other, but I hear about how our freedom is safe thanks to all the military action going on right now and can't think of any way that seems likely. | I don't believe that any freedom in America is being protected from attack by the US military. CMV. I've got a spate of facebook posts on my feed about giving thanks to those who can't enjoy dinner with their families and unwrap gifts because they're busy fighting for our freedom to do so. This got me thinking and wondering how the freedom to enjoy Christmas dinner with my family is at risk. I can't think of anything I've heard in the news that leads me to believe we're in danger of being occupied by an oppressive regime being kept at bay by the military. To me, it's a statement that many people repeat and we're not supposed to question lest we been seen as unpatriotic.
I'm willing to admit that I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make a concrete declaration one way or the other, but I hear about how our freedom is safe thanks to all the military action going on right now and can't think of any way that seems likely. |
t3_1fmjoh | I have come to believe that reddit is populated with pompous hypocrites who really have no interest in learning something new if it challenges their personal beliefs or feelings in any way.CMV | I have been a "redditor" for several months and have, for the most part, really enjoyed being a part of this community and have learned many things here. I have noticed though that, time and again, intelligent and thought provoking content is routinely ignored and allowed to sink to the bottom or met with outright hostility and downvoted into oblivion. The majority of submissions that rise to the top are most often, mindless junk, jokes and best of all, puns. These things are fine, we all come here to enjoy ourselves and unwind afterall, but I believe this site was started to be a bit more than that. There are rules and etiquette to follow so that we advance a discussion and provide room for differing views. I just don't see that happening at all. I made this account today because I'm fed up with always overlooking the hypocrisy and I feel like every now and then I'd like to call some people out on it without it overlapping into my main account. A keeper throwaway,so to speak. I don't think this makes me a hypocrite because when I use my main account I simply don't get involved in discussions or topics that I feel I cannot contribute positively to. | I have come to believe that reddit is populated with pompous hypocrites who really have no interest in learning something new if it challenges their personal beliefs or feelings in any way.CMV. I have been a "redditor" for several months and have, for the most part, really enjoyed being a part of this community and have learned many things here. I have noticed though that, time and again, intelligent and thought provoking content is routinely ignored and allowed to sink to the bottom or met with outright hostility and downvoted into oblivion. The majority of submissions that rise to the top are most often, mindless junk, jokes and best of all, puns. These things are fine, we all come here to enjoy ourselves and unwind afterall, but I believe this site was started to be a bit more than that. There are rules and etiquette to follow so that we advance a discussion and provide room for differing views. I just don't see that happening at all. I made this account today because I'm fed up with always overlooking the hypocrisy and I feel like every now and then I'd like to call some people out on it without it overlapping into my main account. A keeper throwaway,so to speak. I don't think this makes me a hypocrite because when I use my main account I simply don't get involved in discussions or topics that I feel I cannot contribute positively to. |
t3_2k9hxy | CMV: Regulating guns because "if it even saves one life" is a REALLY BAD IDEA | I am seeing this opinion very, very often, and I think is very problematic, at least in the US.
We have a pretty sizeable proportion of population that is passionately in love with guns. I think of them as stamp or coin collectors - think what happens when you try and take an album from an avid collector ("who needs so many stamps, most of which are cancelled anyway!").
It should be no surprise that many pieces of regulation provoke the same response. And they should - think about recent pieces of legislation that limited the number of rounds in magazine to 7. It just so happens that many highly collectable military guns from WWI and WWII are over this limit - and now you said that someone who have just paid $5000 for a fully matching (including the magazine!) WWII Luger needs to get rid of this pesky mag - which will lower the value of the gun by 2/3.
Now, stamps or coins can't kill people, right?
This is true, of course, BUT forcing restrictions on guns, especially the ones that make very little impact on the actual number of deaths (majority of gun legislation has been recently focused on mass murder, which kills fewer people per year than lightning) pushes a very large number of people into Republican camp. This is especially true for white middle class males with less than high school education, who benefit the least from Republican policies, yet are drawn to them because of red meat issues such as gun control.
My assertion is that letting Republicans own gun issue kills vastly more people than gun legislation prevents. If we took gun people from the Republican camp, they would have no change for legislative victories in their current ultra-rightwing form. Many wars would not have happened, saving literally hundreds of thousands of people (it will take a few hundred years for our current gun legislation to just make up for Iraq body count, for instance). We would have had better health care, sooner, also saving tens of thousands per year.
So IMHO, based strictly on the body count, our current attempt of gun legislation is a VERY BAD THING. CMV!
EDIT: Many people on the thread are arguing that gun regulation is a good thing in general because it could save very many people. Please not that this is NOT A TOPIC I am arguing here. I am not against any and all gun regulation.
I am pointing out that there are specific firearms that have NO IMPACT on violence at large, yet are the first ones targeted. The proponents of this legislation justify it by saying that it is worth it even if it saves one life. I am saying that - corrected for the broader impact - we probably end up with more people dead because of it. | CMV: Regulating guns because "if it even saves one life" is a REALLY BAD IDEA. I am seeing this opinion very, very often, and I think is very problematic, at least in the US.
We have a pretty sizeable proportion of population that is passionately in love with guns. I think of them as stamp or coin collectors - think what happens when you try and take an album from an avid collector ("who needs so many stamps, most of which are cancelled anyway!").
It should be no surprise that many pieces of regulation provoke the same response. And they should - think about recent pieces of legislation that limited the number of rounds in magazine to 7. It just so happens that many highly collectable military guns from WWI and WWII are over this limit - and now you said that someone who have just paid $5000 for a fully matching (including the magazine!) WWII Luger needs to get rid of this pesky mag - which will lower the value of the gun by 2/3.
Now, stamps or coins can't kill people, right?
This is true, of course, BUT forcing restrictions on guns, especially the ones that make very little impact on the actual number of deaths (majority of gun legislation has been recently focused on mass murder, which kills fewer people per year than lightning) pushes a very large number of people into Republican camp. This is especially true for white middle class males with less than high school education, who benefit the least from Republican policies, yet are drawn to them because of red meat issues such as gun control.
My assertion is that letting Republicans own gun issue kills vastly more people than gun legislation prevents. If we took gun people from the Republican camp, they would have no change for legislative victories in their current ultra-rightwing form. Many wars would not have happened, saving literally hundreds of thousands of people (it will take a few hundred years for our current gun legislation to just make up for Iraq body count, for instance). We would have had better health care, sooner, also saving tens of thousands per year.
So IMHO, based strictly on the body count, our current attempt of gun legislation is a VERY BAD THING. CMV!
EDIT: Many people on the thread are arguing that gun regulation is a good thing in general because it could save very many people. Please not that this is NOT A TOPIC I am arguing here. I am not against any and all gun regulation.
I am pointing out that there are specific firearms that have NO IMPACT on violence at large, yet are the first ones targeted. The proponents of this legislation justify it by saying that it is worth it even if it saves one life. I am saying that - corrected for the broader impact - we probably end up with more people dead because of it. |
t3_6vq0cy | CMV: Reddit should have a rule for moderators that nobody can be banned from a subreddit for actions outside the subreddit | There are multiple subreddits, I'll avoid naming them, that automatically ban people for participating in other, more controversial subreddits. Since it's happenning automatically, it's fairly easy to prove that it's happenning, because usually the bans happen almost instantly and the last post in the subreddit that bans you might've happenned weeks or months ago or not at all.
I feel that banning people for something they didn't do on your particular subreddit is bullshit and comparable to preventative imprisoning of potential criminals, and since some pretty damn big subreddits employ these tactics against smaller ones, the practice should be reddit-wide banned with punishments in form of unmodding the automoderator until the subreddit moderators prove the admins that the automoderator no longer carpet bans people.
_____
> *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: Reddit should have a rule for moderators that nobody can be banned from a subreddit for actions outside the subreddit. There are multiple subreddits, I'll avoid naming them, that automatically ban people for participating in other, more controversial subreddits. Since it's happenning automatically, it's fairly easy to prove that it's happenning, because usually the bans happen almost instantly and the last post in the subreddit that bans you might've happenned weeks or months ago or not at all.
I feel that banning people for something they didn't do on your particular subreddit is bullshit and comparable to preventative imprisoning of potential criminals, and since some pretty damn big subreddits employ these tactics against smaller ones, the practice should be reddit-wide banned with punishments in form of unmodding the automoderator until the subreddit moderators prove the admins that the automoderator no longer carpet bans people.
|
t3_1l5jn2 | I believe the self-sustaining community for social outcasts I want to create will devolve into a Lord of the Flies/cult situation. CMV. | Why this is in change my view:
Because any group situation I've ever been in has been a disaster, I've noticed people as a general rule tend towards chaos/selfishness, circular thinking and emotional outbursts rather than logic and rationality, and I have disabilities that prevent me from understanding social rules/protocols.
The community I want to create:
I have met so many eccentrics, brilliant, good crazy, "bad" crazy, creative people over the years who have a hard time making it in mainstream society. (Gender/sexual orientation "deviants," artists, anarchists, aspies, trauma survivors, survivalists, and related.) I am one of those people. I have a genius level IQ in some things, but functionally disabled in ways that mean my entire adult life I have continually lost jobs, places to live, I just don't seem to fit in mainstream society. And I see many like me in the same situation, struggling, alone, falling off the edge.
So here I'm thinking: society right now obviously isn't gonna take care of these people, not in the state (U.S.) society is currently in. I think it'd be awesome to create an enclosed, self-sustaining community for people like me, brilliant yet socially awkward, different people, massively talented, a respect for neurodiversity and skillsharing.
But then I see me investing all my time into this and it turns into a headline-worthy cult of epic disaster proportions or a Lord of the Flies scenario. Expand my view?
If I posted this in the wrong subreddit, please let me know. | I believe the self-sustaining community for social outcasts I want to create will devolve into a Lord of the Flies/cult situation. CMV. Why this is in change my view:
Because any group situation I've ever been in has been a disaster, I've noticed people as a general rule tend towards chaos/selfishness, circular thinking and emotional outbursts rather than logic and rationality, and I have disabilities that prevent me from understanding social rules/protocols.
The community I want to create:
I have met so many eccentrics, brilliant, good crazy, "bad" crazy, creative people over the years who have a hard time making it in mainstream society. (Gender/sexual orientation "deviants," artists, anarchists, aspies, trauma survivors, survivalists, and related.) I am one of those people. I have a genius level IQ in some things, but functionally disabled in ways that mean my entire adult life I have continually lost jobs, places to live, I just don't seem to fit in mainstream society. And I see many like me in the same situation, struggling, alone, falling off the edge.
So here I'm thinking: society right now obviously isn't gonna take care of these people, not in the state (U.S.) society is currently in. I think it'd be awesome to create an enclosed, self-sustaining community for people like me, brilliant yet socially awkward, different people, massively talented, a respect for neurodiversity and skillsharing.
But then I see me investing all my time into this and it turns into a headline-worthy cult of epic disaster proportions or a Lord of the Flies scenario. Expand my view?
If I posted this in the wrong subreddit, please let me know. |
t3_2bf94q | CMV: there is nothing wrong with legal loan sharks and payday loan companies. | These companies are here to get us by when things don't go to plan financially in our lives. They are short term fixes here to help us, yes they are a business but like many, they are here to provide a service to those in need.
The news/tragic stories you here about people committing suicide and going into severe depression when behind on payments is no fault of the companies lending money. They clearly set guidelines and warn customers of the consequences of not repaying and it is only down to the incompetence of those suffering who don't bother to read /understand the consequences of not paying on time or at all before binding themselves to a contract.
Also, I don't see why legal loan sharks/payday loan companies are frowned upon and chastised as immoral and repugnat when in reality, they give similar punishments as banks do when their customers don't pay their mortgages. I don't see how repossession of one's home is more moral than extortionate interest rates. If we look to ban loan companies/legal loan sharks on the basis of immorality, we should ban mortgages too on the same basis.
Pay on time and everything is fine and both you and the company have fulfilled your contractual obligations.
Don't pay on time/stall/don't pay at all, then I'm afraid you deserve everything that comes to you.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: there is nothing wrong with legal loan sharks and payday loan companies. These companies are here to get us by when things don't go to plan financially in our lives. They are short term fixes here to help us, yes they are a business but like many, they are here to provide a service to those in need.
The news/tragic stories you here about people committing suicide and going into severe depression when behind on payments is no fault of the companies lending money. They clearly set guidelines and warn customers of the consequences of not repaying and it is only down to the incompetence of those suffering who don't bother to read /understand the consequences of not paying on time or at all before binding themselves to a contract.
Also, I don't see why legal loan sharks/payday loan companies are frowned upon and chastised as immoral and repugnat when in reality, they give similar punishments as banks do when their customers don't pay their mortgages. I don't see how repossession of one's home is more moral than extortionate interest rates. If we look to ban loan companies/legal loan sharks on the basis of immorality, we should ban mortgages too on the same basis.
Pay on time and everything is fine and both you and the company have fulfilled your contractual obligations.
Don't pay on time/stall/don't pay at all, then I'm afraid you deserve everything that comes to you.
|
t3_6aa9d7 | CMV: Climate change denial the USA is primarily due to evangelical Christianity | Basically, the argument goes as thus:
* Some or most Christians, particularly white evangelicals, believe that Jesus is coming back to Earth in a few decades, so there is no need to worry about climate change;
* Any sort of dedicated environmentalism constitutes animism;
* God would not allow for any worldwide ecological catastrophes to happen.
* Attempts by evangelicals to the contrary are doomed to failure for inherent theological reasons, see [this article](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjM1qXDquTTAhUMOCYKHftMBaMQFgg8MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Freligiondispatches.org%2Fthe-real-reasons-why-evangelical-embrace-of-environmentalism-lags%2F&usg=AFQjCNGdCJtkjUJhcV6ojMoW9pQtjo7SsQ&sig2=YpbTKTcPLYRx8nwS88L9WQ).
Well, those are the reasons. Have at it!
_____
> *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: Climate change denial the USA is primarily due to evangelical Christianity. Basically, the argument goes as thus:
* Some or most Christians, particularly white evangelicals, believe that Jesus is coming back to Earth in a few decades, so there is no need to worry about climate change;
* Any sort of dedicated environmentalism constitutes animism;
* God would not allow for any worldwide ecological catastrophes to happen.
* Attempts by evangelicals to the contrary are doomed to failure for inherent theological reasons, see [this article](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjM1qXDquTTAhUMOCYKHftMBaMQFgg8MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Freligiondispatches.org%2Fthe-real-reasons-why-evangelical-embrace-of-environmentalism-lags%2F&usg=AFQjCNGdCJtkjUJhcV6ojMoW9pQtjo7SsQ&sig2=YpbTKTcPLYRx8nwS88L9WQ).
Well, those are the reasons. Have at it! |
t3_1y44fr | I don't think there is proof that feminism helps men. CMV. | I got into an amicable debate with a friend; I said feminism benefited both genders, he said it did not. He asked me for proof of my claim, and I could not find any to provide. In fact, I found out that in the past NOW was against shared parental custody.
I do believe feminism is responsible for de-mantling some gender roles, and that this helps men. However, can this be proven through a study or some other means? Simply stating that "gender roles have changed; now men are free from stereotypes" is not proof in and of itself. Is there any evidence or are there studies that prove (or imply) that feminism has helped men? I have not found any, and have come to the conclusion that no firm evidence exists. Further, there is evidence (albeit old evidence) of a feminist organization actively discriminating against men. I must conclude, then, that there is only hard evidence of feminism helping women.
CMV?
| I don't think there is proof that feminism helps men. CMV. I got into an amicable debate with a friend; I said feminism benefited both genders, he said it did not. He asked me for proof of my claim, and I could not find any to provide. In fact, I found out that in the past NOW was against shared parental custody.
I do believe feminism is responsible for de-mantling some gender roles, and that this helps men. However, can this be proven through a study or some other means? Simply stating that "gender roles have changed; now men are free from stereotypes" is not proof in and of itself. Is there any evidence or are there studies that prove (or imply) that feminism has helped men? I have not found any, and have come to the conclusion that no firm evidence exists. Further, there is evidence (albeit old evidence) of a feminist organization actively discriminating against men. I must conclude, then, that there is only hard evidence of feminism helping women.
CMV?
|
t3_1jwzlo | I think it is harmful for a private high school to have mandatory drug and [especially] alcohol testing. CMV | Drugs and alcohol are generally illegal for those under 21 years old, and I understand the risks of students abusing various substances. I read about a high school instituting mandatory random hair testing for drugs and alcohol. I was not even aware such testing existed for alcohol but apparently it can detect anything equivalent to three drinks or more a week. Though I take less issue with random drug testing (though I think this is still troublesome), I find the idea of alcohol testing especially invasive. I understand that a private school can legally do this. I just feel that it sends the wrong message and is ultimately harmful to students. Even though it is illegal for high schoolers to drink I think it is important for students to learn how to deal with substances responsibly. Alcohol consumption is part of many young adults' lives. High school provides a time to learn about alcohol. Everyone knows "that freshman" is college who knew nothing about how to handle drinking and went of the deep end. A student's relationship with alcohol should be a personal one guided by parents. A policy of testing stunts growth and sends a message to students that they are not to be trusted. CMV.
Link to the article http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-06/news/ct-met-alcohol-testing-high-school-20130806_1_viator-high-school-arlington-heights-school-psychemedics-corp
| I think it is harmful for a private high school to have mandatory drug and [especially] alcohol testing. CMV. Drugs and alcohol are generally illegal for those under 21 years old, and I understand the risks of students abusing various substances. I read about a high school instituting mandatory random hair testing for drugs and alcohol. I was not even aware such testing existed for alcohol but apparently it can detect anything equivalent to three drinks or more a week. Though I take less issue with random drug testing (though I think this is still troublesome), I find the idea of alcohol testing especially invasive. I understand that a private school can legally do this. I just feel that it sends the wrong message and is ultimately harmful to students. Even though it is illegal for high schoolers to drink I think it is important for students to learn how to deal with substances responsibly. Alcohol consumption is part of many young adults' lives. High school provides a time to learn about alcohol. Everyone knows "that freshman" is college who knew nothing about how to handle drinking and went of the deep end. A student's relationship with alcohol should be a personal one guided by parents. A policy of testing stunts growth and sends a message to students that they are not to be trusted. CMV.
Link to the article http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-06/news/ct-met-alcohol-testing-high-school-20130806_1_viator-high-school-arlington-heights-school-psychemedics-corp
|
t3_30dn4s | CMV: I am a strong believer in eugenics. | Just a note, I do not believe in Nazism.
Now, I know this view is controversial and I know it's generally frowned upon but my lifelong belief is that eugenics isn't that bad. This started before I can even remember. I felt that people who live off of welfare and do nothing all day but drugs and get fat should lose their reproductive rights. At no time I believed people should die. I just think that people should lose their ability to reproduce until they have proven worth towards society. I don't think only one group of people should be singled out. In my mind, the only way for society to change for the better is to remove those who depend on warning labels and government funding. I get that older people or people with real disabilities need help but everyone knows who is working the system and milking it for money so they don't have to work. It's people who purposely do bad in job interviews and show no concern for their personal health. Don't get me wrong, I've met a lot of fat/overweight/etc.. people who are perfectly healthy and it is truly genetic. I just believe that if someone is purposely not working so they can live for free should not be allowed to have children. In my mind, it would be better for the genetic line to die out instead of being able to propagate and spread. Given that maybe their children will be successful in life but from what I have seen, they most likely are not.
EDIT: I've changed my mind. Eugenics are not the best route to go. Education and opportunities is what builds empires. I still believe eugenics could be successful if we had more knowledge as a collective to determine who will be successful and who wouldn't be.
_____
> *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 a strong believer in eugenics. Just a note, I do not believe in Nazism.
Now, I know this view is controversial and I know it's generally frowned upon but my lifelong belief is that eugenics isn't that bad. This started before I can even remember. I felt that people who live off of welfare and do nothing all day but drugs and get fat should lose their reproductive rights. At no time I believed people should die. I just think that people should lose their ability to reproduce until they have proven worth towards society. I don't think only one group of people should be singled out. In my mind, the only way for society to change for the better is to remove those who depend on warning labels and government funding. I get that older people or people with real disabilities need help but everyone knows who is working the system and milking it for money so they don't have to work. It's people who purposely do bad in job interviews and show no concern for their personal health. Don't get me wrong, I've met a lot of fat/overweight/etc.. people who are perfectly healthy and it is truly genetic. I just believe that if someone is purposely not working so they can live for free should not be allowed to have children. In my mind, it would be better for the genetic line to die out instead of being able to propagate and spread. Given that maybe their children will be successful in life but from what I have seen, they most likely are not.
EDIT: I've changed my mind. Eugenics are not the best route to go. Education and opportunities is what builds empires. I still believe eugenics could be successful if we had more knowledge as a collective to determine who will be successful and who wouldn't be.
|
t3_5auggw | CMV: The electoral process is rigged - against outsiders. | Donald Trump keeps saying the electoral process is rigged. He's right about that.
But the real rigging isn't against Republicans, it's against outsiders.
The most obvious how hard it is for third parties to get on a ballot. Then you have laws against [fusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion#United_States) tickets, which violate freedom of association. Then you have campaign finance rules which don't keep money out of politics, but do make it very hard for third parties to raise money.
The voting itself is fair, but that means nothing. The rigging happens by keeping candidates from running.
_____
> *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 electoral process is rigged - against outsiders. Donald Trump keeps saying the electoral process is rigged. He's right about that.
But the real rigging isn't against Republicans, it's against outsiders.
The most obvious how hard it is for third parties to get on a ballot. Then you have laws against [fusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion#United_States) tickets, which violate freedom of association. Then you have campaign finance rules which don't keep money out of politics, but do make it very hard for third parties to raise money.
The voting itself is fair, but that means nothing. The rigging happens by keeping candidates from running.
|
t3_5vkrlj | CMV: the musical culture of the 80s will come back for revenge. | Vaporwave, Synthwave, and Seapunk are all successful genres of music that embody and revive 80s trends. This has been so successful that most shops, buildings, even warehouses prefer to play 80s music over the intercom over pop. Not to mention instruments like saxophones, synthesizers, etc, are becoming more popular amoung EDM and rock bands. Not to mention, with the advent of NickMusic and other music video specific channels, the essence of MTV has been revived, pushing artists to create more creative music videos in order to get airtime. The popularity of Vaporwave and Synthwave will make modern pop music "Unhip" and the "Quality = Airtime" philosophy of MTV style stations will make modern pop music just not profitable or desired by the industry. Keep in mind, TV and Radio are far more profitable mediums of distribution than the internet, what with cheap streaming like Spotify.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: the musical culture of the 80s will come back for revenge. Vaporwave, Synthwave, and Seapunk are all successful genres of music that embody and revive 80s trends. This has been so successful that most shops, buildings, even warehouses prefer to play 80s music over the intercom over pop. Not to mention instruments like saxophones, synthesizers, etc, are becoming more popular amoung EDM and rock bands. Not to mention, with the advent of NickMusic and other music video specific channels, the essence of MTV has been revived, pushing artists to create more creative music videos in order to get airtime. The popularity of Vaporwave and Synthwave will make modern pop music "Unhip" and the "Quality = Airtime" philosophy of MTV style stations will make modern pop music just not profitable or desired by the industry. Keep in mind, TV and Radio are far more profitable mediums of distribution than the internet, what with cheap streaming like Spotify. |
t3_2ju8d3 | CMV: Race car drivers are not athletes. | Yes, there is a measure of endurance to being crammed into a hot car for long periods of time but that does not necessarily mean athleticism. Yes, one may be quicker at throwing a shifter, pushing buttons or turning the wheel but again, that's more a skill set than athleticism.
The cars do the work. The cars are more athletes than the drivers. Controlling a machine does not make one an athlete, otherwise guys racing RC cars would be athletes. The girl filling your ice cream cone from the Frostee machine would be an athlete. Video game players would be athletes.
By definition an athlete is a person who competes in one or more sports that involve physical strength, speed and/or endurance. This means THAT PERSON'S OWN physical strength, speed and/or endurance. Not a machine's.
There may very well be athletes who are also race car drivers, but that does not mean that race car drivers are therefore all athletes.
_____
> *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: Race car drivers are not athletes. Yes, there is a measure of endurance to being crammed into a hot car for long periods of time but that does not necessarily mean athleticism. Yes, one may be quicker at throwing a shifter, pushing buttons or turning the wheel but again, that's more a skill set than athleticism.
The cars do the work. The cars are more athletes than the drivers. Controlling a machine does not make one an athlete, otherwise guys racing RC cars would be athletes. The girl filling your ice cream cone from the Frostee machine would be an athlete. Video game players would be athletes.
By definition an athlete is a person who competes in one or more sports that involve physical strength, speed and/or endurance. This means THAT PERSON'S OWN physical strength, speed and/or endurance. Not a machine's.
There may very well be athletes who are also race car drivers, but that does not mean that race car drivers are therefore all athletes.
|
t3_2l5psm | CMV: The concept of an eternal afterlife sounds horrific and if it were real I wouldn't want to go there | So just going to put my cards down on the table, I am an atheist (well closest approximation of my view) as a result I reject the idea of an afterlife.
Anyway virtually all religions have some form of a concept of afterlife, and they all have a principle of good -good afterlife , bad - bad afterlife , it does get complicated if you consider purgatory and reincarnation but the principle is the same.
The idea of an afterlife sounds horrible to me, I doubt I could put up with myself for anything more than the 60-70 years that I probably have left (I am 24), the way you would be expected to exist in some form for ever and ever with no way out just sounds like torture, I don't think many people would want that if they really thought about it. When you consider the Christian view of Heaven being a place where "sin" does't exist then there is no free will, not really since you can only choose to do the "right" action. It would be existence below what we had before.
_____
> *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 concept of an eternal afterlife sounds horrific and if it were real I wouldn't want to go there. So just going to put my cards down on the table, I am an atheist (well closest approximation of my view) as a result I reject the idea of an afterlife.
Anyway virtually all religions have some form of a concept of afterlife, and they all have a principle of good -good afterlife , bad - bad afterlife , it does get complicated if you consider purgatory and reincarnation but the principle is the same.
The idea of an afterlife sounds horrible to me, I doubt I could put up with myself for anything more than the 60-70 years that I probably have left (I am 24), the way you would be expected to exist in some form for ever and ever with no way out just sounds like torture, I don't think many people would want that if they really thought about it. When you consider the Christian view of Heaven being a place where "sin" does't exist then there is no free will, not really since you can only choose to do the "right" action. It would be existence below what we had before.
|
t3_4k3jqc | CMV: Everybody should use Dvorak keyboards | I recently started looking into Dvorak keyboards as an alternative to Qwerty and it seems to have many benefits. As many of the commonly used keys (including all the vowels) are on the home row for touch typing, your fingers have less far to move, enabling typing speeds to be faster, less prone to mistakes, and less likely to cause Repetitive Strain Injury.
My understanding is the Qwerty layout was designed for typewriters and has the keys commonly used consecutively placed non-adjacent on the physical keyboard to prevent sticking. As few people use typewriters still, the only real advantage to Qwerty nowadays that I see is this: It's widely used. But that's no reason to keep doing something less efficiently.
I say we revolt and introduce Dvorak as the new standard.
_____
> *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: Everybody should use Dvorak keyboards. I recently started looking into Dvorak keyboards as an alternative to Qwerty and it seems to have many benefits. As many of the commonly used keys (including all the vowels) are on the home row for touch typing, your fingers have less far to move, enabling typing speeds to be faster, less prone to mistakes, and less likely to cause Repetitive Strain Injury.
My understanding is the Qwerty layout was designed for typewriters and has the keys commonly used consecutively placed non-adjacent on the physical keyboard to prevent sticking. As few people use typewriters still, the only real advantage to Qwerty nowadays that I see is this: It's widely used. But that's no reason to keep doing something less efficiently.
I say we revolt and introduce Dvorak as the new standard.
|
t3_1uep8p | I find it to be completely unreasonable that people would rather drink beer over cider. CMV | I have nothing against beer, and sometimes I even crave one. This being said, I would never want fermented barley or wheat over a crisp apple! While I understand the cultural significance that beer has had the development of many different civilizations, I think that it is high time that people stop being pretentious and actually admit that cider the clearly the better alternative. I will go even further and say that I can not actively fathom that anyone actually enjoys the taste of beer more than the taste of cider, and that people only drink beer because everyone else does it. It just seems silly.
Unless you really hate apples or your are simply allergic, I think that you only drink beer because you either don't know about cider or you don't think cider is manly enough to be drank. Please change my view. | I find it to be completely unreasonable that people would rather drink beer over cider. CMV. I have nothing against beer, and sometimes I even crave one. This being said, I would never want fermented barley or wheat over a crisp apple! While I understand the cultural significance that beer has had the development of many different civilizations, I think that it is high time that people stop being pretentious and actually admit that cider the clearly the better alternative. I will go even further and say that I can not actively fathom that anyone actually enjoys the taste of beer more than the taste of cider, and that people only drink beer because everyone else does it. It just seems silly.
Unless you really hate apples or your are simply allergic, I think that you only drink beer because you either don't know about cider or you don't think cider is manly enough to be drank. Please change my view. |
t3_26v2z3 | CMV: opposite to a recent post, I think the Elliot Rodger (recent California) shooting is more of a social issue, and that people detract from the issue by pointing to the vague term, "mental health issues." | EDIT: sorry for late responses everyone, I'm traveling and don't always have internet . . .
As the title suggests, I saw [another relevant post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/26sjvz/cmv_i_think_the_elliot_rodger_recent_california/), but that post referred to social issues(feminism, racism, etc) as what was detracting from the real issue. What I found there was that everyone agreed that, 'obviously', mental health issues had at least a strong affect.
I fail to see what effect they had. Firstly, because I can't seem to find anyone describing what those mental health issues were. Some people merely point to the fact that he was going to therapy as a source. This is not proper; many people without mental defects go to therapists to talk, and help them deal with normal problems and stresses of life.
Secondly, no one has shown a direct causal link between mental health issues and the events that occurred, or the extremist views he held. Someone pointed to an article stating Rodgers had Aspergers. This is actually the perfect example of my belief, that mental 'issues' are often blamed for socially constructed problems. Apergers is just a way of saying you have an extremely slight version of autism. It's an example of over-diagnosis, and is no longer recognized under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Furthermore, and most importantly, to say that Rodgers suffered from 'mental issues' or Aspergers doesn't show at all how those issues caused his beliefs, or his actions. When a person is schizophrenic, there is a mental disease that causes him to not understand the quality of his actions, or to not control himself. The same cannot be said here. His views were clearly extreme, but they weren't the product of mental defect or disease.
To sum up, I think Rodgers was a product of his circumstances, and his environment. The use of the vague term, "mental health issues" is a detraction from the real issues, and doesn't play anything more than a minor, attenuated role in the events.
EDIT: I also wanted to say, I saw another post by a person who didn't think Rodgers was mentally ill at all. I think my topic is different enough to justify a separate post. | CMV: opposite to a recent post, I think the Elliot Rodger (recent California) shooting is more of a social issue, and that people detract from the issue by pointing to the vague term, "mental health issues.". EDIT: sorry for late responses everyone, I'm traveling and don't always have internet . . .
As the title suggests, I saw [another relevant post](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/26sjvz/cmv_i_think_the_elliot_rodger_recent_california/), but that post referred to social issues(feminism, racism, etc) as what was detracting from the real issue. What I found there was that everyone agreed that, 'obviously', mental health issues had at least a strong affect.
I fail to see what effect they had. Firstly, because I can't seem to find anyone describing what those mental health issues were. Some people merely point to the fact that he was going to therapy as a source. This is not proper; many people without mental defects go to therapists to talk, and help them deal with normal problems and stresses of life.
Secondly, no one has shown a direct causal link between mental health issues and the events that occurred, or the extremist views he held. Someone pointed to an article stating Rodgers had Aspergers. This is actually the perfect example of my belief, that mental 'issues' are often blamed for socially constructed problems. Apergers is just a way of saying you have an extremely slight version of autism. It's an example of over-diagnosis, and is no longer recognized under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Furthermore, and most importantly, to say that Rodgers suffered from 'mental issues' or Aspergers doesn't show at all how those issues caused his beliefs, or his actions. When a person is schizophrenic, there is a mental disease that causes him to not understand the quality of his actions, or to not control himself. The same cannot be said here. His views were clearly extreme, but they weren't the product of mental defect or disease.
To sum up, I think Rodgers was a product of his circumstances, and his environment. The use of the vague term, "mental health issues" is a detraction from the real issues, and doesn't play anything more than a minor, attenuated role in the events.
EDIT: I also wanted to say, I saw another post by a person who didn't think Rodgers was mentally ill at all. I think my topic is different enough to justify a separate post. |
t3_1u2ozj | America is the best country in the world - CMV | Hear me out before your flame me -
It's obvious that *a lot* of non-Americans talk shit about Americans because they, "think America is the greatest country of all time" (paraphrasing, but that's the gist of alot of what I see on the internet).
I am American and its hard for me to imagine anywhere better than the USA. What I do not understand is why everyone else acts like this is such a huge fault in Americans.
If I didn't think that the country that I lived in was the best country in the world, wouldn't I just move? Doesn't everyone think that the country that they live in is the best country in the world...?
When people from other countries (England especially) say that I am arrogant, I wonder, "what country do you think is the best country in the world?" The answer to which, I am sure, is whatever country they live in... | America is the best country in the world - CMV. Hear me out before your flame me -
It's obvious that *a lot* of non-Americans talk shit about Americans because they, "think America is the greatest country of all time" (paraphrasing, but that's the gist of alot of what I see on the internet).
I am American and its hard for me to imagine anywhere better than the USA. What I do not understand is why everyone else acts like this is such a huge fault in Americans.
If I didn't think that the country that I lived in was the best country in the world, wouldn't I just move? Doesn't everyone think that the country that they live in is the best country in the world...?
When people from other countries (England especially) say that I am arrogant, I wonder, "what country do you think is the best country in the world?" The answer to which, I am sure, is whatever country they live in... |
t3_5vs1fz | CMV:Every organic self-perpetuating thing in the universe is conscious. | It makes no sense that animals are the only conscious beings on Earth and even more preposterous that some think we're the only ones in the Universe. I'm using conscious in the sense of being self-aware and able to make decisions as well as communicate.
The Earth as well as the universe has to be conscious, it makes no sense that something conscious could randomly arise from something unconscious. No matter how many billions of years it took, the arrival of consciousness is ultimately random. It's extremely arrogant to think that Earth was just a floating rock in space waiting for almighty humans to bless it with their consciousness.
The problem is we're looking at consciousness in to narrow of a viewpoint, this is the problem with western science in general. It isn't open to experimenting outside of what's regarded as "common-sense" in their eyes. The best example of this is the double-slit experiment, where scientist found out single electrons act like waves when unobserved, but go back to acting like particles when they are observed. Scientists are still not able to explain how they know they're being observed and why they choose to act different. Finding this experiment was a joy because I had been preaching that particles were conscious for years.
Link to Double-Slit experiment: http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2012/OPT_253/Lab_2/Dilyana%20Mihaylova_Lab_2-Report.pdf
I believe there is a universal consciousness that connects all, as well as a planetary consciousness that connects us to the planet we live on. If insignificant beings like us are conscious, then planets that provide for such insignificant beings would have to be conscious as well. After all, we need the Earth but the Earth needs nothing to survive. Sure the sun gives it a steady environment, but it would float aimlessly through space if it was never pulled into orbit.
_____
> *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:Every organic self-perpetuating thing in the universe is conscious. It makes no sense that animals are the only conscious beings on Earth and even more preposterous that some think we're the only ones in the Universe. I'm using conscious in the sense of being self-aware and able to make decisions as well as communicate.
The Earth as well as the universe has to be conscious, it makes no sense that something conscious could randomly arise from something unconscious. No matter how many billions of years it took, the arrival of consciousness is ultimately random. It's extremely arrogant to think that Earth was just a floating rock in space waiting for almighty humans to bless it with their consciousness.
The problem is we're looking at consciousness in to narrow of a viewpoint, this is the problem with western science in general. It isn't open to experimenting outside of what's regarded as "common-sense" in their eyes. The best example of this is the double-slit experiment, where scientist found out single electrons act like waves when unobserved, but go back to acting like particles when they are observed. Scientists are still not able to explain how they know they're being observed and why they choose to act different. Finding this experiment was a joy because I had been preaching that particles were conscious for years.
Link to Double-Slit experiment: http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2012/OPT_253/Lab_2/Dilyana%20Mihaylova_Lab_2-Report.pdf
I believe there is a universal consciousness that connects all, as well as a planetary consciousness that connects us to the planet we live on. If insignificant beings like us are conscious, then planets that provide for such insignificant beings would have to be conscious as well. After all, we need the Earth but the Earth needs nothing to survive. Sure the sun gives it a steady environment, but it would float aimlessly through space if it was never pulled into orbit. |
t3_48kmip | CMV: Poor people don't need any more help than they already get (In first world countries) | Hey everyone,
I thought it was very important to post some information about why I have this view, always, since before I was a teenager. Despite the fact that I have been momentarily homeless and earning under 10k PA for 3 years of my adult life. I've been told my view is a bit heartless and I'd like to see someone challenge my thought process to a degree that would have me question my morals or even change my view on the topic.
I grew up in a poor home, single mother, 3 kids. We usually got what we wanted for the most part and I never felt like I went without.
Skip to 15, I dropped out of highschool. I played video games until I was 17.
18, got a job at a bakery and worked there until I was 20.
At 20 I realized that I would never be able to support a family on my current wage if I decided I wanted one. I enrolled into university after sitting a high school equivalency test.
I was fired from my work as they didn't want an adult employee that could only work highschooler hours.
As a result I was trapped on government benefits of $10k a year, which needed to cover my books, rent, food, power and internet.
I managed to scrape through and get a degree with those benefits. I not earn alot more and am more capable of supporting a family.
Some key points as to why I don't think these should be increased.
1. It was the lack of government money that inspired me to study harder, that having benefits meant having a shit life and it gave me inspiration to study more.
2. Rich people (though people hate them) worked hard to get where they are, if they need to pay extra tax dollars to go to the uninspired then its just wasted money.
3. Current benefits are so low and are designed that way in order to make people on benefits want to go out and achieve something, instead of living comfortably and never doing anything.
Please keep in mind that I'm not against government benefits for the poor, just that the rich and the government don't owe them a single dollar more than they are currently getting.
That if poor people really want to get out of the hole, they are more than capable of getting themselves out in the current first world.
A majority of today's billionaires were born from the lower and middle classes, only showing that the absence of money in their homes attributed to their overall growth in society, not only that, but that it is a perfectly achievable feat for someone that is poor to change their lives around.
It grinds my gears when I overhear lazy poor people bitch and moan about the rich like someone they've never met has done them a disservice and owes them something because they chose to work hard while everyone else sat around.
I'm not a rich man, but I now earn a decent salary for my age (above average). However, it was being poor that motivated me, that having additional benefits would have made me more comfortable and never pushed me in a direction to change 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: Poor people don't need any more help than they already get (In first world countries). Hey everyone,
I thought it was very important to post some information about why I have this view, always, since before I was a teenager. Despite the fact that I have been momentarily homeless and earning under 10k PA for 3 years of my adult life. I've been told my view is a bit heartless and I'd like to see someone challenge my thought process to a degree that would have me question my morals or even change my view on the topic.
I grew up in a poor home, single mother, 3 kids. We usually got what we wanted for the most part and I never felt like I went without.
Skip to 15, I dropped out of highschool. I played video games until I was 17.
18, got a job at a bakery and worked there until I was 20.
At 20 I realized that I would never be able to support a family on my current wage if I decided I wanted one. I enrolled into university after sitting a high school equivalency test.
I was fired from my work as they didn't want an adult employee that could only work highschooler hours.
As a result I was trapped on government benefits of $10k a year, which needed to cover my books, rent, food, power and internet.
I managed to scrape through and get a degree with those benefits. I not earn alot more and am more capable of supporting a family.
Some key points as to why I don't think these should be increased.
1. It was the lack of government money that inspired me to study harder, that having benefits meant having a shit life and it gave me inspiration to study more.
2. Rich people (though people hate them) worked hard to get where they are, if they need to pay extra tax dollars to go to the uninspired then its just wasted money.
3. Current benefits are so low and are designed that way in order to make people on benefits want to go out and achieve something, instead of living comfortably and never doing anything.
Please keep in mind that I'm not against government benefits for the poor, just that the rich and the government don't owe them a single dollar more than they are currently getting.
That if poor people really want to get out of the hole, they are more than capable of getting themselves out in the current first world.
A majority of today's billionaires were born from the lower and middle classes, only showing that the absence of money in their homes attributed to their overall growth in society, not only that, but that it is a perfectly achievable feat for someone that is poor to change their lives around.
It grinds my gears when I overhear lazy poor people bitch and moan about the rich like someone they've never met has done them a disservice and owes them something because they chose to work hard while everyone else sat around.
I'm not a rich man, but I now earn a decent salary for my age (above average). However, it was being poor that motivated me, that having additional benefits would have made me more comfortable and never pushed me in a direction to change my life.
|
t3_6obg8k | CMV: Alcohol advertising shouldn't be legal | Alcohol, just like cigarettes, negatively impacts society and public health significantly, resulting in loss of life, antisocial behavior, and many other ills at no social benefit.
In countries with public healthcare systems, alcohol usage contributes to higher overall strain on said systems and the available resources, just as cigarettes do.
Alcohol is addictive and damaging, and is sometimes considered a factor in perpetutating antisocial behavior including but not limited to - sexual assault, drunk driving and domestic abuse.
Thus, advertising encouraging consumption of alcohol should be banned to limit consumption and harm caused by said consumption. | CMV: Alcohol advertising shouldn't be legal. Alcohol, just like cigarettes, negatively impacts society and public health significantly, resulting in loss of life, antisocial behavior, and many other ills at no social benefit.
In countries with public healthcare systems, alcohol usage contributes to higher overall strain on said systems and the available resources, just as cigarettes do.
Alcohol is addictive and damaging, and is sometimes considered a factor in perpetutating antisocial behavior including but not limited to - sexual assault, drunk driving and domestic abuse.
Thus, advertising encouraging consumption of alcohol should be banned to limit consumption and harm caused by said consumption. |
t3_2eymdz | CMV: "Never bully back" is a terrible and stupid advice for bullied people | If one doesn't eat the shark, it doesn't mean that the shark will be equally nice to you and choose not to eat you. Chickens are such good animals - they've never really killed and ate any member of our species, but we humans still eat them. So even if one is nice to their bully, they shouldn't expect them to return with the same behavior. So I strongly feel to combat bullying, the bullied needs to bully back.
I've been both both sides before, the bullied and the bully. Frankly speaking, it's not really nice to be on both sides but being a bully feels better than being bullied. Neutrality is often not a choice if the class has a bunch of hostile people in it and teachers are useless in stopping the bullying, so in order to stop bullying, one must rise in power in order to enforce the idea of neutrality for both parties.
This is shown and played before in history as well - you can be a leader of a country who worship peace and never get into conflict with other countries...but ho ho ho!~ What should you do if you meet someone like Hitler? Don't fight back to his invading army?
The choice is simple. Either you can get hurt terribly by the bully, or you fight back with all your might to stop the bullying. Find other parties who have been bullied and bully in numbers and form a group to combat the bullies' hostility.
> *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: "Never bully back" is a terrible and stupid advice for bullied people. If one doesn't eat the shark, it doesn't mean that the shark will be equally nice to you and choose not to eat you. Chickens are such good animals - they've never really killed and ate any member of our species, but we humans still eat them. So even if one is nice to their bully, they shouldn't expect them to return with the same behavior. So I strongly feel to combat bullying, the bullied needs to bully back.
I've been both both sides before, the bullied and the bully. Frankly speaking, it's not really nice to be on both sides but being a bully feels better than being bullied. Neutrality is often not a choice if the class has a bunch of hostile people in it and teachers are useless in stopping the bullying, so in order to stop bullying, one must rise in power in order to enforce the idea of neutrality for both parties.
This is shown and played before in history as well - you can be a leader of a country who worship peace and never get into conflict with other countries...but ho ho ho!~ What should you do if you meet someone like Hitler? Don't fight back to his invading army?
The choice is simple. Either you can get hurt terribly by the bully, or you fight back with all your might to stop the bullying. Find other parties who have been bullied and bully in numbers and form a group to combat the bullies' hostility.
> *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_2o7rct | CMV: There are no paradoxes, only false premises. | If we have two accepted propositions that under a certain set of conditions contradict eachother, then either one of them isn't true, or something we assume about either of them, or (most crucially) our one of our assumptions about the nature of reality, isn't true. In any case, all we have is a false premise. Paradoxes are great though since they're red flags for false premises, and we can do a little mental housecleaning each time we get into one of them.
So yes paradoxes exist in the sense of "yea so there's all these thought exercises that people call paradoxes which are super useful in alerting us to false premises", there isn't anything in essence about reality or any quality or phenomenon therein, as far as I'm aware, which is it's own, self-contained gordion contradiction...and IMHO everything we've come to discover so far point to a universe where we'd be mistaken to expect to find any. Paradoxes are just these cool thought exercises some humans came up with over time and whatnot.
CMV!
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: There are no paradoxes, only false premises. If we have two accepted propositions that under a certain set of conditions contradict eachother, then either one of them isn't true, or something we assume about either of them, or (most crucially) our one of our assumptions about the nature of reality, isn't true. In any case, all we have is a false premise. Paradoxes are great though since they're red flags for false premises, and we can do a little mental housecleaning each time we get into one of them.
So yes paradoxes exist in the sense of "yea so there's all these thought exercises that people call paradoxes which are super useful in alerting us to false premises", there isn't anything in essence about reality or any quality or phenomenon therein, as far as I'm aware, which is it's own, self-contained gordion contradiction...and IMHO everything we've come to discover so far point to a universe where we'd be mistaken to expect to find any. Paradoxes are just these cool thought exercises some humans came up with over time and whatnot.
CMV! |
t3_1v9a9o | I don't believe that different strains of pot have significantly different effects like "up" or "down". CMV. | First a bit of background. I went to school before the dispensaries and the mainstreaming of medical weed. I smoked a lot of pot, and had a lot of fun. Back then pot was pot, you got it from someone you knew and it didn't come with a label. Some of it was really good, and some of it was schwag.
Unfortunately the effects have somewhat turned on me, and pot now often makes me anxious and insecure feeling. Nowadays you hear a lot of stoners sound off: "oh no. THIS strain gives you energy and laughter and no paranoia. This strain gives you creative inspiration. THIS strain makes you tired blah blah blah". They get very specific, and start talking about individual strains (Purple Haze. Sour Deisel. etc) as if they are wholly distinct highs that any connoisseur could identify. All of it sounds like absurdly exaggerated pseudoscience to me. Any time I smoke somebody's pot that's supposed to feel a certain way, it just feels like being stoned. I feel that I've smoked far too many times to not be able to tell such drastic differences.
I am willing to believe in very different highs. Like I said, there's definitely a difference between old brown schwag and fresh, well grown bright green and purple buds. But that's more a quality difference. I know that people's reactions are all different, and can evolve dramatically through time - like me unfortunately :(. Obviously I know that the MORE you smoke in one session, the effects get way more intense and new effects can arise.
I am not convinced that there are considerable, consistent, demonstrable differences between the individual strains that would supersede these other factors enough to warrant all the claims, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise (I'd love to laugh at everything again). CMV! | I don't believe that different strains of pot have significantly different effects like "up" or "down". CMV. First a bit of background. I went to school before the dispensaries and the mainstreaming of medical weed. I smoked a lot of pot, and had a lot of fun. Back then pot was pot, you got it from someone you knew and it didn't come with a label. Some of it was really good, and some of it was schwag.
Unfortunately the effects have somewhat turned on me, and pot now often makes me anxious and insecure feeling. Nowadays you hear a lot of stoners sound off: "oh no. THIS strain gives you energy and laughter and no paranoia. This strain gives you creative inspiration. THIS strain makes you tired blah blah blah". They get very specific, and start talking about individual strains (Purple Haze. Sour Deisel. etc) as if they are wholly distinct highs that any connoisseur could identify. All of it sounds like absurdly exaggerated pseudoscience to me. Any time I smoke somebody's pot that's supposed to feel a certain way, it just feels like being stoned. I feel that I've smoked far too many times to not be able to tell such drastic differences.
I am willing to believe in very different highs. Like I said, there's definitely a difference between old brown schwag and fresh, well grown bright green and purple buds. But that's more a quality difference. I know that people's reactions are all different, and can evolve dramatically through time - like me unfortunately :(. Obviously I know that the MORE you smoke in one session, the effects get way more intense and new effects can arise.
I am not convinced that there are considerable, consistent, demonstrable differences between the individual strains that would supersede these other factors enough to warrant all the claims, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise (I'd love to laugh at everything again). CMV! |
t3_2j1wy0 | CMV:The PG-13 rating results in films that are less appropriate for 10-20 year olds then R rated films | [In the United States, the MPAA rates movies G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17.](http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/film_ratings1.jpg) The rating of R is indicates that the movie contains adult content that is inappropriate for some teenagers, whereas PG-13 movies are appropriate for teens.
PG-13 movies often contain violence and sexual content. However, what distinguishes them from R movies is that this content is often toned down or implied but not shown. Violence is often [bloodless](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodlessCarnage), stylized, or perpetrated against [non-human](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MechaMooks) or [de-humanized villains](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GasMaskMooks). Sex is played for laughs, or [heavily implied before the scene jumps ahead several hours](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexyDiscretionShot).
This sterilization of violence and sex trivializes both. Because of this separating of serious actions from their consequences, PG-13 movies are much more inappropriate for younger audiences then R rated films that are free to show these acts in their totality. For example, a James Bond film, with it's bloodless gunplay, is not likely to impress on a younger audience the consequences of using deadly force to solve every problem. Whereas a film like Kill Bill (which has much more and much bloodier violence then a Bond movie) is better at showing the consequences of such behavior ***because*** it engages with these ideas in a non-steralized way.
Adults who watch a James Bond film can easily distinguish between this PG-13 violence and the real act, and can enjoy the movie as a fun, murderous romp. Young people however are far more likely to mistake the sex and violence as identical, or at least similar to real life, and because these PG-13 acts are consequence free, jump to the wrong conclusions. Given this, the consequence free approach to adult issues shown in PG-13 movies is inappropriate and in fact worse then the full uncensored R rated treatment, for the target audience.
Notes:
1. I probably could have used scare quotes on "adult issues", but I think its silly and I hope everyone understands what is meant without them.
2. I'm not arguing that this problem is universal. There are many PG-13 movies and R movies who's ratings correspond to their appropriate demographic. (Super 8 and Requiem for a Dream come to mind)
3. My point is not that sex and violence are inappropriate in a PG-13 film, or the much argued "Americans have it backwards to Europeans with sex and violence in media". It is that the "more child friendly" ways that are used to present these issues are in fact not child friendly in any way, and far more damaging to children then the "adult only" approaches. (Those damn scare quotes again.)
_____
> *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 PG-13 rating results in films that are less appropriate for 10-20 year olds then R rated films. [In the United States, the MPAA rates movies G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17.](http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/film_ratings1.jpg) The rating of R is indicates that the movie contains adult content that is inappropriate for some teenagers, whereas PG-13 movies are appropriate for teens.
PG-13 movies often contain violence and sexual content. However, what distinguishes them from R movies is that this content is often toned down or implied but not shown. Violence is often [bloodless](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodlessCarnage), stylized, or perpetrated against [non-human](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MechaMooks) or [de-humanized villains](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GasMaskMooks). Sex is played for laughs, or [heavily implied before the scene jumps ahead several hours](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexyDiscretionShot).
This sterilization of violence and sex trivializes both. Because of this separating of serious actions from their consequences, PG-13 movies are much more inappropriate for younger audiences then R rated films that are free to show these acts in their totality. For example, a James Bond film, with it's bloodless gunplay, is not likely to impress on a younger audience the consequences of using deadly force to solve every problem. Whereas a film like Kill Bill (which has much more and much bloodier violence then a Bond movie) is better at showing the consequences of such behavior ***because*** it engages with these ideas in a non-steralized way.
Adults who watch a James Bond film can easily distinguish between this PG-13 violence and the real act, and can enjoy the movie as a fun, murderous romp. Young people however are far more likely to mistake the sex and violence as identical, or at least similar to real life, and because these PG-13 acts are consequence free, jump to the wrong conclusions. Given this, the consequence free approach to adult issues shown in PG-13 movies is inappropriate and in fact worse then the full uncensored R rated treatment, for the target audience.
Notes:
1. I probably could have used scare quotes on "adult issues", but I think its silly and I hope everyone understands what is meant without them.
2. I'm not arguing that this problem is universal. There are many PG-13 movies and R movies who's ratings correspond to their appropriate demographic. (Super 8 and Requiem for a Dream come to mind)
3. My point is not that sex and violence are inappropriate in a PG-13 film, or the much argued "Americans have it backwards to Europeans with sex and violence in media". It is that the "more child friendly" ways that are used to present these issues are in fact not child friendly in any way, and far more damaging to children then the "adult only" approaches. (Those damn scare quotes again.)
|
t3_1b8lpd | I am against "hate" crime legislation. CMV | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States
I believe that hate crime legislation is the state punishing a person for the way they think. Something that I believe is against the principles of the United States. Why should assualt of one group of people carry a greater weight then that of another? I am opposed to violence and prejudice, but I believe this is a flawed solution to the problem of hate groups.
(Also, I have read the very wiki article I supplied above so simply reciting those arguments won't convince me) | I am against "hate" crime legislation. CMV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States
I believe that hate crime legislation is the state punishing a person for the way they think. Something that I believe is against the principles of the United States. Why should assualt of one group of people carry a greater weight then that of another? I am opposed to violence and prejudice, but I believe this is a flawed solution to the problem of hate groups.
(Also, I have read the very wiki article I supplied above so simply reciting those arguments won't convince me) |
t3_549bru | CMV:A full Irish breakfast is the breakfast of champions with no equal | There are many competitors in the western world for the king of breakfasts but the full Irish rises above all.
There is an old motto that says “Eat breakfast like a King, lunch like a prince and dine like a pauper” meaning it is wise to start the day with a large cooked breakfast. Such a motto could very much be applied to the traditional full Irish Breakfast.
Here is a link for a visual:
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-top-ten-essentials-for-a-traditional-irish-breakfast-sausages-rashers-tea-and-more-170693166-237787401
Lets break it down:
1. Irish sausage – an amalgamation of freshly-ground beef or pork, seasoned with spices and layered with rusk – has cooked in the frying pans of households for centuries. Butchers fill collagen casings or pig intestines with the seasoned meat, whose mild and zesty flavor caters to palettes that routinely disfavor piquant foods.
How to cook: link, pan or oven, until golden brown or slightly-burnt.
2. Irish bacon, or rashers, refers typically to a cut of cured pork loin. Butcher shops inject it with a salt-based rind, and allow the loin to soak in a barrel for two to three days. An alternative – streaky bacon – uses a cut along the pig’s belly, or slab.
How to cook: slice, pan or oven, until golden brown.
3. Black pudding, or blood pudding, is a unique blend of blood, pork, rusk and seasonings; white pudding replaces blood with liver, though it remains similar in almost every other way. Puddings are blanched previously.
How to cook: slice, pan or oven, until crispy.
4. A fried egg also proves to be an essential for a traditional Irish breakfast.
How to cook: egg white and yolk, pan, until fried or scrambled.
5. Certain parts of Northern Ireland eat vegetable roll – a blend of seasoned beef, carrots, leeks and onions – as a part of the Ulster Fry.
How to cook: slice, pan, until crispy.
6. Baked beans – a collection of navy beans stewed inside a tomato sauce – can be purchased at local grocery stores from companies such as Batchelors or Heinz.
How to cook: tin, pot or microwave, until hot.
7. Potato farls, soda farls and boxty are three griddle breads that often complement a traditional Irish breakfast. The square-shaped potato farls use cooked potatoes, flour and salt. Boxty resembles a pancake, and uses raw potatoes.
How to cook: slice, pan, until golden brown.
8. Fried mushrooms and tomatoes, salted for flavor, provide an interesting balance to the generous meat portions.
How to cook: slice, pan, until brown.
9. Brown bread, a frequent staple of Saint Patrick’s Day celebrations in the U.S., tastes great with butter, jam or marmalade.
How to prepare: slice, plate, until sufficiently topped with butter, jam or marmalade.
10. A cup of hot, freshly-brewed tea washes down the considerable breakfast, and delivers a dose of caffeine to start one’s day.
Now,I hear you guys saying 'but hey the English breakfast' is basically the same!! well yes and no. Irish breakfasts typically include WHITE pudding as well as black pudding and the black pudding has less roughage and fat inside and more meaty bloody goodness instead.
The Irish breakfast not only balances everything well...hot heavy meat with warm butter and spongey carby bread, the tea and orange juice offsetting each other and cutting into the heavynes of the meal, its also a great hangover cure.
I defy you to come up with a superior breakfast!
_____
> *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 full Irish breakfast is the breakfast of champions with no equal. There are many competitors in the western world for the king of breakfasts but the full Irish rises above all.
There is an old motto that says “Eat breakfast like a King, lunch like a prince and dine like a pauper” meaning it is wise to start the day with a large cooked breakfast. Such a motto could very much be applied to the traditional full Irish Breakfast.
Here is a link for a visual:
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-top-ten-essentials-for-a-traditional-irish-breakfast-sausages-rashers-tea-and-more-170693166-237787401
Lets break it down:
1. Irish sausage – an amalgamation of freshly-ground beef or pork, seasoned with spices and layered with rusk – has cooked in the frying pans of households for centuries. Butchers fill collagen casings or pig intestines with the seasoned meat, whose mild and zesty flavor caters to palettes that routinely disfavor piquant foods.
How to cook: link, pan or oven, until golden brown or slightly-burnt.
2. Irish bacon, or rashers, refers typically to a cut of cured pork loin. Butcher shops inject it with a salt-based rind, and allow the loin to soak in a barrel for two to three days. An alternative – streaky bacon – uses a cut along the pig’s belly, or slab.
How to cook: slice, pan or oven, until golden brown.
3. Black pudding, or blood pudding, is a unique blend of blood, pork, rusk and seasonings; white pudding replaces blood with liver, though it remains similar in almost every other way. Puddings are blanched previously.
How to cook: slice, pan or oven, until crispy.
4. A fried egg also proves to be an essential for a traditional Irish breakfast.
How to cook: egg white and yolk, pan, until fried or scrambled.
5. Certain parts of Northern Ireland eat vegetable roll – a blend of seasoned beef, carrots, leeks and onions – as a part of the Ulster Fry.
How to cook: slice, pan, until crispy.
6. Baked beans – a collection of navy beans stewed inside a tomato sauce – can be purchased at local grocery stores from companies such as Batchelors or Heinz.
How to cook: tin, pot or microwave, until hot.
7. Potato farls, soda farls and boxty are three griddle breads that often complement a traditional Irish breakfast. The square-shaped potato farls use cooked potatoes, flour and salt. Boxty resembles a pancake, and uses raw potatoes.
How to cook: slice, pan, until golden brown.
8. Fried mushrooms and tomatoes, salted for flavor, provide an interesting balance to the generous meat portions.
How to cook: slice, pan, until brown.
9. Brown bread, a frequent staple of Saint Patrick’s Day celebrations in the U.S., tastes great with butter, jam or marmalade.
How to prepare: slice, plate, until sufficiently topped with butter, jam or marmalade.
10. A cup of hot, freshly-brewed tea washes down the considerable breakfast, and delivers a dose of caffeine to start one’s day.
Now,I hear you guys saying 'but hey the English breakfast' is basically the same!! well yes and no. Irish breakfasts typically include WHITE pudding as well as black pudding and the black pudding has less roughage and fat inside and more meaty bloody goodness instead.
The Irish breakfast not only balances everything well...hot heavy meat with warm butter and spongey carby bread, the tea and orange juice offsetting each other and cutting into the heavynes of the meal, its also a great hangover cure.
I defy you to come up with a superior breakfast! |
t3_4xnx86 | CMV: There is a spectrum of two genders, you can be anywhere you want but there are no others. | This always baffles me when people say there are more than 2 genders. I don't get it. Yes, I get that you can be a feminine male or a masculine female or that you want to change your gender. But I don't think anything else exists. I also don't get the whole "transgender" thing. I thought the whole point of being transgender was to change your gender, not to go through life marked as transgender. If you want to be a woman, be a woman or the other way around. You're not transgender, you are the gender you choose to be.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: There is a spectrum of two genders, you can be anywhere you want but there are no others. This always baffles me when people say there are more than 2 genders. I don't get it. Yes, I get that you can be a feminine male or a masculine female or that you want to change your gender. But I don't think anything else exists. I also don't get the whole "transgender" thing. I thought the whole point of being transgender was to change your gender, not to go through life marked as transgender. If you want to be a woman, be a woman or the other way around. You're not transgender, you are the gender you choose to be.
|
t3_1e68op | I believe that SJW's are the most obnoxious, hate-able people in the world and they genuinely do more harm than good with their pretentious sanctimony. | Okay so here's the straw that broke this camel's back-
So I was with my girlfriend and her two friends the other night and they were all being catty about these other two girls who were total bitches and made them stop wanting to be their friends anymore.
So I met these two girls only a handful of times but I wanted to feel included so I said "Yeah, and Katie kinda looks like a man" (dead ringer. Hugh Laurie.)
And Joanna stops dead, mid bitchfest, to scold me. She got two things out before I saw the futility of her "superior morality" and changed the subject:
* Its really bad to imply that girls are only pretty when they look feminine.
(My hot girlfriend strives for androgyny)
And what's worse
* I know a lot of trans people and that's really offensive.
So I immediately latched onto the second and said "I'll bet a million dollars I know more trans people than you, as if that gives me any authority on anything. How many LGBTA clubs were YOU a member of?" (Hint- her zero to my two)
And that just frustrates me to no end. Whenever you meet a Social Justice Warrior, your experience is always negative, they're always hostile, closed minded, condescending, and very punchable.
Now, name your group: Muslims, LGBT, depressed people, women, men, mentally challenged people, and so on:
They're nearly all pretty cool, or at the very least, generally just regular people.
But you meet an SJW "standing up for them" and you now have some very negative opinions and feelings attached, not to anyone in the group, but someone who claims to speak for them. And that's absolutely counterproductive.
So many groups would be so much better off if privileged college girls (gasp! I picked a gender! Better lock in on that one word out of the thousand I wrote...) just kept their big victim complex mouths shut.
I'd be so much more pc if "those people" weren't the embassadors to groups they aren't actually a part of.
Edit: Also- later, she literally said (without even attempting a segue)
> I think all men accused of rape should be castrated.
And my immediate response was "I hope you mean convicted, and I agree- female rapists should get forcible hysterectomies!"
And she shut right the fuck up. | I believe that SJW's are the most obnoxious, hate-able people in the world and they genuinely do more harm than good with their pretentious sanctimony. Okay so here's the straw that broke this camel's back-
So I was with my girlfriend and her two friends the other night and they were all being catty about these other two girls who were total bitches and made them stop wanting to be their friends anymore.
So I met these two girls only a handful of times but I wanted to feel included so I said "Yeah, and Katie kinda looks like a man" (dead ringer. Hugh Laurie.)
And Joanna stops dead, mid bitchfest, to scold me. She got two things out before I saw the futility of her "superior morality" and changed the subject:
* Its really bad to imply that girls are only pretty when they look feminine.
(My hot girlfriend strives for androgyny)
And what's worse
* I know a lot of trans people and that's really offensive.
So I immediately latched onto the second and said "I'll bet a million dollars I know more trans people than you, as if that gives me any authority on anything. How many LGBTA clubs were YOU a member of?" (Hint- her zero to my two)
And that just frustrates me to no end. Whenever you meet a Social Justice Warrior, your experience is always negative, they're always hostile, closed minded, condescending, and very punchable.
Now, name your group: Muslims, LGBT, depressed people, women, men, mentally challenged people, and so on:
They're nearly all pretty cool, or at the very least, generally just regular people.
But you meet an SJW "standing up for them" and you now have some very negative opinions and feelings attached, not to anyone in the group, but someone who claims to speak for them. And that's absolutely counterproductive.
So many groups would be so much better off if privileged college girls (gasp! I picked a gender! Better lock in on that one word out of the thousand I wrote...) just kept their big victim complex mouths shut.
I'd be so much more pc if "those people" weren't the embassadors to groups they aren't actually a part of.
Edit: Also- later, she literally said (without even attempting a segue)
> I think all men accused of rape should be castrated.
And my immediate response was "I hope you mean convicted, and I agree- female rapists should get forcible hysterectomies!"
And she shut right the fuck up. |
t3_1er9ac | I don't think people should think they are special. CMV | Grown ups constantly tell kids that they are "special". A snowflake. They can do anything they put their mind to because they're just that special.
However in reality they aren't.
From the ground up we're all just star dusts and the tiny differences that separates us doesn't really justify feeling SO special.
I think it gives kids a unrealistic view of themselves. Thinking that they are the next superstar. The next Justin Bieber or whatever kids want to be.
This leads to self-entitlement throughout their youth and when reality finally sets in sometime in their 20s, usually late 20s, they get a quarter life crisis because they are "only" normal. They haven't achieved fame, cured cancer or anything. They are ordinary and that is bad..very bad because they've been taught all their lives that they need to be special.
I am all for instilling self confidence in kids, but one can do that without telling them that they are sooo special and unique and superawesome without ever having done shit.
In reality 99% of people aren't special. They are replacable ants in the bigger scheme of things. Maybe 1/100 will actually do something that is extraordinary in their life and maybe 1/100 is very different, but most of us are really just flowing in the collective wind so to speak.
Another percieved side effect of this mentality is that they exclude themselves from feeling like they belong. Because they think they are so special they think their problems are special too and noone could possibly relate or help them.
| I don't think people should think they are special. CMV. Grown ups constantly tell kids that they are "special". A snowflake. They can do anything they put their mind to because they're just that special.
However in reality they aren't.
From the ground up we're all just star dusts and the tiny differences that separates us doesn't really justify feeling SO special.
I think it gives kids a unrealistic view of themselves. Thinking that they are the next superstar. The next Justin Bieber or whatever kids want to be.
This leads to self-entitlement throughout their youth and when reality finally sets in sometime in their 20s, usually late 20s, they get a quarter life crisis because they are "only" normal. They haven't achieved fame, cured cancer or anything. They are ordinary and that is bad..very bad because they've been taught all their lives that they need to be special.
I am all for instilling self confidence in kids, but one can do that without telling them that they are sooo special and unique and superawesome without ever having done shit.
In reality 99% of people aren't special. They are replacable ants in the bigger scheme of things. Maybe 1/100 will actually do something that is extraordinary in their life and maybe 1/100 is very different, but most of us are really just flowing in the collective wind so to speak.
Another percieved side effect of this mentality is that they exclude themselves from feeling like they belong. Because they think they are so special they think their problems are special too and noone could possibly relate or help them.
|
t3_6pcbfk | CMV: Almost nobody actually wants you to be yourself. It is a lie they tell you and themselves to feel good about themselves. | I have been thinking about this one on and off for a few years now and I think it is about time I have a proper debate on it and get some more viewpoints. People do not want you to be yourself at all, they want you to fit in a narrowly defined socially acceptable version of "yourself" and the only "weird" that is allowed is the socially acceptable forms of it. People say this is untrue but they constantly show it to me with their actions. It is merely a lie they tell themselves to feel like they are good people without doing any of the work of actually taking that advice to hear. Now I do not mean this in a judgmental way, just as an observation. Here is an easy lump of proof: let's say I think eating bugs is perfectly acceptable. I would not eat them raw just like I would not eat raw meat, but a nice worm burger does not sound like a bad idea to me. Are you disgusted? I am sure many of you if I did this in the break-room at your work would ask me to stop, but yet there is not one rational reason to as bug meat is provably safer than regular meat (and probably healthier than regular meat). Now not to detract from the argument too much with this example (it is just an example, one of many and I see similar examples happen to other people all the time who do things I am not particularly fond of myself but feel I have no right to judge) this is proof that most people do not at all want people to be themselves because who they are makes them uncomfortable which gives them the right to judge and dislike others... apparently, but I am sure if you asked them they would go right ahead and say everybody should just be themselves. It is merely a hypocritical cliche statement that society has adopted but very few ever take to heart.
So there you have it. Change my view Reddit. I am eager to see more viewpoints on this.
EDIT 1: thank you all for taking the time to discuss with me as I do my best to be patient. It is time I sleep but I will be back to answer more responses tomorrow.
EDIT 2: thank you all for your time I feel this has helped me expand my view a little further but also feel there is more that could be said and discussed. I will continue to respond to posts here and try to get back with 24 hours at least.
_____
> *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: Almost nobody actually wants you to be yourself. It is a lie they tell you and themselves to feel good about themselves. I have been thinking about this one on and off for a few years now and I think it is about time I have a proper debate on it and get some more viewpoints. People do not want you to be yourself at all, they want you to fit in a narrowly defined socially acceptable version of "yourself" and the only "weird" that is allowed is the socially acceptable forms of it. People say this is untrue but they constantly show it to me with their actions. It is merely a lie they tell themselves to feel like they are good people without doing any of the work of actually taking that advice to hear. Now I do not mean this in a judgmental way, just as an observation. Here is an easy lump of proof: let's say I think eating bugs is perfectly acceptable. I would not eat them raw just like I would not eat raw meat, but a nice worm burger does not sound like a bad idea to me. Are you disgusted? I am sure many of you if I did this in the break-room at your work would ask me to stop, but yet there is not one rational reason to as bug meat is provably safer than regular meat (and probably healthier than regular meat). Now not to detract from the argument too much with this example (it is just an example, one of many and I see similar examples happen to other people all the time who do things I am not particularly fond of myself but feel I have no right to judge) this is proof that most people do not at all want people to be themselves because who they are makes them uncomfortable which gives them the right to judge and dislike others... apparently, but I am sure if you asked them they would go right ahead and say everybody should just be themselves. It is merely a hypocritical cliche statement that society has adopted but very few ever take to heart.
So there you have it. Change my view Reddit. I am eager to see more viewpoints on this.
EDIT 1: thank you all for taking the time to discuss with me as I do my best to be patient. It is time I sleep but I will be back to answer more responses tomorrow.
EDIT 2: thank you all for your time I feel this has helped me expand my view a little further but also feel there is more that could be said and discussed. I will continue to respond to posts here and try to get back with 24 hours at least.
|
t3_45d8w8 | CMV: Trevor Noah was a really bad pick to replace Jon Stewart and the show should have gone to one of the other comedians who worked on the show. | If Trevor really went after the American political system the way Stewart did I believe many Americans would be further put off by him. Some people will bring up Jon Oliver but I believe he gets a pass because fort years he didn't have to be THE voice of the tonight show and did many non political easy to get on board with ideas before his more scathing and humorous bits.
He just isn't relevant to American politics. He references apartheid often which has very little weight with most millennials. He doesn't share American millennial life experiences and it shows in his comedy. He uses outdated material or easy punch lines instead of strong scathing political satire. I don't need another dick joke. Stewart would sometimes aim low but it would be a break instead of the norm.
The last thing is the show seems to be heavily hitting on racism so much so that he covers bottom barrel racism stories instead of actual news. Tonight's show had a segment about a Denny's asking a group of black people to pay their 83 dollar Denny's bill between two people in advance because they had a problem with people ordering large meals and not paying. It wasn't a funny take on it. The punch line is that black people are so oppressed they have to save the race card for real issues.
____
> *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: Trevor Noah was a really bad pick to replace Jon Stewart and the show should have gone to one of the other comedians who worked on the show. If Trevor really went after the American political system the way Stewart did I believe many Americans would be further put off by him. Some people will bring up Jon Oliver but I believe he gets a pass because fort years he didn't have to be THE voice of the tonight show and did many non political easy to get on board with ideas before his more scathing and humorous bits.
He just isn't relevant to American politics. He references apartheid often which has very little weight with most millennials. He doesn't share American millennial life experiences and it shows in his comedy. He uses outdated material or easy punch lines instead of strong scathing political satire. I don't need another dick joke. Stewart would sometimes aim low but it would be a break instead of the norm.
The last thing is the show seems to be heavily hitting on racism so much so that he covers bottom barrel racism stories instead of actual news. Tonight's show had a segment about a Denny's asking a group of black people to pay their 83 dollar Denny's bill between two people in advance because they had a problem with people ordering large meals and not paying. It wasn't a funny take on it. The punch line is that black people are so oppressed they have to save the race card for real issues.
____
> *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_3a3s2o | CMV: I'm having a hard time time seeing a functional difference between trans-ethnic and trans-gender. | Apologies in advance, as I'm sure this topic has been done to death in light of recent events. I read a few of the posts and they really didn't do anything to help my confusion. Viscerally, I feel like the two **are** different things and should be treated as such, but every argument I'm seeing seems to fall flat for me and I'm left with the default position: the two are functionally equivalent.
The primary argument I've read against my view is that there are biological differences between how men and women are wired mentally. However, most of the papers I've read on the matter are based on [population studies](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011) that tease out group differences from large and varying datasets. Brains aren't monolithic things that are all one way or another - for that matter, new neuronal connections and pathways can be influenced by surroundings, behavior and a host of other factors. If [where you live can determine whether or not you develop schizophrenia](http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/4/795.full.pdf&), then it's quite possible that growing up with black siblings can subtely affect the brain connections of a white girl from Montana. Stepping back though, why should empirically-observable differences 'legitimize' obvious differences in behavior? Our understanding of brain physiology is nowhere near precise enough to give us a 1:1 correlation between behaviors and biochemistry, and even if it were, it's not clear to me at all that someone's behavior should be invalidated because it doesn't map to our limited biological understanding.
Another argument I read differentiated gender as an individualistic identity and ethnicity as a group identity. I like the thought, but just like brains, black identity isn't a monolithic thing. For every Rachel Dolezal - there are likely thousands of non-black people living in predominantly black neighborhoods, developing identities not terribly different from the black people they most often interact with - your Eminems, to use a terrible example. Saying lack of pigment invalidates that identity seems functionally identical to saying lack of a particular sex-characteristic invalidates a gender identity.
Feel free to point me to a discussion, if you don't want to rehash this. I'm pretty open to having my mind changed on this one, as my feelings seem to be in disagreement with my reasoning.
_____
> *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'm having a hard time time seeing a functional difference between trans-ethnic and trans-gender. Apologies in advance, as I'm sure this topic has been done to death in light of recent events. I read a few of the posts and they really didn't do anything to help my confusion. Viscerally, I feel like the two **are** different things and should be treated as such, but every argument I'm seeing seems to fall flat for me and I'm left with the default position: the two are functionally equivalent.
The primary argument I've read against my view is that there are biological differences between how men and women are wired mentally. However, most of the papers I've read on the matter are based on [population studies](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011) that tease out group differences from large and varying datasets. Brains aren't monolithic things that are all one way or another - for that matter, new neuronal connections and pathways can be influenced by surroundings, behavior and a host of other factors. If [where you live can determine whether or not you develop schizophrenia](http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/4/795.full.pdf&), then it's quite possible that growing up with black siblings can subtely affect the brain connections of a white girl from Montana. Stepping back though, why should empirically-observable differences 'legitimize' obvious differences in behavior? Our understanding of brain physiology is nowhere near precise enough to give us a 1:1 correlation between behaviors and biochemistry, and even if it were, it's not clear to me at all that someone's behavior should be invalidated because it doesn't map to our limited biological understanding.
Another argument I read differentiated gender as an individualistic identity and ethnicity as a group identity. I like the thought, but just like brains, black identity isn't a monolithic thing. For every Rachel Dolezal - there are likely thousands of non-black people living in predominantly black neighborhoods, developing identities not terribly different from the black people they most often interact with - your Eminems, to use a terrible example. Saying lack of pigment invalidates that identity seems functionally identical to saying lack of a particular sex-characteristic invalidates a gender identity.
Feel free to point me to a discussion, if you don't want to rehash this. I'm pretty open to having my mind changed on this one, as my feelings seem to be in disagreement with my reasoning.
|
t3_3v5nhh | CMV: I believe that the European Union cannot be reformed and the best option for its constituent countries is to break away from it. | From my studies of the European Union and its law, I have come to the conclusion that the Union, as it currently exists, is detrimental to the economies of small nations in the EU, such as Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, etc. While the EU has allowed for significant economic growth in some nations through subsidies, it has also stifled the fishing industry in Ireland. Granted, the EU Fisheries Policy does seem to have environmental impacts in mind, but it does not provide for the income which fishing communities have lost since the introductions of quotas.
The European Union's executive and legislative bodies are also particularly unhealthy to all nations and quickly need to be reformed. However, as the European Commission holds the most power, compared to the power of the European Parliament and the European Council, we are unlikely to see any form of change. The Commission is unelected, with representatives of various countries being chosen by the Governments of these countries. This occurs regardless of popular opinion and a commissioner may be sent who is overwhelmingly unpopular. The Commission seems like an eerie gathering of powerful figures, each representing a nation but with the goals of a larger body in mind. They draft legislation which **cannot be rejected by the European Parliament**, only amended. The Elected body of the European Union functions as the lower house of a Westminster style Parliament, and is unable to draft its own legislation and must ask the Commission to do so. We have seen that the European Union's executive powers are being used to bring in laws that may damage Net Neutrality. These powers are held by the Commission and unlike a national parliament, they have no purpose in listening to the people of the European Union.
As to why I believe the EU cannot be reformed, I believe that the European Commission would go very far out of its way to ensure that it will not lose its privileged position. Despite the possibility of losing nations from the EU, they have little or no incentive to listen to the complaints of a single nation, unless they are supported by many others. Even if a nation was supported by others, if a larger more important nation, such as Germany or France, was not involved in making the complaints, it is likely that such objections would be ignored.
However, I do not think that the European Union is the anti-Christ of Political Entities and it is a very good idea that has contributed to the peace and stability of Europe for the past sixty years. The Single Market and the Free Movement of Capital and Goods has allowed businesses to grow without having to deal with the trouble of tariffs caused their product being too expensive. Despite this, while the trend is towards reform, if one looks at the Treaties of Lisbon for example, the executive bodies of the EU are ensuring that they make the most of their powers while they last. If they ever have their powers taken from them, what alternative can we expect? The European Parliament is already too clogged with legislation and it takes years for them to agree on something. I do not think the European Union can survive in its current form, and I think it is for the best that it does not.
_____
> *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 the European Union cannot be reformed and the best option for its constituent countries is to break away from it. From my studies of the European Union and its law, I have come to the conclusion that the Union, as it currently exists, is detrimental to the economies of small nations in the EU, such as Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, etc. While the EU has allowed for significant economic growth in some nations through subsidies, it has also stifled the fishing industry in Ireland. Granted, the EU Fisheries Policy does seem to have environmental impacts in mind, but it does not provide for the income which fishing communities have lost since the introductions of quotas.
The European Union's executive and legislative bodies are also particularly unhealthy to all nations and quickly need to be reformed. However, as the European Commission holds the most power, compared to the power of the European Parliament and the European Council, we are unlikely to see any form of change. The Commission is unelected, with representatives of various countries being chosen by the Governments of these countries. This occurs regardless of popular opinion and a commissioner may be sent who is overwhelmingly unpopular. The Commission seems like an eerie gathering of powerful figures, each representing a nation but with the goals of a larger body in mind. They draft legislation which **cannot be rejected by the European Parliament**, only amended. The Elected body of the European Union functions as the lower house of a Westminster style Parliament, and is unable to draft its own legislation and must ask the Commission to do so. We have seen that the European Union's executive powers are being used to bring in laws that may damage Net Neutrality. These powers are held by the Commission and unlike a national parliament, they have no purpose in listening to the people of the European Union.
As to why I believe the EU cannot be reformed, I believe that the European Commission would go very far out of its way to ensure that it will not lose its privileged position. Despite the possibility of losing nations from the EU, they have little or no incentive to listen to the complaints of a single nation, unless they are supported by many others. Even if a nation was supported by others, if a larger more important nation, such as Germany or France, was not involved in making the complaints, it is likely that such objections would be ignored.
However, I do not think that the European Union is the anti-Christ of Political Entities and it is a very good idea that has contributed to the peace and stability of Europe for the past sixty years. The Single Market and the Free Movement of Capital and Goods has allowed businesses to grow without having to deal with the trouble of tariffs caused their product being too expensive. Despite this, while the trend is towards reform, if one looks at the Treaties of Lisbon for example, the executive bodies of the EU are ensuring that they make the most of their powers while they last. If they ever have their powers taken from them, what alternative can we expect? The European Parliament is already too clogged with legislation and it takes years for them to agree on something. I do not think the European Union can survive in its current form, and I think it is for the best that it does not.
|
t3_1o4103 | All US public schools (jr high-high school) should have a theology class in them. CMV | Religion is a major part of our world whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Whether it be from politics to war, religion has played a huge impact on our history.
That is why I believe that all US public schools should have a theology class. This isn't a class that is to indoctrinate kids, or for a person to say that science is wrong. The class would teach the history of the world's major religions, their beliefs, and how they impact our world today.
We need a class like this more than ever. Just look at the rise of Islamophobia since 9/11 and it's still around thanks to the Religious Right and various other hate groups in America.
As far as which religions, I think a class should cover the most popular following: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Of course there is room for various others but those are the big 5 that most people know about.
Whether or not you like religion, you cannot deny it's impact on humanity's history. | All US public schools (jr high-high school) should have a theology class in them. CMV. Religion is a major part of our world whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Whether it be from politics to war, religion has played a huge impact on our history.
That is why I believe that all US public schools should have a theology class. This isn't a class that is to indoctrinate kids, or for a person to say that science is wrong. The class would teach the history of the world's major religions, their beliefs, and how they impact our world today.
We need a class like this more than ever. Just look at the rise of Islamophobia since 9/11 and it's still around thanks to the Religious Right and various other hate groups in America.
As far as which religions, I think a class should cover the most popular following: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Of course there is room for various others but those are the big 5 that most people know about.
Whether or not you like religion, you cannot deny it's impact on humanity's history. |
t3_2148wc | Java 8 Is Too Little, Too Late. CMV. | Oracle launched Java 8 SE this past week, and although it offers real improvements over Java 7 SE, it is still too little, too late.
The biggest change is the introduction of lambda functions, something we Java developers have been looking upon other languages with envy for years. Java's main competitor in the enterprise space, Microsoft C♯, has offered lambda expressions since C♯ 3.0, released in 2007. JavaScript, renowned for its ubiquity on the Web, has offered function literals seemingly forever. Not to mention there are functional languages that have been relying heavily on lambdas for decades.
Even on the Java Runtime Environment, other programming languages have long since surpassed Java the language. Almost all support some kind of function literal; some try to build a better type system. If anything, there are too many wannabe Java killers: Kotlin from JetBrains, Ceylon from Red Hat, and Xtend from the Eclipse Foundation. Then there are the better known ones: Groovy (a dynamic language that obviously wanted to be the Ruby of the Java world), Clojure (for people who like Scheme), and my personal favorite Scala.
One thing all these languages have in common is doing away with some of Java's notorious ceremony. For example, to create a "JavaBean property" in Java, one must define its field and then define getter and setter methods for that field; this ends up being lines of boilerplate code.
Java's:
public class A {
private String b;
public String getB() {
return b;
}
public void setB(String b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
In Scala:
class A(var b: String)
When the compiler can figure out the type some languages, like Scala, let us avoid typing it again and again.
Type inferencing in Scala:
val groceries = List("apples", "peanut butter", "bread")
In Java:
List<String> groceries = Arrays.asList("apples", "peanut butter", "bread");
Java's main advantage is that, in the enterprise, change can be frowned upon, and an upgrade from Java 6 or Java 7 to Java 8 can be perceived as "lower risk" than introducing a whole new language rather than an incremental change to a language. To me this argument is weak, but I am at least glad Java 8 is here insofar as Java is currently still my "pays-the-bills" language. | Java 8 Is Too Little, Too Late. CMV. Oracle launched Java 8 SE this past week, and although it offers real improvements over Java 7 SE, it is still too little, too late.
The biggest change is the introduction of lambda functions, something we Java developers have been looking upon other languages with envy for years. Java's main competitor in the enterprise space, Microsoft C♯, has offered lambda expressions since C♯ 3.0, released in 2007. JavaScript, renowned for its ubiquity on the Web, has offered function literals seemingly forever. Not to mention there are functional languages that have been relying heavily on lambdas for decades.
Even on the Java Runtime Environment, other programming languages have long since surpassed Java the language. Almost all support some kind of function literal; some try to build a better type system. If anything, there are too many wannabe Java killers: Kotlin from JetBrains, Ceylon from Red Hat, and Xtend from the Eclipse Foundation. Then there are the better known ones: Groovy (a dynamic language that obviously wanted to be the Ruby of the Java world), Clojure (for people who like Scheme), and my personal favorite Scala.
One thing all these languages have in common is doing away with some of Java's notorious ceremony. For example, to create a "JavaBean property" in Java, one must define its field and then define getter and setter methods for that field; this ends up being lines of boilerplate code.
Java's:
public class A {
private String b;
public String getB() {
return b;
}
public void setB(String b) {
this.b = b;
}
}
In Scala:
class A(var b: String)
When the compiler can figure out the type some languages, like Scala, let us avoid typing it again and again.
Type inferencing in Scala:
val groceries = List("apples", "peanut butter", "bread")
In Java:
List<String> groceries = Arrays.asList("apples", "peanut butter", "bread");
Java's main advantage is that, in the enterprise, change can be frowned upon, and an upgrade from Java 6 or Java 7 to Java 8 can be perceived as "lower risk" than introducing a whole new language rather than an incremental change to a language. To me this argument is weak, but I am at least glad Java 8 is here insofar as Java is currently still my "pays-the-bills" language. |
t3_1ngjtl | Education is not the single most important factor in the development of a country CMV | My dad was talking to me recently about how education is the most important factor in the development of a country. However, I can't see how this can be as there are so many other factors that affect development more such as surroundings (to refine/ produce raw materials), manufacturing of goods, services which all play there part in the development of a country. How is education needed in order to make a country more developed? A country can still function without the citizens being educated and it can still be developed through leaders which is something that isn't taught through education systems. Help me see my father's view so I don't just come off as ignorant in our next conversation thank you. | Education is not the single most important factor in the development of a country CMV. My dad was talking to me recently about how education is the most important factor in the development of a country. However, I can't see how this can be as there are so many other factors that affect development more such as surroundings (to refine/ produce raw materials), manufacturing of goods, services which all play there part in the development of a country. How is education needed in order to make a country more developed? A country can still function without the citizens being educated and it can still be developed through leaders which is something that isn't taught through education systems. Help me see my father's view so I don't just come off as ignorant in our next conversation thank you. |
t3_28qlkk | CMV: I don't think violating consent is necessarily unethical (more general than sexual consent) | I think that there are many times when violating consent is acceptable, or even ethical.
Now it is easy to jump to sexual consent. I want to restrict my purview here.
I violate consent all the time, but I am selective in that violation.
Sometimes I feed people things they may not like (after lying to them) in an effort to get them to like it.
I won't do it if they are allergic or have ethical reservations about it (I won't feed a vegan milk or a vegetarian meat), but I think it is perfectly acceptable to goad them into eating things they may not otherwise try.
This may be to expand their palate or maybe because I'm just lazy.
Sometimes - I will pester them to try things, which is problematic due to elements of coercion.
I will play music they don't like.
And these are just a few of the many instances where I violate consent.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. At worst this leads to some minor annoyance and generally works out well, though sometimes people don't enjoy it - I ensure that the limits of their not enjoying something are reasonably managed by me.
I won't extrapolate this behaviour to more serious spheres like sex because the resulting fallout can be extremely traumatic.
I will also not do it if there is reason to believe it will have long term repercussions, or even short term effects beyond the other party (ies) being slightly annoyed.
I intend to continue to live my life like this - CMV.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't think violating consent is necessarily unethical (more general than sexual consent). I think that there are many times when violating consent is acceptable, or even ethical.
Now it is easy to jump to sexual consent. I want to restrict my purview here.
I violate consent all the time, but I am selective in that violation.
Sometimes I feed people things they may not like (after lying to them) in an effort to get them to like it.
I won't do it if they are allergic or have ethical reservations about it (I won't feed a vegan milk or a vegetarian meat), but I think it is perfectly acceptable to goad them into eating things they may not otherwise try.
This may be to expand their palate or maybe because I'm just lazy.
Sometimes - I will pester them to try things, which is problematic due to elements of coercion.
I will play music they don't like.
And these are just a few of the many instances where I violate consent.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. At worst this leads to some minor annoyance and generally works out well, though sometimes people don't enjoy it - I ensure that the limits of their not enjoying something are reasonably managed by me.
I won't extrapolate this behaviour to more serious spheres like sex because the resulting fallout can be extremely traumatic.
I will also not do it if there is reason to believe it will have long term repercussions, or even short term effects beyond the other party (ies) being slightly annoyed.
I intend to continue to live my life like this - CMV.
|
t3_2rnlmm | CMV: I hate the way Android works on phones | I have had a Samsung Galaxy S3 for a few years now and I just don't like the way Android works on it. I have tried multiple different launchers, flashed different ROMs, and rooted the device within the first week but I just hate the feel of it. I get the same feeling when using my friends' Android devices, but I just can't put my finger on it.
I feel almost ashamed as a lover of technology (long live the pc master race) to admit that I use my jailbroken ipod touch at least 20 times more than my phone. I know that it has shitty specs by comparison, the camera sucks and it isn't so good with multitasking but as someone who primarily uses handheld devices for video playback it couldn't be better. There are so many more tweaks that I have found to improve experience, despite iOS being objectively a much more closed system than Android and in my experience I have been able to make my jailbroken device look more beautiful and customized than I ever have with my phone (or have seen on other's Android phones).
I *want* to love Android because in my mind I know that it is just objectively better, but for media playback it just isn't a very streamlined experience and I would have to describe it as clumsy.
*Please* show me what I've been doing wrong so that I don't end up wasting my money on an apple device when I'm due for an upgrade in a few months.
EDIT: I feel like this has been a sort of therapy session that has made me realize an inner truth:
I don't hate **Android**, I hate **my phone**
The question is what do I do now?
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I hate the way Android works on phones. I have had a Samsung Galaxy S3 for a few years now and I just don't like the way Android works on it. I have tried multiple different launchers, flashed different ROMs, and rooted the device within the first week but I just hate the feel of it. I get the same feeling when using my friends' Android devices, but I just can't put my finger on it.
I feel almost ashamed as a lover of technology (long live the pc master race) to admit that I use my jailbroken ipod touch at least 20 times more than my phone. I know that it has shitty specs by comparison, the camera sucks and it isn't so good with multitasking but as someone who primarily uses handheld devices for video playback it couldn't be better. There are so many more tweaks that I have found to improve experience, despite iOS being objectively a much more closed system than Android and in my experience I have been able to make my jailbroken device look more beautiful and customized than I ever have with my phone (or have seen on other's Android phones).
I *want* to love Android because in my mind I know that it is just objectively better, but for media playback it just isn't a very streamlined experience and I would have to describe it as clumsy.
*Please* show me what I've been doing wrong so that I don't end up wasting my money on an apple device when I'm due for an upgrade in a few months.
EDIT: I feel like this has been a sort of therapy session that has made me realize an inner truth:
I don't hate **Android**, I hate **my phone**
The question is what do I do now? |
t3_2bun4o | CMV: I don't think the term "Jap" as a term for Japanese people is racist. | I am studying the Japanese language. As college students know, course subjects have abbreviations. History is HIS, biology is BIO, etc. Japanese was changed to JPN from JAP in order not to offend since "Jap" is considered a derogatory term for Japanese people. Out of habit, it gets a strange laugh or look when I refer to it as "Jap class" out of habit because that was how I read it on my past syllabuses (is that the correct word for the plural form of syllabus?) and on my assignments. If my school wants to change it then fine, that's their decision and my argument isn't about my school doing that. I was just giving context to where my frustration comes from. I don't feel I am being insensitive for calling it "Jap class".
Polish people are Poles, Scottish people are Scots, British people are Brits, Arabic people are Arabs, Turkish people are Turks, Jewish people are Jews, Czechoslovakian people are Czechs, Slavic people are Slavs Swedish people are Swedes, Mongolian people are Mongols. None of these are considered offensive unless used in context with a negative connotation, but for some reason "Japs" is offensive to Japanese people. This is ridiculous. It is simply easier to say. The fact that it is in the same category of words like "chink" or "gook" as offensive terms for people of Asian descent is silly.
edit: I thought of more shortened terms for nationalities so I added them.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't think the term "Jap" as a term for Japanese people is racist. I am studying the Japanese language. As college students know, course subjects have abbreviations. History is HIS, biology is BIO, etc. Japanese was changed to JPN from JAP in order not to offend since "Jap" is considered a derogatory term for Japanese people. Out of habit, it gets a strange laugh or look when I refer to it as "Jap class" out of habit because that was how I read it on my past syllabuses (is that the correct word for the plural form of syllabus?) and on my assignments. If my school wants to change it then fine, that's their decision and my argument isn't about my school doing that. I was just giving context to where my frustration comes from. I don't feel I am being insensitive for calling it "Jap class".
Polish people are Poles, Scottish people are Scots, British people are Brits, Arabic people are Arabs, Turkish people are Turks, Jewish people are Jews, Czechoslovakian people are Czechs, Slavic people are Slavs Swedish people are Swedes, Mongolian people are Mongols. None of these are considered offensive unless used in context with a negative connotation, but for some reason "Japs" is offensive to Japanese people. This is ridiculous. It is simply easier to say. The fact that it is in the same category of words like "chink" or "gook" as offensive terms for people of Asian descent is silly.
edit: I thought of more shortened terms for nationalities so I added them. |
t3_5r8usy | CMV: We will never reach a future of common equal rights, good living standards and peace | This is something that has been bugging me for a while.
One of the things that brings meaning to my life is working towards improving this world - Because all of my effort can bring a better future for us all. Kind of like a butterfly effect. One small positive thing can go far.
Yet, it's so much easier for us to shift towards greed, lust for power, feeling superior over others, while positive attributes requiere constant effort and work. Justifying unethical actions because the end justifies the means. While I agree that might sometimes be the case, people often use that to push their own agendas. I mean, even when you think you're doing good, that might not be the case.
Which is when my conclusion that scares me comes in: Even in hundreds, thousands of years, Im concerned that we will not reach golden age of humanity. Especially concerning climate change and overpopulation. I know progress in technology can change all of that; but even facts are being questioned, and people manipulated.
I want to be wrong. Change my belief reddit! | CMV: We will never reach a future of common equal rights, good living standards and peace. This is something that has been bugging me for a while.
One of the things that brings meaning to my life is working towards improving this world - Because all of my effort can bring a better future for us all. Kind of like a butterfly effect. One small positive thing can go far.
Yet, it's so much easier for us to shift towards greed, lust for power, feeling superior over others, while positive attributes requiere constant effort and work. Justifying unethical actions because the end justifies the means. While I agree that might sometimes be the case, people often use that to push their own agendas. I mean, even when you think you're doing good, that might not be the case.
Which is when my conclusion that scares me comes in: Even in hundreds, thousands of years, Im concerned that we will not reach golden age of humanity. Especially concerning climate change and overpopulation. I know progress in technology can change all of that; but even facts are being questioned, and people manipulated.
I want to be wrong. Change my belief reddit! |
t3_2jzpna | CMV: Taylor Swift's recent accidental eight seconds of white noise ("Track 3") proves Death of the Author | /r/Music thread [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/2jxe2v/taylor_swift_accidentally_releases_8_seconds_of/); Canadian new agency article [here](http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/10/taylor-swift-accidentally-releases-8-seconds-of-white-noise-tops-canadian-itunes-chart.html).
Taylor Swift is currently promoting a new album, *1989*, and accidentally released eight seconds of white noise as a single under that album label. That single topped the Canadian music charts almost immediately.
Let that sink in. **Eight seconds of accidental white noise topped Canada's iTunes chart.**
This wasn't an intentional publicity stunt or artistic experiment by Taylor Swift. This was entirely accidental - and entirely brilliant. It radically increased the already momentous hype for her upcoming album. People are obviously celebrating it.
But why? And how?
[Death of the Author](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) is a literary theory originally proposed in late 1960s France. It claims that the artist and the art are inherently separate entities, that art does stand on its own. The originator of this theory, Roland Barnes, claimed that since we cannot understand what an author intended by her work, the authorial intentions behind that work is meaningless.
The fact that Canada loved those eight seconds of accidental white noise proves this theory. Canada loved *Track 3* because it was "produced" by Swift - but Swift had virtually nothing to do with it. It was an accident, a computational hiccup, and it went absolutely viral. Swift is not the creator of art here; she is reduced to a subject of the Canadian consumer's interpretation. Her intentions are absolutely irrelevant to the art.
The author is dead. Long live the white noise!
_____
> *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: Taylor Swift's recent accidental eight seconds of white noise ("Track 3") proves Death of the Author. /r/Music thread [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/2jxe2v/taylor_swift_accidentally_releases_8_seconds_of/); Canadian new agency article [here](http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/10/taylor-swift-accidentally-releases-8-seconds-of-white-noise-tops-canadian-itunes-chart.html).
Taylor Swift is currently promoting a new album, *1989*, and accidentally released eight seconds of white noise as a single under that album label. That single topped the Canadian music charts almost immediately.
Let that sink in. **Eight seconds of accidental white noise topped Canada's iTunes chart.**
This wasn't an intentional publicity stunt or artistic experiment by Taylor Swift. This was entirely accidental - and entirely brilliant. It radically increased the already momentous hype for her upcoming album. People are obviously celebrating it.
But why? And how?
[Death of the Author](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author) is a literary theory originally proposed in late 1960s France. It claims that the artist and the art are inherently separate entities, that art does stand on its own. The originator of this theory, Roland Barnes, claimed that since we cannot understand what an author intended by her work, the authorial intentions behind that work is meaningless.
The fact that Canada loved those eight seconds of accidental white noise proves this theory. Canada loved *Track 3* because it was "produced" by Swift - but Swift had virtually nothing to do with it. It was an accident, a computational hiccup, and it went absolutely viral. Swift is not the creator of art here; she is reduced to a subject of the Canadian consumer's interpretation. Her intentions are absolutely irrelevant to the art.
The author is dead. Long live the white noise!
|
t3_1g4gq2 | I'm actually ok with the NSA's actions so far. CMV | I have no problem with the NSA scanning my emails/phone records in the interests of national security. In fact, I think it's a little silly for the average person to be worried that they'll be snatched up by the government for... well, no one ever seems to give a reason, they just assume the government is after them.
I'm also surprised that so many people are invoking the slippery slope argument. Do you really think the U.S. government can get away with a totalitarian state? Think of the manpower required to pull that off without full-scale revolt.
I think that some concessions in privacy are to be expected if people want to feel secure. We (or a majority, at least) already post all our thoughts and location to Faacebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google Maps, etc. If we agree to give those "freedoms" up for a company, surely we'd give them up to catch would-be terrorists?
Now, after all of that, you might be wondering why I want to change my view. Well, with everyone outraged, I feel like I'm missing something. Reddit, cut through the hyperbole and CMV. | I'm actually ok with the NSA's actions so far. CMV. I have no problem with the NSA scanning my emails/phone records in the interests of national security. In fact, I think it's a little silly for the average person to be worried that they'll be snatched up by the government for... well, no one ever seems to give a reason, they just assume the government is after them.
I'm also surprised that so many people are invoking the slippery slope argument. Do you really think the U.S. government can get away with a totalitarian state? Think of the manpower required to pull that off without full-scale revolt.
I think that some concessions in privacy are to be expected if people want to feel secure. We (or a majority, at least) already post all our thoughts and location to Faacebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google Maps, etc. If we agree to give those "freedoms" up for a company, surely we'd give them up to catch would-be terrorists?
Now, after all of that, you might be wondering why I want to change my view. Well, with everyone outraged, I feel like I'm missing something. Reddit, cut through the hyperbole and CMV. |