Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_2i8hsu

CMV:I believe the best model for the future of humanity is The Culture, as described by author Iain M. Banks

I believe that The Culture, from author Iain M. Banks, is the best model for the future development of humanity depicted in Scifi, both technologically and socially. If you don't know what The Culture is, here's a [link](http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm) to a few notes on it, by Iain M. Banks. Here is a Wikipedia [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Overview) which also describes some of what The Culture is, and is much easier to skim. Here is a short quote from Wikipedia, to provide a quick summary. "The Culture is a symbiotic society of artificial intelligences (AIs) (Minds and drones), humanoids and other alien species who all share equal status. As mentioned above, all essential work is performed (as far as possible) by non-sentient devices, freeing sentients to do only things that they enjoy (administrative work requiring sentience is undertaken by the AIs using a bare fraction of their mental power, or by people who take on the work out of free choice). As such, the Culture is also a post-scarcity society, where technological advances ensure that no one lacks any material goods or services. As a consequence, the Culture has no need of economic constructs such as money (as is apparent when it deals with civilizations in which money is still important). The Culture rejects all forms of economics based on anything other than voluntary activity. "Money is a sign of poverty" is a common saying in the Culture." Generally, I am comparing this civilization to other imagined civs from other sources, Star Trek comes to mind, though it is possible that there is some other imagined society, grounded in some level of reality, that would be an even better model that I have either not encountered, or has not yet been conceived. Essentially, I believe that Humanity should work to emulate The Culture, where possible. I realize that as of today, a lot of the technological, and subsequently, social constructs can not be created (AI, FTL, advanced genetic engineering, nanoscale engineering or megascale engineering), but as we advance technologically, as a civilization, The Culture is the best model (I am aware of) to measure ourselves against, and work towards emulating. If you have questions on the capabilities of The Culture, just ask, and I'll try to answer them as well. EDIT: So I'm reading a lot of criticisms of the Culture itself, and while many have a limited level of merit, I do not believe anyone had really offered a comprehensive reason why the Culture as a whole is still not the best way to organise a society in a future with greater than human intellect AI. I think this is because no one can really offer up any other clear example of another future society that works better. I guess none really exist in popular sci-fi. _____ > *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 the best model for the future of humanity is The Culture, as described by author Iain M. Banks. I believe that The Culture, from author Iain M. Banks, is the best model for the future development of humanity depicted in Scifi, both technologically and socially. If you don't know what The Culture is, here's a [link](http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm) to a few notes on it, by Iain M. Banks. Here is a Wikipedia [link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Overview) which also describes some of what The Culture is, and is much easier to skim. Here is a short quote from Wikipedia, to provide a quick summary. "The Culture is a symbiotic society of artificial intelligences (AIs) (Minds and drones), humanoids and other alien species who all share equal status. As mentioned above, all essential work is performed (as far as possible) by non-sentient devices, freeing sentients to do only things that they enjoy (administrative work requiring sentience is undertaken by the AIs using a bare fraction of their mental power, or by people who take on the work out of free choice). As such, the Culture is also a post-scarcity society, where technological advances ensure that no one lacks any material goods or services. As a consequence, the Culture has no need of economic constructs such as money (as is apparent when it deals with civilizations in which money is still important). The Culture rejects all forms of economics based on anything other than voluntary activity. "Money is a sign of poverty" is a common saying in the Culture." Generally, I am comparing this civilization to other imagined civs from other sources, Star Trek comes to mind, though it is possible that there is some other imagined society, grounded in some level of reality, that would be an even better model that I have either not encountered, or has not yet been conceived. Essentially, I believe that Humanity should work to emulate The Culture, where possible. I realize that as of today, a lot of the technological, and subsequently, social constructs can not be created (AI, FTL, advanced genetic engineering, nanoscale engineering or megascale engineering), but as we advance technologically, as a civilization, The Culture is the best model (I am aware of) to measure ourselves against, and work towards emulating. If you have questions on the capabilities of The Culture, just ask, and I'll try to answer them as well. EDIT: So I'm reading a lot of criticisms of the Culture itself, and while many have a limited level of merit, I do not believe anyone had really offered a comprehensive reason why the Culture as a whole is still not the best way to organise a society in a future with greater than human intellect AI. I think this is because no one can really offer up any other clear example of another future society that works better. I guess none really exist in popular sci-fi.

t3_36aaf2

CMV: I find it problematic that a Clinton and Bush is runing for president again

So first of I am danish. That means that I follow american politics, much in the same way I follow german politics. Somethings are importent for me and my situation, but most thing are not that importent to me. It is kind of like watching a football match where you don't cheer for any of the teams. With that said I find it kind of scary that there is a Clinton and a Bush in this election. The kings in Denmark used to be elected, some thousand years ago, but then it became normal to elect kings from the same familly. Then latter it was always the oldest son and then we endeed up with the system where the king was always the oldest son from the old king. The same is more or less true in many other countries. People seem to rather want to vote on people from families they know than random people. To me it kind of seems like America is getting set in their political dynasties and that if this development continues, we might end up with a system where everyone in theory can try to be elected president, but in practise it will always be people from the same political dynasties that gets elected. That is not a nice view to have. Please change it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I find it problematic that a Clinton and Bush is runing for president again. So first of I am danish. That means that I follow american politics, much in the same way I follow german politics. Somethings are importent for me and my situation, but most thing are not that importent to me. It is kind of like watching a football match where you don't cheer for any of the teams. With that said I find it kind of scary that there is a Clinton and a Bush in this election. The kings in Denmark used to be elected, some thousand years ago, but then it became normal to elect kings from the same familly. Then latter it was always the oldest son and then we endeed up with the system where the king was always the oldest son from the old king. The same is more or less true in many other countries. People seem to rather want to vote on people from families they know than random people. To me it kind of seems like America is getting set in their political dynasties and that if this development continues, we might end up with a system where everyone in theory can try to be elected president, but in practise it will always be people from the same political dynasties that gets elected. That is not a nice view to have. Please change it.

t3_1be23b

I believe that people should have to explain why they want something legalized or illegalized and any vote with no experimentally proven basis should be thrown out. CMV.

We know this world exists, and there are certain rules that we've gleaned from studying it. These rules are universal constants that everyone is bound to regardless of creed, so I don't think it's fair to subject someone to the rules of a deity they may or may not believe in.

I believe that people should have to explain why they want something legalized or illegalized and any vote with no experimentally proven basis should be thrown out. CMV. We know this world exists, and there are certain rules that we've gleaned from studying it. These rules are universal constants that everyone is bound to regardless of creed, so I don't think it's fair to subject someone to the rules of a deity they may or may not believe in.

t3_1nzpoo

I believe wages should be based on how much the individual contributes to society. CMV

The problem right now is that we live in a society where CEOs will make 400 times the average worker (source: http://www.rhetoric-culture.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/executive_compensation.jpg) This to me, is absolutely disgusting and it makes absolutely no sense. No doubt being a CEO is an important and challenging job, but to me it is completely illogical how one person can be worth the salary of 400 other persons. Not only that, the people in society that are making the most money aren't necessarily the ones contributing the most, it's not the teachers, the nurses, the firemen and the law enforcement personel. Rather it's the hedge fund managers and the bankers, now contrary to popular beleif I do realize that they contribute to society, they'll help and provide to market liquidity which will decrease market volatility and sure that's a good thing, but I don't believe that these people deserve the macabre amount of money that they are making. I'd love to see your take on this, CMV!

I believe wages should be based on how much the individual contributes to society. CMV. The problem right now is that we live in a society where CEOs will make 400 times the average worker (source: http://www.rhetoric-culture.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/executive_compensation.jpg) This to me, is absolutely disgusting and it makes absolutely no sense. No doubt being a CEO is an important and challenging job, but to me it is completely illogical how one person can be worth the salary of 400 other persons. Not only that, the people in society that are making the most money aren't necessarily the ones contributing the most, it's not the teachers, the nurses, the firemen and the law enforcement personel. Rather it's the hedge fund managers and the bankers, now contrary to popular beleif I do realize that they contribute to society, they'll help and provide to market liquidity which will decrease market volatility and sure that's a good thing, but I don't believe that these people deserve the macabre amount of money that they are making. I'd love to see your take on this, CMV!

t3_2eofdm

CMV: If you can't say it publicly you shouldn't say it privately

My wife recently found herself in some hot water with a few of her coworkers after repeating something said "in confidence" to the subjects of the statement, out of curiosity. While she, in retrospect, feels she should not have asked the question, I feel if you're confident enough in the statement to say it to one person, you should have no problem saying it to another, whoever that may be. I'm speaking strictly in terms of statements that qualify as "gossip" and don't have any legal or life threatening ramifications if repeated to the wrong person.

CMV: If you can't say it publicly you shouldn't say it privately. My wife recently found herself in some hot water with a few of her coworkers after repeating something said "in confidence" to the subjects of the statement, out of curiosity. While she, in retrospect, feels she should not have asked the question, I feel if you're confident enough in the statement to say it to one person, you should have no problem saying it to another, whoever that may be. I'm speaking strictly in terms of statements that qualify as "gossip" and don't have any legal or life threatening ramifications if repeated to the wrong person.

t3_1zga9j

The Oscars have lost a lot of credibility by not giving Leonardo Dicaprio an award. CMV

(TBH, most of the bellow is not needed to understand my view) So another year has gone by where Leonardo Dicaprio has not recieved an academy award for acting. I was personally not a big fan of "The Wolf of Wall Steet". However, I thought the acting in it, particularly from Leonardo and also from Jonah Hill, was extremely good. Django Unchained had some very believable portrayals of very outlandish characters, which again, is a credit to the work those actors do. It is a popularly held opinion that Leonardo Dicaprio is an actor deserving of an Oscar. By not giving Dicaprio what the public believes he deserves the Academy are not representing the opinion of the people who watch the eligible movies or the awards themselves. So what gives them the right to say who is the best/worst, over the public? Further, (according to their own website) "[the Academy is] dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of motion pictures". By honouring others, not only are AMPAS, making people fixate on the past, they are refusing to commemorate a man who has changed with cinema, adapting into a number of roles and staying current in an industry where that is very difficult; encouraging people to be more like him would only help their aims.

The Oscars have lost a lot of credibility by not giving Leonardo Dicaprio an award. CMV. (TBH, most of the bellow is not needed to understand my view) So another year has gone by where Leonardo Dicaprio has not recieved an academy award for acting. I was personally not a big fan of "The Wolf of Wall Steet". However, I thought the acting in it, particularly from Leonardo and also from Jonah Hill, was extremely good. Django Unchained had some very believable portrayals of very outlandish characters, which again, is a credit to the work those actors do. It is a popularly held opinion that Leonardo Dicaprio is an actor deserving of an Oscar. By not giving Dicaprio what the public believes he deserves the Academy are not representing the opinion of the people who watch the eligible movies or the awards themselves. So what gives them the right to say who is the best/worst, over the public? Further, (according to their own website) "[the Academy is] dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of motion pictures". By honouring others, not only are AMPAS, making people fixate on the past, they are refusing to commemorate a man who has changed with cinema, adapting into a number of roles and staying current in an industry where that is very difficult; encouraging people to be more like him would only help their aims.

t3_1llwpo

I think the singularity will most likely happen before 2035 if it ever happens. CMV

Computing power is growing at an exponential rate. Looking at [this](http://www.top500.org/statistics/perfdevel/) chart from Top 500, it is clear that for the last 20 years at least, computers have doubled in their speed about every 1.5-2 years. According to Morre's Law, transistor counts will double about every 1.5 years, and according to this [professor] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtI5wRyHpTg) there will be no stop to growth until at least the middle 2020's. With this information it is easy to see that by 2025, we will easily have computers that will have at least a few exaflops of computing power. With just one exaflop of power you can run [this] (http://www.nengo.ca/) simulation of neurons thousands of times faster than it is currently being ran at. And that is one of the most advanced brain simulations we have at the moment. By 2025, we should be able to simulate an entire human brain (at least not in real time). In fact the goal of the [Blue Brain Project] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project) is to simulate the human brain by 2023, and they have already simulated parts of other mammals brains, for example in 2006 they ran a simulation of a rat neocortical column. If people can get a simulation of a human brain up and running, people can give the simulated brains superhuman like qualities to make those brains ultraintelligent. For example one could take away the brains ability to feel pain or to get distracted. People could also allow the brain to edit its own source code to recursively make itself more intelligent than a physical human. After these types of things are accomplished, by definition the singularity has arrived because we have computers that are much smarter than even the most intelligent human beings on earth.

I think the singularity will most likely happen before 2035 if it ever happens. CMV. Computing power is growing at an exponential rate. Looking at [this](http://www.top500.org/statistics/perfdevel/) chart from Top 500, it is clear that for the last 20 years at least, computers have doubled in their speed about every 1.5-2 years. According to Morre's Law, transistor counts will double about every 1.5 years, and according to this [professor] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtI5wRyHpTg) there will be no stop to growth until at least the middle 2020's. With this information it is easy to see that by 2025, we will easily have computers that will have at least a few exaflops of computing power. With just one exaflop of power you can run [this] (http://www.nengo.ca/) simulation of neurons thousands of times faster than it is currently being ran at. And that is one of the most advanced brain simulations we have at the moment. By 2025, we should be able to simulate an entire human brain (at least not in real time). In fact the goal of the [Blue Brain Project] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project) is to simulate the human brain by 2023, and they have already simulated parts of other mammals brains, for example in 2006 they ran a simulation of a rat neocortical column. If people can get a simulation of a human brain up and running, people can give the simulated brains superhuman like qualities to make those brains ultraintelligent. For example one could take away the brains ability to feel pain or to get distracted. People could also allow the brain to edit its own source code to recursively make itself more intelligent than a physical human. After these types of things are accomplished, by definition the singularity has arrived because we have computers that are much smarter than even the most intelligent human beings on earth.

t3_2oyeha

CMV: No one should ever have to pay to view their credit score, and the current system falls under racketeering (US)

In the US, there are three main credit bureaus that banks and lenders use to help vet borrowers: TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. For each, you have the ability to view your credit score once every 12 months for free. However, if you would like to view your score more often than that, you have to pay a service free for the reports. Considering the fact that these bureaus exist in order to help lenders make fewer bad decisions and do very little (if anything) to service the borrower, individual borrowers should not be forced to pay for their score. The scores are in place to help the lenders, and not the borrowers. Individual borrowers are being judged (fairly, might I add), and since they see none of the value coming from the institution of credit scores, they should not be burdened with the cost of knowing their judgement. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: No one should ever have to pay to view their credit score, and the current system falls under racketeering (US). In the US, there are three main credit bureaus that banks and lenders use to help vet borrowers: TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax. For each, you have the ability to view your credit score once every 12 months for free. However, if you would like to view your score more often than that, you have to pay a service free for the reports. Considering the fact that these bureaus exist in order to help lenders make fewer bad decisions and do very little (if anything) to service the borrower, individual borrowers should not be forced to pay for their score. The scores are in place to help the lenders, and not the borrowers. Individual borrowers are being judged (fairly, might I add), and since they see none of the value coming from the institution of credit scores, they should not be burdened with the cost of knowing their judgement.

t3_1ft75k

Calling someone a bigot (or calling something bigoted) is not an argument, CMV.

Here's the deal. A lot of times in debates about hot-button political issues, you'll get people who say something like, "You're racist," or "that's misogynistic." Those are not arguments that disprove an assertion. They're descriptions of an argument or person that usually amount to a lazy *ad hominem* argument. I'll give a specific example that I see a lot on Reddit. Someone from /r/niggers will come into a thread and post something, and someone will go, "WELL YOU POST IN /R/NIGGERS," as though that refutes his statement. (No, I don't post in /r/niggers.) Change my view.

Calling someone a bigot (or calling something bigoted) is not an argument, CMV. Here's the deal. A lot of times in debates about hot-button political issues, you'll get people who say something like, "You're racist," or "that's misogynistic." Those are not arguments that disprove an assertion. They're descriptions of an argument or person that usually amount to a lazy *ad hominem* argument. I'll give a specific example that I see a lot on Reddit. Someone from /r/niggers will come into a thread and post something, and someone will go, "WELL YOU POST IN /R/NIGGERS," as though that refutes his statement. (No, I don't post in /r/niggers.) Change my view.

t3_1mlugc

I believe that the burden of disclosure when dating trans people does not fall on the trans person. CMV

I remember seeing an askreddit post about what sex was like for both partners when one of them is a post-op trans person, that eventually devolved into an argument about disclosure. I feel that if you are uncomfortable with dating a trans person, it is your responsibility to ask the other person if they are trans or otherwise make it known that you do not wish to date trans people. After all if you're the one with a preference in a romantic partner, it is your responsibility to make that preference known to the other involved. I feel that if this makes it harder for you to get dates that is just the price that you have to pay for the ability to maintain your preference/avoid accidentally falling in love with a trans person.

I believe that the burden of disclosure when dating trans people does not fall on the trans person. CMV. I remember seeing an askreddit post about what sex was like for both partners when one of them is a post-op trans person, that eventually devolved into an argument about disclosure. I feel that if you are uncomfortable with dating a trans person, it is your responsibility to ask the other person if they are trans or otherwise make it known that you do not wish to date trans people. After all if you're the one with a preference in a romantic partner, it is your responsibility to make that preference known to the other involved. I feel that if this makes it harder for you to get dates that is just the price that you have to pay for the ability to maintain your preference/avoid accidentally falling in love with a trans person.

t3_4qhiyd

CMV: Attacking Trump supporters is a defensive move, rather than an offensive one.

My reasoning for this is relatively straight forward. One of the main things Trump campaigns on is that he wants to deport all "illegal" immigrants (Along with other gross policies, but this is the grossest). This is an aggressive and violent act he wants to commit against millions of people who live here. He wants to send these citizens back to the land they fled from in search of a better life. Therefore, by fighting them, even if from a realpolitik perspective it isn't the smartest action to take, you are defending yourself or your countrymen. The average person will then respond "Well, by entering this country illegally, they committed the first aggressive act, therefore Trump is actually *defending* true Americans, rather than attacking illegal ones. However, why are borders created in the first place? To keep peoples from moving where they want to, to enclose prosperity (or poverty) and to exploit natural resources. There is no natural or physical justification for borders, only convenience and, ultimately, violence. Borders are, always have been, and continue to be upheld by force. Anything that can only justify it's existence by force and violence is unjust, therefore borders are unjust. If I stole your car and then held onto it only because I was stronger than you, is there any period of time that could pass before calling your car mine would be right and just? Borders are the same way. So then uprooting millions of people from their homes to send them across an artificial line in the sane is an unjust action, therefore starting the series of aggressive acts with Trump. If somebody is being attacked, it is natural to defend themself from the attack, justifying the defense. Honestly, I don't know what could change my view here, but I'm still open to other opinions on this. edit: Had my view changed by 2 persuasive arguments. First, because in a system as limited as the American one, many Trump supporters might support Trump for many reasons other than wanting to deport Illegal immigrants. As that is, IMO, the only reason violence against him is justified, then attacking his supporters would have a very likely chance of attacking somebody who either doesn't want to deport immigrants or is indifferent, an unjust act. Second, by attacking Trump Supporters, you are more likely hurting the movement as a whole, rather than in an isolated incident. So while maybe this one person would deserve it, you are more likely hurting the very people you're trying to protect more than the bigot in front of you. edit2: I think I've covered all the original points so far, so I probably won't respond unless it's something creative. _____ > *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: Attacking Trump supporters is a defensive move, rather than an offensive one. My reasoning for this is relatively straight forward. One of the main things Trump campaigns on is that he wants to deport all "illegal" immigrants (Along with other gross policies, but this is the grossest). This is an aggressive and violent act he wants to commit against millions of people who live here. He wants to send these citizens back to the land they fled from in search of a better life. Therefore, by fighting them, even if from a realpolitik perspective it isn't the smartest action to take, you are defending yourself or your countrymen. The average person will then respond "Well, by entering this country illegally, they committed the first aggressive act, therefore Trump is actually *defending* true Americans, rather than attacking illegal ones. However, why are borders created in the first place? To keep peoples from moving where they want to, to enclose prosperity (or poverty) and to exploit natural resources. There is no natural or physical justification for borders, only convenience and, ultimately, violence. Borders are, always have been, and continue to be upheld by force. Anything that can only justify it's existence by force and violence is unjust, therefore borders are unjust. If I stole your car and then held onto it only because I was stronger than you, is there any period of time that could pass before calling your car mine would be right and just? Borders are the same way. So then uprooting millions of people from their homes to send them across an artificial line in the sane is an unjust action, therefore starting the series of aggressive acts with Trump. If somebody is being attacked, it is natural to defend themself from the attack, justifying the defense. Honestly, I don't know what could change my view here, but I'm still open to other opinions on this. edit: Had my view changed by 2 persuasive arguments. First, because in a system as limited as the American one, many Trump supporters might support Trump for many reasons other than wanting to deport Illegal immigrants. As that is, IMO, the only reason violence against him is justified, then attacking his supporters would have a very likely chance of attacking somebody who either doesn't want to deport immigrants or is indifferent, an unjust act. Second, by attacking Trump Supporters, you are more likely hurting the movement as a whole, rather than in an isolated incident. So while maybe this one person would deserve it, you are more likely hurting the very people you're trying to protect more than the bigot in front of you. edit2: I think I've covered all the original points so far, so I probably won't respond unless it's something creative.

t3_23dfdz

CMV: Africa needs more agricultural technology, not less.

With the increased popularity of organic and natural foods in Western, developed countries, there has been a similar push in Africa to promote organic and resist modern agricultural technology. This is a dangerous type of exporting first world values to lesser developed countries that is only going to perpetuate poverty, malnutrition, and reliance on foreign aid. Africa needs access to high-yield hybrid varieties, and modern fertilizer and pesticides. African governments, as well as foreign aid donors, need to start investing in agricultural technology as a way of supporting the small rural farmer and stop cycles of poverty. Western NGOs need to stop their crusade against genetically modified crops, a costly effort which has caused numerous African governments to put in place harsh regulation and restrictions on the use of GMOs. Efforts of Greenpeace and the like are actively hurting small farmers and children, with the only benefit being the ability to pander for 1st world donations and membership fees. > *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: Africa needs more agricultural technology, not less. With the increased popularity of organic and natural foods in Western, developed countries, there has been a similar push in Africa to promote organic and resist modern agricultural technology. This is a dangerous type of exporting first world values to lesser developed countries that is only going to perpetuate poverty, malnutrition, and reliance on foreign aid. Africa needs access to high-yield hybrid varieties, and modern fertilizer and pesticides. African governments, as well as foreign aid donors, need to start investing in agricultural technology as a way of supporting the small rural farmer and stop cycles of poverty. Western NGOs need to stop their crusade against genetically modified crops, a costly effort which has caused numerous African governments to put in place harsh regulation and restrictions on the use of GMOs. Efforts of Greenpeace and the like are actively hurting small farmers and children, with the only benefit being the ability to pander for 1st world donations and membership fees. > *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_29nx6g

CMV: The term "STI" is misleading and only exists as a way to make sexual transmitted diseases seem less dangerous.

Colloquially, and infection can be cured with antibiotics. It usually refers to what happens when you scrape your knee and don't clean it properly. It gets infected and you take a course of amoxicillin and you're fine. AIDS, Herpes, Chlamydia, Syphilis, and so forth are much more serious than this. They are dangerous infectious diseases that need to be treated as such. It is my view that the term "STI" emerged from the STD community as a way for them to not feel like they are carrying a terrible disease, but it's misleading. The change in the descriptor helps people's feelings, but conveys less information. Saying that someone who has AIDS isn't diseased, but merely "has an infection" significantly reduces the severity of the condition. The person doesn't have an infection in the way we use the term colloquially, as though a little pus is forming in a wound, but a communicable disease that is highly dangerous. Doctor's offices, universities, health practitioners, and so forth should continue using the term STD because it better conveys the conditions represented. _____ > *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 term "STI" is misleading and only exists as a way to make sexual transmitted diseases seem less dangerous. Colloquially, and infection can be cured with antibiotics. It usually refers to what happens when you scrape your knee and don't clean it properly. It gets infected and you take a course of amoxicillin and you're fine. AIDS, Herpes, Chlamydia, Syphilis, and so forth are much more serious than this. They are dangerous infectious diseases that need to be treated as such. It is my view that the term "STI" emerged from the STD community as a way for them to not feel like they are carrying a terrible disease, but it's misleading. The change in the descriptor helps people's feelings, but conveys less information. Saying that someone who has AIDS isn't diseased, but merely "has an infection" significantly reduces the severity of the condition. The person doesn't have an infection in the way we use the term colloquially, as though a little pus is forming in a wound, but a communicable disease that is highly dangerous. Doctor's offices, universities, health practitioners, and so forth should continue using the term STD because it better conveys the conditions represented.

t3_24kuos

CMV: I believe that, to vote, people should prove a degree of selflessness (shamelessly stolen from starship troopers)

I believe that democracy is the worst system of government we have...except all the others (another shameless theft of a quote). But, like all things, democracy should be tempered with wisdom. There are already requirements to vote; being an adult, being a citizen, not being a felon (in some cases). I think that, in order to vote, you should have to prove that you have the interests of society at least partly in mind. In the book starship troopers (which is on the recommended reading list for the navy....weird much?), you have to serve society in a real, tangible way in order to vote. In the book, it's referred to as "federal service". In real life, I think the Swiss have it (mostly) figured out: mandatory military service (but for men only, which is why I said "mostly"). But for those unwilling or unable to perform military service, perhaps other public service for, say, two years; work as a 911 operator, or even for public works. But have a job assigned to you and serve the people, to prove you're not totally selfish. Thus, the voting body is made up of people who are provable capable of giving of themselves for others. No other rights or privileges would separate the voters from the nonvoters. As an added bonus, if we did mandatory military service, we could have an unbelievable state of military readiness in this country. Imagine if even 50 percent of all our people were armed and had combat training. The military would be massive, but could serve a lot of functions; municipal construction, disaster response, even things as mundane as sorting recycling. Believe me, the military already does a lot of mundane stuff. Imagine a country where everyone that chose to serve would be trained and equipped to serve their country, and every person that voted would have proven that they had the best interests of society at heart. _____ > *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, to vote, people should prove a degree of selflessness (shamelessly stolen from starship troopers). I believe that democracy is the worst system of government we have...except all the others (another shameless theft of a quote). But, like all things, democracy should be tempered with wisdom. There are already requirements to vote; being an adult, being a citizen, not being a felon (in some cases). I think that, in order to vote, you should have to prove that you have the interests of society at least partly in mind. In the book starship troopers (which is on the recommended reading list for the navy....weird much?), you have to serve society in a real, tangible way in order to vote. In the book, it's referred to as "federal service". In real life, I think the Swiss have it (mostly) figured out: mandatory military service (but for men only, which is why I said "mostly"). But for those unwilling or unable to perform military service, perhaps other public service for, say, two years; work as a 911 operator, or even for public works. But have a job assigned to you and serve the people, to prove you're not totally selfish. Thus, the voting body is made up of people who are provable capable of giving of themselves for others. No other rights or privileges would separate the voters from the nonvoters. As an added bonus, if we did mandatory military service, we could have an unbelievable state of military readiness in this country. Imagine if even 50 percent of all our people were armed and had combat training. The military would be massive, but could serve a lot of functions; municipal construction, disaster response, even things as mundane as sorting recycling. Believe me, the military already does a lot of mundane stuff. Imagine a country where everyone that chose to serve would be trained and equipped to serve their country, and every person that voted would have proven that they had the best interests of society at heart.

t3_1edfpb

CMV that zombies are not a metaphor for humanity.

I have been watching quite a few zombie movies lately and I know that there is a general consensus that zombies represent a metaphor for humanity and what we are capable of but I find to difficult to comprehend. Was wondering what reddit thought on the subject.

CMV that zombies are not a metaphor for humanity. I have been watching quite a few zombie movies lately and I know that there is a general consensus that zombies represent a metaphor for humanity and what we are capable of but I find to difficult to comprehend. Was wondering what reddit thought on the subject.

t3_4s5vxy

CMV: More and more gun laws are not the answer to gun violence; criminals will still get/have guns.

Every time some sort of shooting occurs, the president and others always talk about "strengthening/increasing gun laws" which appears to be more about politics than actually addressing the real problems. No matter what gun laws are put in place, the harder it is for a law abiding citizen to lawfully obtain a a gun, it will not change the fact that criminals will still continue to obtain their weapons via less-than-lawfully channels. I mean if you already by your guns illegal, via the underground, you're not going to suddenly change to using legitimate channels. All that pushing gun laws does more than anything else is hurt responsible legitimate gun owners. _____ > *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: More and more gun laws are not the answer to gun violence; criminals will still get/have guns. Every time some sort of shooting occurs, the president and others always talk about "strengthening/increasing gun laws" which appears to be more about politics than actually addressing the real problems. No matter what gun laws are put in place, the harder it is for a law abiding citizen to lawfully obtain a a gun, it will not change the fact that criminals will still continue to obtain their weapons via less-than-lawfully channels. I mean if you already by your guns illegal, via the underground, you're not going to suddenly change to using legitimate channels. All that pushing gun laws does more than anything else is hurt responsible legitimate gun owners.

t3_1bcepi

I think no one should attempt to change their sex (i.e. tansgender) CMV

I feel that our biological sex is such an integral part of our identity, that we should not attempt to change it. I do not understand the idea of feeling like "a woman trapped in a man's body" or vice versa and, no offense, why this is becoming so accepted. I am aware that the DSMV once categorized this as a psychological disorder (not sure if it still is). I also feel that it has the potential to create problems that society wouldn't normally have to deal with. For example, proponents of transgender people believe a male who identifies as "female" should be able to participate in female sports. However being biologically male gives them a huge advantage. I'm sure hormone therapy lessens the amount of muscle on a transgender M to F person, but there still must be some strength advantage, and also not every transgender person is taking hormone therapy. I am open to new ways of thought but no one has managed to make me understand it yet.

I think no one should attempt to change their sex (i.e. tansgender) CMV. I feel that our biological sex is such an integral part of our identity, that we should not attempt to change it. I do not understand the idea of feeling like "a woman trapped in a man's body" or vice versa and, no offense, why this is becoming so accepted. I am aware that the DSMV once categorized this as a psychological disorder (not sure if it still is). I also feel that it has the potential to create problems that society wouldn't normally have to deal with. For example, proponents of transgender people believe a male who identifies as "female" should be able to participate in female sports. However being biologically male gives them a huge advantage. I'm sure hormone therapy lessens the amount of muscle on a transgender M to F person, but there still must be some strength advantage, and also not every transgender person is taking hormone therapy. I am open to new ways of thought but no one has managed to make me understand it yet.

t3_3kur84

CMV: Drawn and hentai child porn should be legal, as long as real children are not involved.

Pedophiles were just born this way, of course that doesn't mean that they should be able to molest children because they can't consent. And normal child porn is most likely from exploited children who don't consent to that. But how does having child porn that isn't real photos harm anybody? If no real children are involved, then nobody is harmed. Pedophiles need to also have some porn, and as long as it doesn't harm anybody, I don't see the problem with it. If somebody exploits children that can't consent to get photos as child porn, that's bad because it harms the children, but child porn that doesn't involve real children doesn't harm anybody. _____ > *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: Drawn and hentai child porn should be legal, as long as real children are not involved. Pedophiles were just born this way, of course that doesn't mean that they should be able to molest children because they can't consent. And normal child porn is most likely from exploited children who don't consent to that. But how does having child porn that isn't real photos harm anybody? If no real children are involved, then nobody is harmed. Pedophiles need to also have some porn, and as long as it doesn't harm anybody, I don't see the problem with it. If somebody exploits children that can't consent to get photos as child porn, that's bad because it harms the children, but child porn that doesn't involve real children doesn't harm anybody.

t3_1fsg54

Given the bothersome affairs of immigrants in Europe, I think Europe should induce tighter immigration laws and deport those that cause trouble. CMV

Take the recent events in Stockholm for example. I don't know what the problem is, but I doubt it's Islam because if that were the case then most immigrant Muslims in Europe would behave like this. Also, immigrant *parents* are apparently much more peaceful than their descendants. I think the problem lies in the upbringing of the immigrant youth. Their arrogance is astounding. In a Swedish interview, a Muslim teenager told the media "The police should leave. We rule here." It's just an overwhelming case of ignorance and arrogance. I'm not 100% sure what causes this though. Maybe a lack of education? The majority of last generation Muslim immigrants were uneducated workers. Uneducated workers breed uneducated children. Uneducated and immature individuals cause trouble.

Given the bothersome affairs of immigrants in Europe, I think Europe should induce tighter immigration laws and deport those that cause trouble. CMV. Take the recent events in Stockholm for example. I don't know what the problem is, but I doubt it's Islam because if that were the case then most immigrant Muslims in Europe would behave like this. Also, immigrant *parents* are apparently much more peaceful than their descendants. I think the problem lies in the upbringing of the immigrant youth. Their arrogance is astounding. In a Swedish interview, a Muslim teenager told the media "The police should leave. We rule here." It's just an overwhelming case of ignorance and arrogance. I'm not 100% sure what causes this though. Maybe a lack of education? The majority of last generation Muslim immigrants were uneducated workers. Uneducated workers breed uneducated children. Uneducated and immature individuals cause trouble.

t3_369qzj

CMV: I think that the state should bankroll political parties and their campaigns, and that private contributions should be forbidden

I live in the UK, where a significant contributing factor to the loss of the left-wing party in the recent election was a result of powerful vested interests. The "Conservatives" traditionally are able to spend more on their campaigns due to their pro-business, anti-regulation stance attracting campaign contributions from the UK's richest whilst "Labour" are able to spend only what they are paid by their main contributor, the country's Trade Unions. This not only gives big business interests or the Unions a huge amount of indirect power over policymaking, but in the case of Labour it actually allows them to control which Labour candidate gets into power. The recently resigned Labour leader Ed Milliband was one example of this - his personal popularity remained low throughout the Labour campaign, and it is likely that a more electable candidate could have taken the party to victory. However, Milliband's position was at least in significant part the result of his return to a socialist approach which was popular with the Trade Union powerbrokers that were financing the Labour campaign. Basically what I'm trying to say is, it seems ridiculous that in this day and age political parties are funded by a vested interest rather than a neutral umpire that is "the state". In my opinion, all political parties should receive funding from the state to some degree proportional to their membership. The top two political parties would receive equal funding for their campaigns, whilst levels of funding would increase in jumps similar to tax brackets, but instead of income these brackets would be divided by numbers of party membership. To qualify for this funding, a minimum membership number would be required in order to create a sufficient monetary barrier to establishing a political party and discourage just anyone from formalising their political beliefs. I know that this system has flaws - if nothing else the sheer cost - but it seems leagues better than the corruption that moneyed interests bring to politics. So reddit, 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 state should bankroll political parties and their campaigns, and that private contributions should be forbidden. I live in the UK, where a significant contributing factor to the loss of the left-wing party in the recent election was a result of powerful vested interests. The "Conservatives" traditionally are able to spend more on their campaigns due to their pro-business, anti-regulation stance attracting campaign contributions from the UK's richest whilst "Labour" are able to spend only what they are paid by their main contributor, the country's Trade Unions. This not only gives big business interests or the Unions a huge amount of indirect power over policymaking, but in the case of Labour it actually allows them to control which Labour candidate gets into power. The recently resigned Labour leader Ed Milliband was one example of this - his personal popularity remained low throughout the Labour campaign, and it is likely that a more electable candidate could have taken the party to victory. However, Milliband's position was at least in significant part the result of his return to a socialist approach which was popular with the Trade Union powerbrokers that were financing the Labour campaign. Basically what I'm trying to say is, it seems ridiculous that in this day and age political parties are funded by a vested interest rather than a neutral umpire that is "the state". In my opinion, all political parties should receive funding from the state to some degree proportional to their membership. The top two political parties would receive equal funding for their campaigns, whilst levels of funding would increase in jumps similar to tax brackets, but instead of income these brackets would be divided by numbers of party membership. To qualify for this funding, a minimum membership number would be required in order to create a sufficient monetary barrier to establishing a political party and discourage just anyone from formalising their political beliefs. I know that this system has flaws - if nothing else the sheer cost - but it seems leagues better than the corruption that moneyed interests bring to politics. So reddit, CMV

t3_5ttzqh

CMV: When autonomous vehicles become mainstream, riding by yourself will become a luxury.

I believe that when autonomous vehicles enter the mainstream, being driven in a car by yourself will become a luxury. It seems logical that if a vehicle is taking a certain route and they happen to be going by someone who needs to go in that same direction, it shouldn't be that much of an inconvenience to pick them up on the way there. So companies will actually charge a premium for people to ride in a car exclusively by themselves. Obviously, if you picked up every single person multiple times throughout the route there's going to be a significant slowdown but that would be factored into the price with certain companies charging the lowest price but also picking up the maximum amount of people on any route that is taken. People will become nostalgic for the good old days when people could ride somewhere by themselves.

CMV: When autonomous vehicles become mainstream, riding by yourself will become a luxury. I believe that when autonomous vehicles enter the mainstream, being driven in a car by yourself will become a luxury. It seems logical that if a vehicle is taking a certain route and they happen to be going by someone who needs to go in that same direction, it shouldn't be that much of an inconvenience to pick them up on the way there. So companies will actually charge a premium for people to ride in a car exclusively by themselves. Obviously, if you picked up every single person multiple times throughout the route there's going to be a significant slowdown but that would be factored into the price with certain companies charging the lowest price but also picking up the maximum amount of people on any route that is taken. People will become nostalgic for the good old days when people could ride somewhere by themselves.

t3_3juxpc

CMV Sales tax is a regressive tax that hurts the economy more so then most taxes, an should be abolished in favor of raising property taxes

As in title, I beleive sales tax is not good for the economy as it de-incentiizes purchasing, which is the driver of demand and as a result the economy. I beleive that abolishing sales tax in favor of raising property taxes will help the lower and middle class. Who own less property and get them to buy more, thus raising demand and helping the economy. Background: dumb college kid with a few basic economics courses, and there is probably a bunch of data proving me wrong, or maybe right which I would love to see! EDIT: I would like to apologize for not responding yet, for some reason my reddit app is not notifiying me to replies. I will work on that now!

CMV Sales tax is a regressive tax that hurts the economy more so then most taxes, an should be abolished in favor of raising property taxes. As in title, I beleive sales tax is not good for the economy as it de-incentiizes purchasing, which is the driver of demand and as a result the economy. I beleive that abolishing sales tax in favor of raising property taxes will help the lower and middle class. Who own less property and get them to buy more, thus raising demand and helping the economy. Background: dumb college kid with a few basic economics courses, and there is probably a bunch of data proving me wrong, or maybe right which I would love to see! EDIT: I would like to apologize for not responding yet, for some reason my reddit app is not notifiying me to replies. I will work on that now!

t3_1djd6l

I think indie game developers should just stop developing for consoles entirely. CMV.

This is mostly in reaction to the release of BattleBlock Theater, a long-awaited downloadable Xbox game by the creators of Castle Crashers. Like most games, especially indies, it has its fair share of bugs, and from how I understand it, it costs quite a bit of money for developers to patch their game on Xbox live. This issue, combined with the greater opportunity for building a community around things like custom content on PC, leads me to wonder why, If a dev team's budget can't support developing for more than one console, they would choose one that hinders their game's growth and improvement.

I think indie game developers should just stop developing for consoles entirely. CMV. This is mostly in reaction to the release of BattleBlock Theater, a long-awaited downloadable Xbox game by the creators of Castle Crashers. Like most games, especially indies, it has its fair share of bugs, and from how I understand it, it costs quite a bit of money for developers to patch their game on Xbox live. This issue, combined with the greater opportunity for building a community around things like custom content on PC, leads me to wonder why, If a dev team's budget can't support developing for more than one console, they would choose one that hinders their game's growth and improvement.

t3_2o3gkr

CMV: I believe the police should be divided into two forces, a patrol force equipped with non-lethal weaponry, and a response force equipped with lethal weaponry.

My friend actually had this idea, and I couldn't think of any reasons why it wouldn't be a good solution...at least hypothetically, I do see all the logistical hurdles in terms of paying for and training two separate police forces. First off, why do your day-to-day patrol officers need lethal firearms? When you stop to think about it, it's a little bit absurd. We equip police officers with this tool that they are only supposed to use in the most extreme circumstances, and even when they use it justifiably they come under extremely intense scrutiny. It's a set-up for controversy and failure. Secondly, is there something inherently less effective about non-lethal weapons, such as mace, tazers, beanbag guns, tear gas, etc.? This is where I'll confess my ignorance, I don't know much about guns and weapons, but it seems to me that these things are all just as good at incapacitating somebody. How necessary is it for officers to have lethal capability? Maybe there's a deterrence factor, but aren't all these recent police shootings evidence that deterrence often fails with tragic results? Finally, is there any reason why a separate force equipped specifically to respond to armed threats would be ineffective? Again, I recognize there are big hurdles in terms of manpower and cost. On the other hand, how much money is wasted on the legal battles that ensue nearly every time a police officer draws his firearm? Just so you know, my mind can definitely be changed on this, I don't have all the pieces together in my head and I suspect there is some reason why this sort of arrangement wouldn't work. Change my view! Edit: Thanks to everyone who responded (or is still responding). The consensus seems to be that the non-lethal (less lethal) technology just isn't there, but I have yet to be convinced that there is any more fundamental reason why lethal threats must be addressed with lethal force. So, a hypothetical follow-up prompt for those still following this thread: if non-lethal (less lethal) weapons were available and effective at disarming armed criminals, would you still prefer police officers to be armed with actual firearms? What if the non-lethal weapons were only slightly less effective than firearms? At what point would they be worth using? _____ > *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 the police should be divided into two forces, a patrol force equipped with non-lethal weaponry, and a response force equipped with lethal weaponry. My friend actually had this idea, and I couldn't think of any reasons why it wouldn't be a good solution...at least hypothetically, I do see all the logistical hurdles in terms of paying for and training two separate police forces. First off, why do your day-to-day patrol officers need lethal firearms? When you stop to think about it, it's a little bit absurd. We equip police officers with this tool that they are only supposed to use in the most extreme circumstances, and even when they use it justifiably they come under extremely intense scrutiny. It's a set-up for controversy and failure. Secondly, is there something inherently less effective about non-lethal weapons, such as mace, tazers, beanbag guns, tear gas, etc.? This is where I'll confess my ignorance, I don't know much about guns and weapons, but it seems to me that these things are all just as good at incapacitating somebody. How necessary is it for officers to have lethal capability? Maybe there's a deterrence factor, but aren't all these recent police shootings evidence that deterrence often fails with tragic results? Finally, is there any reason why a separate force equipped specifically to respond to armed threats would be ineffective? Again, I recognize there are big hurdles in terms of manpower and cost. On the other hand, how much money is wasted on the legal battles that ensue nearly every time a police officer draws his firearm? Just so you know, my mind can definitely be changed on this, I don't have all the pieces together in my head and I suspect there is some reason why this sort of arrangement wouldn't work. Change my view! Edit: Thanks to everyone who responded (or is still responding). The consensus seems to be that the non-lethal (less lethal) technology just isn't there, but I have yet to be convinced that there is any more fundamental reason why lethal threats must be addressed with lethal force. So, a hypothetical follow-up prompt for those still following this thread: if non-lethal (less lethal) weapons were available and effective at disarming armed criminals, would you still prefer police officers to be armed with actual firearms? What if the non-lethal weapons were only slightly less effective than firearms? At what point would they be worth using?

t3_39rlhg

CMV: Killing baby cows for food is no more immoral than killing adult cows for food.

Cows are neither sentient nor intelligent. They don't anticipate the future, they don't make plans, they're not moved to tears by bringing a new little cow life into the world. Given that killing animals for food is not generally immoral^1 , there is not such a great difference between the experience of a baby cow and an adult cow that one will experience death any differently than the other; neither is the life of a cow so rich and fulfilling^2 that it's immoral to deprive a baby cow of it before it dies. Therefore, I should not feel any worse eating veal than I do eating a hamburger. ^1 If you disagree with this, that's a different argument entirely; I'm glad to hear your opinion on the matter, but you won't change my view unless your argument assumes this point. ^2 Just the opposite, presently; the lives of cows are full of pain and discomfort, because our (American) food-raising process is horrifying. I *do* think that this is unethical, just based on the principle that pain is a bad thing, but it's not a massive priority for me because I think the amount of human suffering is significantly greater at this time than the amount of animal suffering (due to the greater capacity of a human to experience suffering). Again, this isn't the topic of my CMV, but if you want to give your opinion on the matter I'd be glad to hear it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Killing baby cows for food is no more immoral than killing adult cows for food. Cows are neither sentient nor intelligent. They don't anticipate the future, they don't make plans, they're not moved to tears by bringing a new little cow life into the world. Given that killing animals for food is not generally immoral^1 , there is not such a great difference between the experience of a baby cow and an adult cow that one will experience death any differently than the other; neither is the life of a cow so rich and fulfilling^2 that it's immoral to deprive a baby cow of it before it dies. Therefore, I should not feel any worse eating veal than I do eating a hamburger. ^1 If you disagree with this, that's a different argument entirely; I'm glad to hear your opinion on the matter, but you won't change my view unless your argument assumes this point. ^2 Just the opposite, presently; the lives of cows are full of pain and discomfort, because our (American) food-raising process is horrifying. I *do* think that this is unethical, just based on the principle that pain is a bad thing, but it's not a massive priority for me because I think the amount of human suffering is significantly greater at this time than the amount of animal suffering (due to the greater capacity of a human to experience suffering). Again, this isn't the topic of my CMV, but if you want to give your opinion on the matter I'd be glad to hear it.

t3_3ii3wn

CMV: Polygamy should be legal in the Western world (United States, Canada, Europe and Oceania)

I see nothing wrong with polygamy. The only problem I could see occurring in polygamous marriages is the destruction of traditional marriage, however this has been argued to have been a problem with same-sex marriage. Like same-sex marriage, I can see no ethical dilemmas brought upon by introducing polygamous marriages besides the religious. Our nation is not built upon religious foundations, we are a secular state, therefore using Christian morals to argue what is marriage what is not is not a viable reason to keep polygamy illegal. Prior to European colonization (headed by Christian leaders), many cultures from around the world practiced polygamous marriages for thousands of years. Now after decolonization, this has been shrunk to mostly the Middle East, Indonesia, West Asia, Myanmar and most of Africa. There have been some that have argued in the past that polygamous marriages have a higher rate of abuse of women. However, if we look at who is practicing polygamy and where it is currently legal, can we truly say that the type of marriage is at fault? Most (if not all) nations where polygamy is legal are Islamic nations. The religion in and of itself is not known for being respectful towards women nor tolerant of them deviating from the wishes of their husband (or government). Can we truly say that abuse would become less prevalent in Muslim countries if all marriages were suddenly turned to monogamous ones? Others will point to certain cults that have split off from the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and speak of their abuse against women and even rampant pedophilia. This is once again a bad example. Who in the United States is practicing polygamy? More often than not; cults. Cults are often cults of personality, the worship of a single person; the cult leader. Can we expect a person who has made themselves out to be something of a prophet (or more) to respect their spouses or basic human rights? Probably not. Let's think for a moment and say that a nation like India happened to be the first to legally same-sex marriage. If there was a high amount of abuse among marriages, surely this would be seen in gay and lesbian ones as well. Could we then not point to India and exclaim that same-sex marriage simply does not work? Some argue that there are simply too few people interested in a polygamous lifestyle for people to protest its ban or for legislation to be passed to overturn it. This is true, however it does not change the absurdity of being against it. Many things are legal (or are simply not illegal) that few people practice. Does that mean that they should be illegal because they deviate from the norm? This is does not exclude the possibility of non-abuse marriages by non-Islamic, non-cultist polygamous marriages. There has been the concept of non religious marriages involving multiple partners for men and women since the hippy era of the United States. We are a free society, a free nation. Why should we decide how many a man or woman chooses to marry? Who are we to deny these marriages? Are we so morally superior that we can dictate that marriage must be between two individuals? I do not see the appeal of polygamous marriage, however I do not see myself as one to judge.

CMV: Polygamy should be legal in the Western world (United States, Canada, Europe and Oceania). I see nothing wrong with polygamy. The only problem I could see occurring in polygamous marriages is the destruction of traditional marriage, however this has been argued to have been a problem with same-sex marriage. Like same-sex marriage, I can see no ethical dilemmas brought upon by introducing polygamous marriages besides the religious. Our nation is not built upon religious foundations, we are a secular state, therefore using Christian morals to argue what is marriage what is not is not a viable reason to keep polygamy illegal. Prior to European colonization (headed by Christian leaders), many cultures from around the world practiced polygamous marriages for thousands of years. Now after decolonization, this has been shrunk to mostly the Middle East, Indonesia, West Asia, Myanmar and most of Africa. There have been some that have argued in the past that polygamous marriages have a higher rate of abuse of women. However, if we look at who is practicing polygamy and where it is currently legal, can we truly say that the type of marriage is at fault? Most (if not all) nations where polygamy is legal are Islamic nations. The religion in and of itself is not known for being respectful towards women nor tolerant of them deviating from the wishes of their husband (or government). Can we truly say that abuse would become less prevalent in Muslim countries if all marriages were suddenly turned to monogamous ones? Others will point to certain cults that have split off from the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and speak of their abuse against women and even rampant pedophilia. This is once again a bad example. Who in the United States is practicing polygamy? More often than not; cults. Cults are often cults of personality, the worship of a single person; the cult leader. Can we expect a person who has made themselves out to be something of a prophet (or more) to respect their spouses or basic human rights? Probably not. Let's think for a moment and say that a nation like India happened to be the first to legally same-sex marriage. If there was a high amount of abuse among marriages, surely this would be seen in gay and lesbian ones as well. Could we then not point to India and exclaim that same-sex marriage simply does not work? Some argue that there are simply too few people interested in a polygamous lifestyle for people to protest its ban or for legislation to be passed to overturn it. This is true, however it does not change the absurdity of being against it. Many things are legal (or are simply not illegal) that few people practice. Does that mean that they should be illegal because they deviate from the norm? This is does not exclude the possibility of non-abuse marriages by non-Islamic, non-cultist polygamous marriages. There has been the concept of non religious marriages involving multiple partners for men and women since the hippy era of the United States. We are a free society, a free nation. Why should we decide how many a man or woman chooses to marry? Who are we to deny these marriages? Are we so morally superior that we can dictate that marriage must be between two individuals? I do not see the appeal of polygamous marriage, however I do not see myself as one to judge.

t3_6cylpt

CMV: I don't think tie games are a bad thing

The NFL just reduced the length of overtime from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. A lot of people are complaining because the rule change will obviously increase the number of tie games. Americans don't like the concept of draws, it seems. Sports is an entertainment product. The point is to have organic and relatable drama to get people to watch show, and bring eyeballs to advertising space which they can sell. If you think about it, the satisfaction you derive out of watching sports has very little to do with the variation of outcomes that come from the end of a game. In some leagues, a losing team can get some table points/PCT back from losing by a close margin, yet that doesn't make those games less entertaining to fans of the winning team. So the real question is whether you would stop watching the NFL if you think the game might end in a tie. I think the answer for 99% of people is no. 0.5W is still a result and factors into the playoff question. So the long-term narrative drama is still there. It doesn't detract from the game itself either; all the moments of tension during the game are still there, they don't go away because the game was an even draw. No one in soccer talks about getting rid of ties, because they don't need to. The few attempts to remove or reduce them, including the silly MLS gimmicks in the US, have not resulted in higher viewership or attendance. I think the converse will happen for the NFL; increasing the number of ties will not be major factor determining the number of people watching football games. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't think tie games are a bad thing. The NFL just reduced the length of overtime from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. A lot of people are complaining because the rule change will obviously increase the number of tie games. Americans don't like the concept of draws, it seems. Sports is an entertainment product. The point is to have organic and relatable drama to get people to watch show, and bring eyeballs to advertising space which they can sell. If you think about it, the satisfaction you derive out of watching sports has very little to do with the variation of outcomes that come from the end of a game. In some leagues, a losing team can get some table points/PCT back from losing by a close margin, yet that doesn't make those games less entertaining to fans of the winning team. So the real question is whether you would stop watching the NFL if you think the game might end in a tie. I think the answer for 99% of people is no. 0.5W is still a result and factors into the playoff question. So the long-term narrative drama is still there. It doesn't detract from the game itself either; all the moments of tension during the game are still there, they don't go away because the game was an even draw. No one in soccer talks about getting rid of ties, because they don't need to. The few attempts to remove or reduce them, including the silly MLS gimmicks in the US, have not resulted in higher viewership or attendance. I think the converse will happen for the NFL; increasing the number of ties will not be major factor determining the number of people watching football games.

t3_1ikist

I believe motorcycles are extremely dangerous and should not allow passengers on them. CMV.

I was a paramedic in my 20s and and scraped a lot of motorcyclists off the road. Some of these people were not so lucky to survive the crashes. Now i'm a nurse and still deal with men and women of various ages coming in to the hospital to get debris taken out of them. My daughters boyfriend has a motorcycle and she asked if i would be comfortable with him driving her on it, i said no, but she keeps pressing the issue. All of her boyfriends family rides motorcycles and they are comfortable with him driving her on it. She told me that if i post here it will help me becoming more comfortable with her riding passenger, but as for now I'm terrified.

I believe motorcycles are extremely dangerous and should not allow passengers on them. CMV. I was a paramedic in my 20s and and scraped a lot of motorcyclists off the road. Some of these people were not so lucky to survive the crashes. Now i'm a nurse and still deal with men and women of various ages coming in to the hospital to get debris taken out of them. My daughters boyfriend has a motorcycle and she asked if i would be comfortable with him driving her on it, i said no, but she keeps pressing the issue. All of her boyfriends family rides motorcycles and they are comfortable with him driving her on it. She told me that if i post here it will help me becoming more comfortable with her riding passenger, but as for now I'm terrified.

t3_55dzx7

CMV: I believe that our current international framework is failing the world

Let's start with the United Nations: It is compromised of two main bodies: The general assembly which vaguely represents a parliament and the security council, by design a tool to kick arounds nations which are not influential to any of the member countries. The first problem is see with the general seembly is that it is wholly unpresentative as it more resembles as senate then an parliament: Every country gets the same amount of influence, i.e. votes. That means that every of the 200 nations minus is presumed equal: Luermbourg yields the same authority as does the united states. Every other similar international parliament like the EU parliament is, mostly by design adjusted for population size, which seems more appropriate to me. Even more grotesque is the security council: By design no permanent member can be overvoted. This was done to secure that no country pulls out of the UN, but made it an paper tiger. Instead that powerful nations can be restricted to international law, it is just a club of the powerful nations, or once powerful nations like the UK, patting each other on the head and just dealing with minor nuisances instead of the great problems the world faces. Because all member nations are involved in the most current issues and have fortified interests so that no really meaningfull policy can be resolved in this council. The UN enforce the status quo, even in conflict situations. But it gets worse when the UN gets involved: The UN does not have a standing army so they are forced to recruit them from member nations. As states are paid money for their troops under UN mandate, impoverished nations are incentived to hire their countrymen out. This results that Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan are among on the highest contributors to the UN troops. All nations which do not have a great human right record, massive infighting and most likely discipline which represen peace, even through their home countries are not peacefull. At all. There are also cases when peacekeepers were pulled out shortly before conflict instead of doing their duty to enforce peace, for example the seven days war. So to summarize: We have bizzare state-lile instiution with and legislative/judicative-mix system which is legitamized on vague grounds and by design ineffective in major conflicts combined with an non-standing executive which consists of guns-for-hire which are sendout at will by the security council. And that's not even covering the sub organizations like the World Trade Organizations, which imposes neo-liberal policy on the whole world and holds pseudo-courts, which again, change on the issue instead of having standing judges. There is some good, especially in some organizations like the World Health Organization which does great work, but as a whole, the UN fails the world in critical key areas. _____ > *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 our current international framework is failing the world. Let's start with the United Nations: It is compromised of two main bodies: The general assembly which vaguely represents a parliament and the security council, by design a tool to kick arounds nations which are not influential to any of the member countries. The first problem is see with the general seembly is that it is wholly unpresentative as it more resembles as senate then an parliament: Every country gets the same amount of influence, i.e. votes. That means that every of the 200 nations minus is presumed equal: Luermbourg yields the same authority as does the united states. Every other similar international parliament like the EU parliament is, mostly by design adjusted for population size, which seems more appropriate to me. Even more grotesque is the security council: By design no permanent member can be overvoted. This was done to secure that no country pulls out of the UN, but made it an paper tiger. Instead that powerful nations can be restricted to international law, it is just a club of the powerful nations, or once powerful nations like the UK, patting each other on the head and just dealing with minor nuisances instead of the great problems the world faces. Because all member nations are involved in the most current issues and have fortified interests so that no really meaningfull policy can be resolved in this council. The UN enforce the status quo, even in conflict situations. But it gets worse when the UN gets involved: The UN does not have a standing army so they are forced to recruit them from member nations. As states are paid money for their troops under UN mandate, impoverished nations are incentived to hire their countrymen out. This results that Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan are among on the highest contributors to the UN troops. All nations which do not have a great human right record, massive infighting and most likely discipline which represen peace, even through their home countries are not peacefull. At all. There are also cases when peacekeepers were pulled out shortly before conflict instead of doing their duty to enforce peace, for example the seven days war. So to summarize: We have bizzare state-lile instiution with and legislative/judicative-mix system which is legitamized on vague grounds and by design ineffective in major conflicts combined with an non-standing executive which consists of guns-for-hire which are sendout at will by the security council. And that's not even covering the sub organizations like the World Trade Organizations, which imposes neo-liberal policy on the whole world and holds pseudo-courts, which again, change on the issue instead of having standing judges. There is some good, especially in some organizations like the World Health Organization which does great work, but as a whole, the UN fails the world in critical key areas.

t3_5qck2c

CMV: Heavily restricting meat from your diet or completely getting rid of meat within your diet is healthier than including it.

I have a couple of reasons for this view and will lay them out for you now. Number 1: I am a vegan and have been for a little over a year now. The common problems I hear about when people try going vegan I have encountered and conquered. Things like feeling weak, feeling tired, and always being hungry. I was able to conquer these common problems by learning how to properly manage my diet. (taking the right vitamins and learning how to get enough protein, vitamins, etc.) Basically these problems can easily be solved by doing veganism/vegetarianism properly. Number 2: Everything in moderation right? This is a common rule that is often forgotten when talking about the consumption of meat (at least in America). I bring this up to present my argument of: If an overabundance of meat in our diet causes things like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cancer; while an overabundance of fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts cause no harm at all, how can one argue that we are supposed to eat meat as humans? Number 3: The whole eating cooked meat allowed our ancestor's brains to evolve. This is a common rebuttal to an anti-meat diet and here is my counter. Meat back then was nearly the only highly nutritious food item on the menu. Yes, there were berries and nuts around but as we know today, just using those items to obtain the essential vitamins and such is hard (not impossible). Hence the reason we take supplements. So eating meat let our brain's evolve because of the nutrients within the meat itself, which the animal got from the fruits, vegetables, and grains it itself was eating. If agriculture came before cooked meat and the humans of that time learned to farm the correct crops I believe our brains would have still gotten enough nutrients to evolve. And kind of off topic. This fact has no weight in arguing that because it helped us progress in history that it is necessary now. That is akin to saying because slavery was crucial to the evolution of America (if you don't think it was, you obviously don't know your American History) that we still need it now. If you're not a bigot you can see the problem with that way of thinking. Eating meat is literally not necessary to live a healthy life, let alone survive. Number 4: Continuing on from number 3. The meat from back then and the meat now are completely different. The meat now (talking about factory farms) is no where near as lean or clean as the meat from back then. I'm sure you know of the steroids and chemicals they pump into factory farmed animals in these times. (not specific chemicals but you have knowledge of the act) Number 5: Living a healthy and happy life is easily achievable without meat as long as you are willing to learn how to do it. Examples are every longterm healthy vegan or vegetarian out there. Now my reason for posting this is because I really want my view to be changed. I want to understand how people can say a diet that consists of mostly meat (like the average American's diet) is healthier than a vegan/vegetarian/restrictive diet.

CMV: Heavily restricting meat from your diet or completely getting rid of meat within your diet is healthier than including it. I have a couple of reasons for this view and will lay them out for you now. Number 1: I am a vegan and have been for a little over a year now. The common problems I hear about when people try going vegan I have encountered and conquered. Things like feeling weak, feeling tired, and always being hungry. I was able to conquer these common problems by learning how to properly manage my diet. (taking the right vitamins and learning how to get enough protein, vitamins, etc.) Basically these problems can easily be solved by doing veganism/vegetarianism properly. Number 2: Everything in moderation right? This is a common rule that is often forgotten when talking about the consumption of meat (at least in America). I bring this up to present my argument of: If an overabundance of meat in our diet causes things like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cancer; while an overabundance of fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts cause no harm at all, how can one argue that we are supposed to eat meat as humans? Number 3: The whole eating cooked meat allowed our ancestor's brains to evolve. This is a common rebuttal to an anti-meat diet and here is my counter. Meat back then was nearly the only highly nutritious food item on the menu. Yes, there were berries and nuts around but as we know today, just using those items to obtain the essential vitamins and such is hard (not impossible). Hence the reason we take supplements. So eating meat let our brain's evolve because of the nutrients within the meat itself, which the animal got from the fruits, vegetables, and grains it itself was eating. If agriculture came before cooked meat and the humans of that time learned to farm the correct crops I believe our brains would have still gotten enough nutrients to evolve. And kind of off topic. This fact has no weight in arguing that because it helped us progress in history that it is necessary now. That is akin to saying because slavery was crucial to the evolution of America (if you don't think it was, you obviously don't know your American History) that we still need it now. If you're not a bigot you can see the problem with that way of thinking. Eating meat is literally not necessary to live a healthy life, let alone survive. Number 4: Continuing on from number 3. The meat from back then and the meat now are completely different. The meat now (talking about factory farms) is no where near as lean or clean as the meat from back then. I'm sure you know of the steroids and chemicals they pump into factory farmed animals in these times. (not specific chemicals but you have knowledge of the act) Number 5: Living a healthy and happy life is easily achievable without meat as long as you are willing to learn how to do it. Examples are every longterm healthy vegan or vegetarian out there. Now my reason for posting this is because I really want my view to be changed. I want to understand how people can say a diet that consists of mostly meat (like the average American's diet) is healthier than a vegan/vegetarian/restrictive diet.

t3_3mzep7

CMV: The U.S Federal government had no right to define marriage and to force gay marriage upon the states. CMV.

Edit: I sorta fucked up yall. My view was changed, but I never really meant to argue it in the first place. Choose the wrong way to tackle an issue I feel really passionate about. With respect to the rules, I can't really argue my actual point. I will make another post some other time Let me start by saying I am not Christian, and genuinely have no issue with gay people and their culture. I simply believe the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries with its ruling on Gay marriage. The Constitution clearly states with the 10th amendment that powers not delegated to the federal government by it shall be passed on to the states. If you want the federal government to take control of marriage, it must be done through a new amendment. I would have little problem if that's what was done. (although I don't think "marriage" should be a government issue at all, but that's a whole other issue.) To close I just want to make it clear that my argument isn't against gay people and their right to love; it is against the un constitutional Supreme Court decision that forces and authority it doesn't have on the states. My view can defiantly be changed on this issue because I seriously do not care if gay people marry, but I feel it's a slippery slope when we start ignoring the constitution just because it's convenient and feels good. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The U.S Federal government had no right to define marriage and to force gay marriage upon the states. CMV. Edit: I sorta fucked up yall. My view was changed, but I never really meant to argue it in the first place. Choose the wrong way to tackle an issue I feel really passionate about. With respect to the rules, I can't really argue my actual point. I will make another post some other time Let me start by saying I am not Christian, and genuinely have no issue with gay people and their culture. I simply believe the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries with its ruling on Gay marriage. The Constitution clearly states with the 10th amendment that powers not delegated to the federal government by it shall be passed on to the states. If you want the federal government to take control of marriage, it must be done through a new amendment. I would have little problem if that's what was done. (although I don't think "marriage" should be a government issue at all, but that's a whole other issue.) To close I just want to make it clear that my argument isn't against gay people and their right to love; it is against the un constitutional Supreme Court decision that forces and authority it doesn't have on the states. My view can defiantly be changed on this issue because I seriously do not care if gay people marry, but I feel it's a slippery slope when we start ignoring the constitution just because it's convenient and feels good.

t3_2j4t8g

CMV: I don't think marching band, cheerleading, dance, etc. should be considered sports.

Now, before I begin, I want to make it clear that I am not the stereotypical sports jock who puts down non-traditional "sports" like cheerleading and marching band. I am currently in high school marching band, and have never been good at any actual sports. A sport has always been a competitive activity that involves either individuals or teams competing against each other to win a game or match. Sports have clear winners that can be determined by either the amount of points an individual or team wins (ex: football, soccer, tennis, etc.), or which individual or team finishes first (ex: swim, track, etc.). Therefore, anything that cannot be determined to have a clear winner should not be considered a sport. Even if you don't accept this definition, there is a clear difference between artistic activities and athletic activities. Athletic events require mostly physical fitness and coordination, and have a clear winner. Artistic events, like marching band and dance, may require physical activity, but mostly utilize one's creative interpretation. Additionally, artistic events cannot be judged objectively, and artistic competitions almost always have judges who use their own subjection to determine the winners. Now, for some reason, there has been a strange push in the last decade or so to define just about any and all extracurricular activities as sports, especially in high schools. When meeting someone in high school, instead of asking what that person enjoys to do, the primary question seems to be "what sports do you play". While this isn't really part of my main argument, I think a possible reason for this trend is the desire from students to feel included in the world of sports, despite not being "good enough" for traditional sports. Edit: I'm a little annoyed that people have downvoted some of my responses. I thought the point of this subreddit was to not downvote people's opinions, and to only downvote stuff that is against the rules or irrelevant, which my replies are neither to my knowledge. I don't intend for everyone to agree with my argument, but I do expect people to show respect when responding to my argument, as I do to 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 marching band, cheerleading, dance, etc. should be considered sports. Now, before I begin, I want to make it clear that I am not the stereotypical sports jock who puts down non-traditional "sports" like cheerleading and marching band. I am currently in high school marching band, and have never been good at any actual sports. A sport has always been a competitive activity that involves either individuals or teams competing against each other to win a game or match. Sports have clear winners that can be determined by either the amount of points an individual or team wins (ex: football, soccer, tennis, etc.), or which individual or team finishes first (ex: swim, track, etc.). Therefore, anything that cannot be determined to have a clear winner should not be considered a sport. Even if you don't accept this definition, there is a clear difference between artistic activities and athletic activities. Athletic events require mostly physical fitness and coordination, and have a clear winner. Artistic events, like marching band and dance, may require physical activity, but mostly utilize one's creative interpretation. Additionally, artistic events cannot be judged objectively, and artistic competitions almost always have judges who use their own subjection to determine the winners. Now, for some reason, there has been a strange push in the last decade or so to define just about any and all extracurricular activities as sports, especially in high schools. When meeting someone in high school, instead of asking what that person enjoys to do, the primary question seems to be "what sports do you play". While this isn't really part of my main argument, I think a possible reason for this trend is the desire from students to feel included in the world of sports, despite not being "good enough" for traditional sports. Edit: I'm a little annoyed that people have downvoted some of my responses. I thought the point of this subreddit was to not downvote people's opinions, and to only downvote stuff that is against the rules or irrelevant, which my replies are neither to my knowledge. I don't intend for everyone to agree with my argument, but I do expect people to show respect when responding to my argument, as I do to them.

t3_5c57s6

CMV: China poses little threat to the United States.

It seems many are worried China will overtake The United States soon as a World Power, or at least economically. It's clear they have a ton of production and trade, and The US is in a lot of debt to them. I see that at the moment that China seems to have the economic upper hand. However, I believe there are two issues for China that prevent them from overtaking The US. 1. The military power of The US is humongous compared to that of China. I see it as being similar to two second graders. The bigger kid can ask the smaller kid for money all he wants, and even demand it, because of his size. The smaller kid has practically no choice in the matter no matter how much "debt" the bigger kid accumulates. 2. The US is a diverse free Capitalist Nation. I believe that the mixing of various cultures and the encouragement of entrepreneurship is a breeding ground for sell-able ideas. I once heard a quote I thought hits this problem on the head. I'm not sure who exactly said it, (If you could help me out with the source it would be much appreciated) "We have kung-fu and we have pandas, but we could not make a film like Kung-fu Panda." Anyways, I'm no economist or political expert, please don't crucify me for any lack of knowledge.

CMV: China poses little threat to the United States. It seems many are worried China will overtake The United States soon as a World Power, or at least economically. It's clear they have a ton of production and trade, and The US is in a lot of debt to them. I see that at the moment that China seems to have the economic upper hand. However, I believe there are two issues for China that prevent them from overtaking The US. 1. The military power of The US is humongous compared to that of China. I see it as being similar to two second graders. The bigger kid can ask the smaller kid for money all he wants, and even demand it, because of his size. The smaller kid has practically no choice in the matter no matter how much "debt" the bigger kid accumulates. 2. The US is a diverse free Capitalist Nation. I believe that the mixing of various cultures and the encouragement of entrepreneurship is a breeding ground for sell-able ideas. I once heard a quote I thought hits this problem on the head. I'm not sure who exactly said it, (If you could help me out with the source it would be much appreciated) "We have kung-fu and we have pandas, but we could not make a film like Kung-fu Panda." Anyways, I'm no economist or political expert, please don't crucify me for any lack of knowledge.

t3_30qaon

CMV: Intellectual elitism is a good thing

Something I've noticed is that there is something of a pseudo-anti-intellectual bent to the world views of a great number of people. It's not quite anti-intellectualism - it's fairly rare to find someone who actually rejects the value of education and the like in my (largely US-centric) experience (though such people do exist). But while the sort of people I refer to don't outright reject education, they do reject the idea that educating oneself inherently improves oneself. It's something of a combination of valuing education only as a means to an end and the age-old "ivory tower" conceptualization of academics. I have a really hard time understanding this tendency. From my point of view, intellectual elitism is very much a good thing - it encourages people to strive for ever-greater understanding of the world around them, which can only be good for society as a whole and is incredibly useful to the individual no matter what they end up doing. Now, I do understand that it could seem somewhat unfair to expect people to be intellectually capable when one considers the presence of environmental variables in a person's upbringing - someone who grows up in a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood will have a much harder time developing academic abilities than someone who grows up in a wealthy suburban community, after all. But what such a view fails to take into account is that by collectively emphasizing the value of critical thinking and intellectual capabilities, the aforementioned environment variables are changed for the better. So in summary, my view is that not only is it not a bad thing to consider people who have developed their intellectual abilities to be better in that respect than people who have not, but that it is a very good thing for society as a whole. _____ > *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: Intellectual elitism is a good thing. Something I've noticed is that there is something of a pseudo-anti-intellectual bent to the world views of a great number of people. It's not quite anti-intellectualism - it's fairly rare to find someone who actually rejects the value of education and the like in my (largely US-centric) experience (though such people do exist). But while the sort of people I refer to don't outright reject education, they do reject the idea that educating oneself inherently improves oneself. It's something of a combination of valuing education only as a means to an end and the age-old "ivory tower" conceptualization of academics. I have a really hard time understanding this tendency. From my point of view, intellectual elitism is very much a good thing - it encourages people to strive for ever-greater understanding of the world around them, which can only be good for society as a whole and is incredibly useful to the individual no matter what they end up doing. Now, I do understand that it could seem somewhat unfair to expect people to be intellectually capable when one considers the presence of environmental variables in a person's upbringing - someone who grows up in a poor, crime-ridden neighborhood will have a much harder time developing academic abilities than someone who grows up in a wealthy suburban community, after all. But what such a view fails to take into account is that by collectively emphasizing the value of critical thinking and intellectual capabilities, the aforementioned environment variables are changed for the better. So in summary, my view is that not only is it not a bad thing to consider people who have developed their intellectual abilities to be better in that respect than people who have not, but that it is a very good thing for society as a whole.

t3_6ebzba

CMV: I cannot tolerate trump supporters

I am very liberal. I want to be considered tolerant. But today I was watching a snapchat story about how trump supporters and conservatives feel incredibly ostracized on college campuses and that college isn't nearly as accepting as they claim to be. And I really want to be accepting but I am struggling. For one, I am a woman and I despise the way trump has treated women and spoken about them. I hate that his supporters are willing to look past multiple sexual assault claims. I had been assaulted by a 50 year old man I trusted when I was 15. And the fact that supporters don't care makes me feel like I don't matter. I also can't get behind that they're OK with someone who is happy to work with Steve bannon, a well known antisemite. I and my family are Jewish. My grandmother is a lovely Jewish woman and certainly does not deserve hate. Then my boyfriend is Mexican. I've loved this guy for almost 3 years. His family is so sweet and amazing and worked their asses off to be here. But Trump's attitude to Mexicans is just toxic. And all the trump supporters I know are very negative towards Mexicans as well. But despite all of these things, I want someone to convince me to be positive towards those who fight against the things I love

CMV: I cannot tolerate trump supporters. I am very liberal. I want to be considered tolerant. But today I was watching a snapchat story about how trump supporters and conservatives feel incredibly ostracized on college campuses and that college isn't nearly as accepting as they claim to be. And I really want to be accepting but I am struggling. For one, I am a woman and I despise the way trump has treated women and spoken about them. I hate that his supporters are willing to look past multiple sexual assault claims. I had been assaulted by a 50 year old man I trusted when I was 15. And the fact that supporters don't care makes me feel like I don't matter. I also can't get behind that they're OK with someone who is happy to work with Steve bannon, a well known antisemite. I and my family are Jewish. My grandmother is a lovely Jewish woman and certainly does not deserve hate. Then my boyfriend is Mexican. I've loved this guy for almost 3 years. His family is so sweet and amazing and worked their asses off to be here. But Trump's attitude to Mexicans is just toxic. And all the trump supporters I know are very negative towards Mexicans as well. But despite all of these things, I want someone to convince me to be positive towards those who fight against the things I love

t3_3ceu39

CMV: You should get an Iphone over a Galaxy

Let me hear your side of the phone war. From coming the S4 and S5, I'm used to the sub-par performance of android. I had just picked up a new, unlocked galaxy S6 for 850$ total (with plan setup and such) and I'm disappointed in myself for not getting an iphone instead. First thing I learned, Samsung let's carriers take out apps and put in bloat, where Apple does not let carriers do this. Samsung has boasted about the 3gb of ram, when most of the time my apps are still crashing regardless of this amazing ram power. My friends have said their iphones have rarelt crashed an app before. Another thing is the whole carrier mmms limit on andriod, where imessage on the iphone does not have this problem and can send any size mb video or picture. The Galaxy S6 also seems barren feature wise. I'm just so damn upset I bought this phone instead of waiting for the new iphone to come out. Once I make the switch to the Iphone 7 (or 6s, whichever comes out earlier) I have a feeling I won't be coming back to android for a very, very, very long time. So, with that being said, let me hear what you all have to say about your side of the phone war and what the deal breaker was for choosing it.

CMV: You should get an Iphone over a Galaxy. Let me hear your side of the phone war. From coming the S4 and S5, I'm used to the sub-par performance of android. I had just picked up a new, unlocked galaxy S6 for 850$ total (with plan setup and such) and I'm disappointed in myself for not getting an iphone instead. First thing I learned, Samsung let's carriers take out apps and put in bloat, where Apple does not let carriers do this. Samsung has boasted about the 3gb of ram, when most of the time my apps are still crashing regardless of this amazing ram power. My friends have said their iphones have rarelt crashed an app before. Another thing is the whole carrier mmms limit on andriod, where imessage on the iphone does not have this problem and can send any size mb video or picture. The Galaxy S6 also seems barren feature wise. I'm just so damn upset I bought this phone instead of waiting for the new iphone to come out. Once I make the switch to the Iphone 7 (or 6s, whichever comes out earlier) I have a feeling I won't be coming back to android for a very, very, very long time. So, with that being said, let me hear what you all have to say about your side of the phone war and what the deal breaker was for choosing it.

t3_4e7dgh

CMV: As a wealthy person in the developed world, it is immoral for me to be a consumer of meat and dairy products.

Pretty much all my life I've been a meat eater but for whatever reason the other day something clicked and I've been seriously thinking about going vegan. I love eating meat and dairy products a lot but I just can't think of any way to morally justify the consumption of said products. Even if Animals lives are not as valuable as the lives of humans is it not immoral for me to choose to eat foods which bring great pain and suffering to these animals when vegan options are easily accessible to me? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: As a wealthy person in the developed world, it is immoral for me to be a consumer of meat and dairy products. Pretty much all my life I've been a meat eater but for whatever reason the other day something clicked and I've been seriously thinking about going vegan. I love eating meat and dairy products a lot but I just can't think of any way to morally justify the consumption of said products. Even if Animals lives are not as valuable as the lives of humans is it not immoral for me to choose to eat foods which bring great pain and suffering to these animals when vegan options are easily accessible to me?

t3_1c6ba1

[CMV] I don't think hiring a white person over a black person who is equally qualified to be racism.

Edit: Title should've been "I don't consider...". Should've proofread. Here's a link to the comment chain that pretty much sums up my views. Note, there's two comments chains, the only currently on bottom is much longer and much more intelligent IMO.: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1c4ldp/black_woman_pretends_to_be_white_job_offers/c9dagr0 Look to the parent for context. In short, however: I don't think it's automatically racism to not hire an equally qualified black person. There's a ton of factors that go into hiring, and to immediately call racism seems rash to me. Other applicants might have had better references, more experience, gone to a college the hiring manager went to, etc. What if one of them interviews poorly? I could go on, but again, I've already typed out a small novella on this, read the other comment chain if you want more detail. Another thing: would it be as big of a deal if the racism went the other way? If the hiring manager was black, and the two applicants he was interviewing were equally qualified and one was white and one black, is it racism if he hires the black person? Anyways, I've thought about this quite a bit. I think my logic is valid and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. More to the point, I don't consider myself racist; I can see reasons someone might not hire a black person, but those factors might not be just because they're black. I've lived in several REALLY bad areas, I wouldn't hire any people like that whether they're white or black. It seems to me that unless a person is strictly judging over skin color, it's not an issue of race so much as character. One more edit, a quote from another thread that I try to sum my view up with. My point isn't EXACTLY equally qualified interviewees, it's people being too quick to diagnose racism in a setting like a job interview. >I have a topic about this in CMV exactly, racism in hiring. It's a two way street. It's circular reasoning to say black people are disadvantaged because society disadvantages them and that's that why they're disadvantaged. Black culture idealizes gang activities and violence, many are on welfare and abuse it so they don't need to go get an education, and a lot of them spend what disposable income they have on things they can't afford. As much as the system disadvantages black people they don't seem to be doing much to end the cycle.

[CMV] I don't think hiring a white person over a black person who is equally qualified to be racism. Edit: Title should've been "I don't consider...". Should've proofread. Here's a link to the comment chain that pretty much sums up my views. Note, there's two comments chains, the only currently on bottom is much longer and much more intelligent IMO.: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1c4ldp/black_woman_pretends_to_be_white_job_offers/c9dagr0 Look to the parent for context. In short, however: I don't think it's automatically racism to not hire an equally qualified black person. There's a ton of factors that go into hiring, and to immediately call racism seems rash to me. Other applicants might have had better references, more experience, gone to a college the hiring manager went to, etc. What if one of them interviews poorly? I could go on, but again, I've already typed out a small novella on this, read the other comment chain if you want more detail. Another thing: would it be as big of a deal if the racism went the other way? If the hiring manager was black, and the two applicants he was interviewing were equally qualified and one was white and one black, is it racism if he hires the black person? Anyways, I've thought about this quite a bit. I think my logic is valid and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong. More to the point, I don't consider myself racist; I can see reasons someone might not hire a black person, but those factors might not be just because they're black. I've lived in several REALLY bad areas, I wouldn't hire any people like that whether they're white or black. It seems to me that unless a person is strictly judging over skin color, it's not an issue of race so much as character. One more edit, a quote from another thread that I try to sum my view up with. My point isn't EXACTLY equally qualified interviewees, it's people being too quick to diagnose racism in a setting like a job interview. >I have a topic about this in CMV exactly, racism in hiring. It's a two way street. It's circular reasoning to say black people are disadvantaged because society disadvantages them and that's that why they're disadvantaged. Black culture idealizes gang activities and violence, many are on welfare and abuse it so they don't need to go get an education, and a lot of them spend what disposable income they have on things they can't afford. As much as the system disadvantages black people they don't seem to be doing much to end the cycle.

t3_60q4id

CMV: The British Empire was one of the worst institutions to have ever existed.

And arguably the worst institution of the 19th & 20th centuries. Disclaimer: It was easier to just copy paste rather than put into my own words so I've coped and pasted from this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a7612176.html However, this is my view and as a British person I would like someone to change my view that perhaps Britain's colonial past isn't one of the very worst things that's happened to the world in recent history. * Boer concentration camps. During the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the British rounded up around a sixth of the Boer population - mainly women and children - and detained them in camps, which were overcrowded and prone to outbreaks of disease, with scant food rations. Of the 107,000 people interned in the camps, 27,927 Boers died, along with an unknown number of black Africans. * Amritsar massacre When peaceful protesters defied a government order and demonstrated against British colonial rule in Amritsar, India, on 13 April 1919, they were blocked inside the walled Jallianwala Gardens and fired upon by Gurkha soldiers. The soldiers, under the orders of Brigadier Reginald Dyer, kept firing until they ran out of ammunition, killing between 379 and 1,000 protesters and injuring another 1,100 within 10 minutes. Brigadier Dyer was later lauded a hero by the British public, who raised £26,000 for him as a thank you. * Partitioning of India In 1947, Cyril Radcliffe was tasked with drawing the border between India and the newly created state of Pakistan over the course of a single lunch. After Cyril Radcliffe split the subcontinent along religious lines, uprooting over 10 million people, Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India were forced to escape their homes as the situation quickly descended into violence. Some estimates suggest up to one million people lost their lives in sectarian killings. * Mau Mau Uprising Thousands of elderly Kenyans, who claim British colonial forces mistreated, raped and tortured them during the Mau Mau Uprising (1951-1960), have launched a £200m damages claim against the UK Government. Members of the Kikuyu tribe were detained in camps, since described as "Britain's gulags" or concentration camps, where they allege they were systematically tortured and suffered serious sexual assault. Estimates of the deaths vary widely: historian David Anderson estimates there were 20,000, whereas Caroline Elkins believes up to 100,000 could have died. * Famines in India Between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain as famine raged in India. In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal. Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” _____ > *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 British Empire was one of the worst institutions to have ever existed. And arguably the worst institution of the 19th & 20th centuries. Disclaimer: It was easier to just copy paste rather than put into my own words so I've coped and pasted from this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/worst-atrocities-british-empire-amritsar-boer-war-concentration-camp-mau-mau-a7612176.html However, this is my view and as a British person I would like someone to change my view that perhaps Britain's colonial past isn't one of the very worst things that's happened to the world in recent history. * Boer concentration camps. During the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the British rounded up around a sixth of the Boer population - mainly women and children - and detained them in camps, which were overcrowded and prone to outbreaks of disease, with scant food rations. Of the 107,000 people interned in the camps, 27,927 Boers died, along with an unknown number of black Africans. * Amritsar massacre When peaceful protesters defied a government order and demonstrated against British colonial rule in Amritsar, India, on 13 April 1919, they were blocked inside the walled Jallianwala Gardens and fired upon by Gurkha soldiers. The soldiers, under the orders of Brigadier Reginald Dyer, kept firing until they ran out of ammunition, killing between 379 and 1,000 protesters and injuring another 1,100 within 10 minutes. Brigadier Dyer was later lauded a hero by the British public, who raised £26,000 for him as a thank you. * Partitioning of India In 1947, Cyril Radcliffe was tasked with drawing the border between India and the newly created state of Pakistan over the course of a single lunch. After Cyril Radcliffe split the subcontinent along religious lines, uprooting over 10 million people, Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India were forced to escape their homes as the situation quickly descended into violence. Some estimates suggest up to one million people lost their lives in sectarian killings. * Mau Mau Uprising Thousands of elderly Kenyans, who claim British colonial forces mistreated, raped and tortured them during the Mau Mau Uprising (1951-1960), have launched a £200m damages claim against the UK Government. Members of the Kikuyu tribe were detained in camps, since described as "Britain's gulags" or concentration camps, where they allege they were systematically tortured and suffered serious sexual assault. Estimates of the deaths vary widely: historian David Anderson estimates there were 20,000, whereas Caroline Elkins believes up to 100,000 could have died. * Famines in India Between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain as famine raged in India. In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal. Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” > *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_57cj1b

CMV: Electric Powered Vehicles are a Horrible Idea for the Environment. Instead, we should look into using Hydrogen Fuel.

First off, to make an Electric Battery, we would need to mine for the Lithium that's in the battery. And from the Lithium mining i've seen so far, it does a horrible amount of damage to the environment, similar to how Fossil Fuels pollute and damage the atmosphere. Hydrogen combustion also is very powerful, with an immense amount of energy, and as technology progresses, we are learning how to control it even further. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and exists diatomically, meaning that if we came across hydrogen, we can easily use combustion on it. Also, Lithium is nowhere near as abundant as Hydrogen, so if we were to go colonize the universe, it would make more sense to use hydrogen. Even further, hydrogen is in nearly everything (especially water which is abundant here), surely we can figure out cheaper methods to extract hydrogen from these compounds. Similar to Electric power, Hydrogen cars emit no harmful emissions. We've even used hydrogen before in a plethora of inventions, such as Airships. Also, instead of waiting around for hours waiting for something to recharge, Hydrogen Fuel can go into a vehicle in around the same time it takes gasoline to fill up a vehicle. I just dont get why everyone wants electric power, when we are more then capable to use a much better fuel source such as Hydrogen. _____ > *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: Electric Powered Vehicles are a Horrible Idea for the Environment. Instead, we should look into using Hydrogen Fuel. First off, to make an Electric Battery, we would need to mine for the Lithium that's in the battery. And from the Lithium mining i've seen so far, it does a horrible amount of damage to the environment, similar to how Fossil Fuels pollute and damage the atmosphere. Hydrogen combustion also is very powerful, with an immense amount of energy, and as technology progresses, we are learning how to control it even further. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and exists diatomically, meaning that if we came across hydrogen, we can easily use combustion on it. Also, Lithium is nowhere near as abundant as Hydrogen, so if we were to go colonize the universe, it would make more sense to use hydrogen. Even further, hydrogen is in nearly everything (especially water which is abundant here), surely we can figure out cheaper methods to extract hydrogen from these compounds. Similar to Electric power, Hydrogen cars emit no harmful emissions. We've even used hydrogen before in a plethora of inventions, such as Airships. Also, instead of waiting around for hours waiting for something to recharge, Hydrogen Fuel can go into a vehicle in around the same time it takes gasoline to fill up a vehicle. I just dont get why everyone wants electric power, when we are more then capable to use a much better fuel source such as Hydrogen.

t3_1emhh8

I think that it's wrong to say a certain song is bad because it doesn't have real people playing/singing it. CMV.

My musical taste is really broad, and I can pretty much find songs that I like in every genre. I recently found out about this thing called [Vocaloid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocaloid), which is basically Japanese program for making vocal tracks by inputting the melody and the lyrics. "A singer in a box", which they sell it as. So there are pre-recorded sounds from real singers which they use to "sing" the lyrics. At first it sounded weird but interesting, but when I told a few friends of mine about it they simply bashed it by basically saying "it's bad because it doesn't even have a real singer". How does that make it bad? After a bit of digging I've found that a lot of the critic people give Vocaloid made songs is about them not having "real" singers, when technically they do. Why do people think that a song is bad because it doesn't have real people playing it? I can not understand how it can degrade music even when most of the popular songs that are played at every radio station are computer made, but when someone comes up with a song that has computer generated singing it's suddenly bad. For me, a song is good if it makes my mind go "wow, this sounds good" but it just irritates me when someone doesn't like a song because it doesn't have real people performing it and I just can't understand that way of thinking. **Please note:** I haven't found anything that clarifies these things, so I figured I could probably post it here. This is my first post here, and I'm not sure if this post follows the guidelines of this sub-reddit and I'm ready to delete this if it doesn't. I think this is more like "Broaden my view" than CMV, but who knows I might change my view!

I think that it's wrong to say a certain song is bad because it doesn't have real people playing/singing it. CMV. My musical taste is really broad, and I can pretty much find songs that I like in every genre. I recently found out about this thing called [Vocaloid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocaloid), which is basically Japanese program for making vocal tracks by inputting the melody and the lyrics. "A singer in a box", which they sell it as. So there are pre-recorded sounds from real singers which they use to "sing" the lyrics. At first it sounded weird but interesting, but when I told a few friends of mine about it they simply bashed it by basically saying "it's bad because it doesn't even have a real singer". How does that make it bad? After a bit of digging I've found that a lot of the critic people give Vocaloid made songs is about them not having "real" singers, when technically they do. Why do people think that a song is bad because it doesn't have real people playing it? I can not understand how it can degrade music even when most of the popular songs that are played at every radio station are computer made, but when someone comes up with a song that has computer generated singing it's suddenly bad. For me, a song is good if it makes my mind go "wow, this sounds good" but it just irritates me when someone doesn't like a song because it doesn't have real people performing it and I just can't understand that way of thinking. **Please note:** I haven't found anything that clarifies these things, so I figured I could probably post it here. This is my first post here, and I'm not sure if this post follows the guidelines of this sub-reddit and I'm ready to delete this if it doesn't. I think this is more like "Broaden my view" than CMV, but who knows I might change my view!

t3_5xzi3g

CMV: Judaism isnt a important religion and shouldnt be treated as one.

As a atheist israeli, i often see judaism being talked about abroad- mostly in the US, and people often treat it like or compare it to the other two main monotheistc religions- islam and christianity. However, the simple fact is that the numbers dont match at all: jews are less then 1% if the population of the world- they arn't even a majority in israel (around 40%, with the rest being mostly muslims, christians and atheists), while christianity and islam together are over 50% of the world. The simple fact is that judaism dosnt matter at all and people should stop putting on the same level with the other two ACTUALLY big monotheistic religions.

CMV: Judaism isnt a important religion and shouldnt be treated as one. As a atheist israeli, i often see judaism being talked about abroad- mostly in the US, and people often treat it like or compare it to the other two main monotheistc religions- islam and christianity. However, the simple fact is that the numbers dont match at all: jews are less then 1% if the population of the world- they arn't even a majority in israel (around 40%, with the rest being mostly muslims, christians and atheists), while christianity and islam together are over 50% of the world. The simple fact is that judaism dosnt matter at all and people should stop putting on the same level with the other two ACTUALLY big monotheistic religions.

t3_3duffv

CMV: Addictive (non harmful) chemicals should be used to condition people into following good habits

For the purpose of argument, let's say that nicotine is non-harmful on its own (or at least less harmful than complete lack of exercise). If you are getting nicotine in the form of cigarettes, you link the relief / feeling to smoking, when really you're satisfying the nicotine craving. Which is why people are able to switch to e-cigs in order to replace the habit. So why couldn't nicotine vapour (or similar) be pumped into a gym, so that people over time will associate their 'relief' with visiting the gym? Nicotine might be a bad example, I chose it because of the prevalence of e-cigs and knowing it can be vaporised. I'm assuming that the benefits of visiting the gym 3x a week would outweigh the negatives of nicotine on it's own (ie, without any harmful additional toxins). Or a more realistic example, if you only smoke from an e-cig after/during workouts, how would your body distinguish what the 'fix' really is? I think it would work better if the person wasn't aware of what was going on, but that's less practical. But I've never heard of anyone recommending taking some addictive chemical in order to bind the craving with some positive habit, such as exercise or healthy eating etc. It sounds stupid but I can't pinpoint why, so 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: Addictive (non harmful) chemicals should be used to condition people into following good habits. For the purpose of argument, let's say that nicotine is non-harmful on its own (or at least less harmful than complete lack of exercise). If you are getting nicotine in the form of cigarettes, you link the relief / feeling to smoking, when really you're satisfying the nicotine craving. Which is why people are able to switch to e-cigs in order to replace the habit. So why couldn't nicotine vapour (or similar) be pumped into a gym, so that people over time will associate their 'relief' with visiting the gym? Nicotine might be a bad example, I chose it because of the prevalence of e-cigs and knowing it can be vaporised. I'm assuming that the benefits of visiting the gym 3x a week would outweigh the negatives of nicotine on it's own (ie, without any harmful additional toxins). Or a more realistic example, if you only smoke from an e-cig after/during workouts, how would your body distinguish what the 'fix' really is? I think it would work better if the person wasn't aware of what was going on, but that's less practical. But I've never heard of anyone recommending taking some addictive chemical in order to bind the craving with some positive habit, such as exercise or healthy eating etc. It sounds stupid but I can't pinpoint why, so CMV.

t3_1ybgxv

Asians are, comparatively speaking, bad drivers. CMV

I'll be the first to admit it; when there's a car on the road that seems to be moving in a less-than-brilliant manner, I ask myself (and often other people in the car) if the driver is old, or Asian. I'd like to believe it's a myth that Asians are bad drivers, but 7 times out of 10, the driver turns out to be Asian. Unfortunately, someone wrote [an article with statistics](http://youoffendmeyouoffendmyfamily.com/chinky-or-not-chinky-are-asians-bad-drivers/) that only substantiates my claim. While only 16% of motorized vehicles are in Asian countries, these countries account for over half the motorized vehicle accidents on the planet each year. In the United States, the fatality rate from motorized vehicle accidents is higher among Asians than any other group (25.9 per 100K, vs ~15 for whites and hispanics). I know it's a stereotype, but the data doesn't seem to refute the claim that Asians are bad drivers. Change my view.

Asians are, comparatively speaking, bad drivers. CMV. I'll be the first to admit it; when there's a car on the road that seems to be moving in a less-than-brilliant manner, I ask myself (and often other people in the car) if the driver is old, or Asian. I'd like to believe it's a myth that Asians are bad drivers, but 7 times out of 10, the driver turns out to be Asian. Unfortunately, someone wrote [an article with statistics](http://youoffendmeyouoffendmyfamily.com/chinky-or-not-chinky-are-asians-bad-drivers/) that only substantiates my claim. While only 16% of motorized vehicles are in Asian countries, these countries account for over half the motorized vehicle accidents on the planet each year. In the United States, the fatality rate from motorized vehicle accidents is higher among Asians than any other group (25.9 per 100K, vs ~15 for whites and hispanics). I know it's a stereotype, but the data doesn't seem to refute the claim that Asians are bad drivers. Change my view.

t3_27v35d

CMV: I believe that minimum wage constitutes no more or less than the bare minimum effort.

If an employer chooses to pay the minimum wage required by law, how can he expect more than what is required? Especially when the job actually requires some skill or intellect in the first place. **Employer** "Can you give 110% when working?" **Employee** "Are you going to pay me 10% extra?". **Employer** "No." **Employee** "There's your answer then". **This whole argument is based on those who are only in minimum wage employment for money, it doesn't count if it's an apprenticeship or internship etc** **EDIT: There is no chance for promotion or raise in bar work, waiting or store retail, these are the minimum wage jobs I speak of.**

CMV: I believe that minimum wage constitutes no more or less than the bare minimum effort. If an employer chooses to pay the minimum wage required by law, how can he expect more than what is required? Especially when the job actually requires some skill or intellect in the first place. **Employer** "Can you give 110% when working?" **Employee** "Are you going to pay me 10% extra?". **Employer** "No." **Employee** "There's your answer then". **This whole argument is based on those who are only in minimum wage employment for money, it doesn't count if it's an apprenticeship or internship etc** **EDIT: There is no chance for promotion or raise in bar work, waiting or store retail, these are the minimum wage jobs I speak of.**

t3_63fev5

CMV: Transfer payments are ineffective at markedly alleviating poverty

In the mid-1960s, it was widely believed that an increase in income transfers directed toward the poor would substantially reduce, if not eliminate poverty. The 1964 Economic Report of the President argued that poverty could be virtually eliminated if the federal government increased its expenditures on transfer programs by approximately 2 percent of aggregate income. Following the declaration of "War on Poverty" by President Johnson's administration, transfer expenditures increased rapidly. Measured in '82-'84 dollars, means-tested income transfers tripled, expanding from $24 billion in '65 to $70 billion in '75. After 1975, transfer expenditures continued to expand, but the rate of increase was slower. Measured as a share of aggregate income, means-tested transfers jumped from 1.5 percent in '65 to 5.3 percent in 2002. Did the expansion in government income transfers reduce the poverty rate as the 1964 Economic Report of the President anticipated? Interestingly, the poverty rate declined substantially during the period prior to the War on Poverty. It fell from 32 percent in '47 to 13.9 percent in 1965. The downward trend continued for a few more years, reaching 10 percent in 1968. However, shortly after the War on Poverty was initiated, the downward trend in the poverty rate came to a halt. Since 1968, the poverty rate has fluctuated within a narrow band around the 10 percent level. In 2005, it was 9.9 percent -- the same as it was in 1968. When non-cash benefits like Medicaid and food stamps are counted as income, the poverty rate is lower, but the overall pattern is still much the same. The largely unchanged poverty rate during the last four decades is particularly remarkable when you consider that over this same time span, real income per person in the US has approximately doubled. _____ > *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: Transfer payments are ineffective at markedly alleviating poverty. In the mid-1960s, it was widely believed that an increase in income transfers directed toward the poor would substantially reduce, if not eliminate poverty. The 1964 Economic Report of the President argued that poverty could be virtually eliminated if the federal government increased its expenditures on transfer programs by approximately 2 percent of aggregate income. Following the declaration of "War on Poverty" by President Johnson's administration, transfer expenditures increased rapidly. Measured in '82-'84 dollars, means-tested income transfers tripled, expanding from $24 billion in '65 to $70 billion in '75. After 1975, transfer expenditures continued to expand, but the rate of increase was slower. Measured as a share of aggregate income, means-tested transfers jumped from 1.5 percent in '65 to 5.3 percent in 2002. Did the expansion in government income transfers reduce the poverty rate as the 1964 Economic Report of the President anticipated? Interestingly, the poverty rate declined substantially during the period prior to the War on Poverty. It fell from 32 percent in '47 to 13.9 percent in 1965. The downward trend continued for a few more years, reaching 10 percent in 1968. However, shortly after the War on Poverty was initiated, the downward trend in the poverty rate came to a halt. Since 1968, the poverty rate has fluctuated within a narrow band around the 10 percent level. In 2005, it was 9.9 percent -- the same as it was in 1968. When non-cash benefits like Medicaid and food stamps are counted as income, the poverty rate is lower, but the overall pattern is still much the same. The largely unchanged poverty rate during the last four decades is particularly remarkable when you consider that over this same time span, real income per person in the US has approximately doubled.

t3_5l5kqz

CMV: When typing in your password on Windows 10, the OS should not "deselect" the OK button after you fail twice in a row

Hello, my password for my windows 10 computer is prone to be entered incorrectly, but works on the second or third try pretty consistently. Call it warming up. The actions required to enter and then re enter a password that you failed are: * type password, press enter * See that it failed, press enter to re-enter password * type password, press enter If the password is incorrect at this point, enter no longer words to go back to entering your password. I haven't tried tab, but it could possibly work. However, this is a completely bullshit decision by microsoft and I'm not sure why it is part of the OS. LET US FAIL OURSELVES. Jeez. 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: When typing in your password on Windows 10, the OS should not "deselect" the OK button after you fail twice in a row. Hello, my password for my windows 10 computer is prone to be entered incorrectly, but works on the second or third try pretty consistently. Call it warming up. The actions required to enter and then re enter a password that you failed are: * type password, press enter * See that it failed, press enter to re-enter password * type password, press enter If the password is incorrect at this point, enter no longer words to go back to entering your password. I haven't tried tab, but it could possibly work. However, this is a completely bullshit decision by microsoft and I'm not sure why it is part of the OS. LET US FAIL OURSELVES. Jeez. CMV!

t3_296o1r

CMV: That Courier (typeface) is the "industry standard" font for screenplays is idiotic.

Virtually every screenplay you'll ever read has this font. It's ridiculous. - Unclear why there needs to be an "industry standard" font in the first place. If Wes Anderson printed out his next script in Times New Roman, would anyone give a shit? Would it slow down production? Would cast and crew be beside themselves in befuddlement? What's that you say? Sofia Coppola trotted out Minion Pro? Oh the horror. And who does she think she is? - Courier is a hang-over from the typewriter era. It's how scripts used to look when they were typed on typewriters. We no longer use typewriters. Why are we pretending we still do? - Courier is not that legible or easy on the eyes, compared to other fonts. That's why you never see books published in it, or magazines, or newspapers, or websites. It's monospaced and clunky. Scripts are documents that get read many times over, carefully, by many people. You'd think we'd want to make the reading experience as pleasant as possible. _____ > *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: That Courier (typeface) is the "industry standard" font for screenplays is idiotic. Virtually every screenplay you'll ever read has this font. It's ridiculous. - Unclear why there needs to be an "industry standard" font in the first place. If Wes Anderson printed out his next script in Times New Roman, would anyone give a shit? Would it slow down production? Would cast and crew be beside themselves in befuddlement? What's that you say? Sofia Coppola trotted out Minion Pro? Oh the horror. And who does she think she is? - Courier is a hang-over from the typewriter era. It's how scripts used to look when they were typed on typewriters. We no longer use typewriters. Why are we pretending we still do? - Courier is not that legible or easy on the eyes, compared to other fonts. That's why you never see books published in it, or magazines, or newspapers, or websites. It's monospaced and clunky. Scripts are documents that get read many times over, carefully, by many people. You'd think we'd want to make the reading experience as pleasant as possible.

t3_1gc02f

I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV.

Without belaboring the point, here are some reasons why I think this would help. Also, I do indeed live in the US and I've been to a few states in different parts of the country which has very much informed this opinion. 1. Financially: Allowing more focused legislation on financial issues that plague specific areas of the country (ie better laws regarding farming and usage of land in the west versus proper business laws in the financial hubs in the east) would increase the likelihood that the government could actually help the economy. States can do this to a degree, but if the Fed decides that banks need $7 bil, Pennsylvania can't say no. 2. Culturally: This one is huge. Though people joke about this, it really is true that there is a massive cultural divide between different states in the country. If the more conservative southern states and the more liberal northeastern states didn't have come to mutual agreements regarding things like abortions, gay marriage, teaching of evolution in schools etc. I think both sides would be happier. Furthermore, in an ideal world, this would lessen the stress on politicians to cater to the majority and maybe we could actually pass real legislation as opposed to just naming buildings which is virtually all congress does now. CMV! Edit: Just to crystallize my point a bit further (and thanks to u/username_6916 for the comment which led to this), I think that weakening the federal government to increase the autonomy of the states would not maximize the state's potential. The only way to truly maximize a states potential is to minimize the scope of the superstate government so their legislation can be more targeted. Edit2: A delta has been awarded. Check out the thoughtful response by u/SeventhSteel [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gc02f/i_think_the_united_states_of_america_should_be/cair9mn) if you too think that splitting up the US is a good idea.

I think the United States of America should be fractured into 4 or 5 separate countries because it would solve many problems the US is facing. CMV. Without belaboring the point, here are some reasons why I think this would help. Also, I do indeed live in the US and I've been to a few states in different parts of the country which has very much informed this opinion. 1. Financially: Allowing more focused legislation on financial issues that plague specific areas of the country (ie better laws regarding farming and usage of land in the west versus proper business laws in the financial hubs in the east) would increase the likelihood that the government could actually help the economy. States can do this to a degree, but if the Fed decides that banks need $7 bil, Pennsylvania can't say no. 2. Culturally: This one is huge. Though people joke about this, it really is true that there is a massive cultural divide between different states in the country. If the more conservative southern states and the more liberal northeastern states didn't have come to mutual agreements regarding things like abortions, gay marriage, teaching of evolution in schools etc. I think both sides would be happier. Furthermore, in an ideal world, this would lessen the stress on politicians to cater to the majority and maybe we could actually pass real legislation as opposed to just naming buildings which is virtually all congress does now. CMV! Edit: Just to crystallize my point a bit further (and thanks to u/username_6916 for the comment which led to this), I think that weakening the federal government to increase the autonomy of the states would not maximize the state's potential. The only way to truly maximize a states potential is to minimize the scope of the superstate government so their legislation can be more targeted. Edit2: A delta has been awarded. Check out the thoughtful response by u/SeventhSteel [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1gc02f/i_think_the_united_states_of_america_should_be/cair9mn) if you too think that splitting up the US is a good idea.

t3_4kwne1

CMV:Same-sex couples want to drive mom-and-pop shops out of business if they don't agree with their point of view.

So I have heard that on the news that there were mom-and-pop shops driven out of business thanks to same sex couples who were denied wedding cakes. So here's how the story goes, from what I can tell; A lesbian couple walks in and says "Hi" "Hello again" says the store owner (we'll call him Davie) "How may I help you today" "Well, you have helped us before with birthday cakes and party cakes and you did one for my mother's anniversary. Would you make a wedding cake for me a my girlfriend" "Oh, I'm sorry I can't really. Is there any other cake you would like." says Davie "No, just a wedding cake." "Oh, I'm sorry, but we don't support that kind of act" says Davie The two walked out and said they were "mind raped" and leave. Soon so much publicity surrounds this little cake shop, that they shut down. So who was in the wrong? And more importantly, do same sex couples actively seek out christian bakeries to shut them down? What about freedom of religion? What about gay rights? Does freedom of religion trump everything else? Does gay rights only apply to marriage? Edit: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/lesbian-couple-accuses-christian-bakers-of-mental-rape-awarded-135000/ Edit: I have noticed that my story and the story in the article are not the same. Please read the article before commenting. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:Same-sex couples want to drive mom-and-pop shops out of business if they don't agree with their point of view. So I have heard that on the news that there were mom-and-pop shops driven out of business thanks to same sex couples who were denied wedding cakes. So here's how the story goes, from what I can tell; A lesbian couple walks in and says "Hi" "Hello again" says the store owner (we'll call him Davie) "How may I help you today" "Well, you have helped us before with birthday cakes and party cakes and you did one for my mother's anniversary. Would you make a wedding cake for me a my girlfriend" "Oh, I'm sorry I can't really. Is there any other cake you would like." says Davie "No, just a wedding cake." "Oh, I'm sorry, but we don't support that kind of act" says Davie The two walked out and said they were "mind raped" and leave. Soon so much publicity surrounds this little cake shop, that they shut down. So who was in the wrong? And more importantly, do same sex couples actively seek out christian bakeries to shut them down? What about freedom of religion? What about gay rights? Does freedom of religion trump everything else? Does gay rights only apply to marriage? Edit: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/lesbian-couple-accuses-christian-bakers-of-mental-rape-awarded-135000/ Edit: I have noticed that my story and the story in the article are not the same. Please read the article before commenting.

t3_21kv9k

CMV: Smoking bans on college campus are NOT an intrusion upon students' rights.

At my university, several organizations and groups have tried to pass a campus-wide smoking ban. A smoker's rights facebook group was setup and there was a fairly large outcry to the university's student government. Personally, I do not think banning students from smoking on campus is an intrusion of their rights. Sure, some argue that the ban requires students to leave campus to smoke and risk being late to class, but secondhand (and even thirdhand) smoke can be very detrimental to the health of students with respiratory issues. In my opinion, no student or staff member should be able to do something (smoking) that puts someone else's health at risk. Also, I think the odor produced by cigarettes (and other smoking products) is extremely obnoxious and should not have to be tolerated while walking to class. 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 just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Smoking bans on college campus are NOT an intrusion upon students' rights. At my university, several organizations and groups have tried to pass a campus-wide smoking ban. A smoker's rights facebook group was setup and there was a fairly large outcry to the university's student government. Personally, I do not think banning students from smoking on campus is an intrusion of their rights. Sure, some argue that the ban requires students to leave campus to smoke and risk being late to class, but secondhand (and even thirdhand) smoke can be very detrimental to the health of students with respiratory issues. In my opinion, no student or staff member should be able to do something (smoking) that puts someone else's health at risk. Also, I think the odor produced by cigarettes (and other smoking products) is extremely obnoxious and should not have to be tolerated while walking to class. Change my view.

t3_6222tn

CMV: In terms of box-office, audience and critical success, an enduring legacy in popular culture, and cinematic quality, Jaws (1975) is the best movie ever made.

I believe that in an overall sense of what makes a film objectively good (be it box office performance, audience and critical praise, a legacy in popular culture, or film quality) Stephen Speilberg's Jaws is the best movie ever made. First of all, [Jaws was a box office sensation.](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm&adjust_yr=2017&p=.htm) Adjusted for inflation, it made the equivalent of $1 billion domestic and is the seventh highest grossing film of all time. Jaws is often seen as the first big blockbuster film, which is something that theater goers still experience every summer, 40 years later. At its release, it was the highest grossing film of all time. Jaws was also lauded by audiences and [critics](http://www.metacritic.com/movie/jaws/critic-reviews). Of course, like everything, there are some bad reviews of the film, but overall, Jaws has withstood the test of time in terms of critical and audience appeal. As previously mentioned, Jaws is considered to be the first true blockbuster film. In that way, it's not only successful, but a milestone in film history. I've often heard stories about how people around the country were afraid to go swimming in beaches after seeing the film. John Williams' iconic score is something that most people, even if they haven't seen the film, would be able to instantly recognize. I'll mention this in my next point, but it also solidified the career of a young Steven Spielberg, made John Williams a recognizable name and possibly the most famous composer of our time. Spielberg is one of the most famous director/producers of all time. He's also one of the most successful with critics as well as at the box office. His name alone is as recognizable as Jaws itself, which is not something many directors or producers could say. Finally, Jaws is not just a stupid blockbuster. Despite a troubled production filled with mechanical shark breakdowns, a boat sinking which nearly lost the film, and going over budget, Jaws' cinematic quality and appeal is undeniable. It's a well-acted, suspenseful thriller that employs expert filmmaking technique and craftsmanship. It's often been said that Spielberg eventually chose not to show the shark as much because it didn't look realistic enough. Due to that effective choice, the shark seems more terrifying. Spielberg is undoubtedly a master craftsman in film and he pulled not only effective thrills, but great and classic performances from his three leads, with Robert Shaw being particularly great. While modern blockbusters have flashy effects that eventually show their age, Jaws has remained an effective thriller with solid effects. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: In terms of box-office, audience and critical success, an enduring legacy in popular culture, and cinematic quality, Jaws (1975) is the best movie ever made. I believe that in an overall sense of what makes a film objectively good (be it box office performance, audience and critical praise, a legacy in popular culture, or film quality) Stephen Speilberg's Jaws is the best movie ever made. First of all, [Jaws was a box office sensation.](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm&adjust_yr=2017&p=.htm) Adjusted for inflation, it made the equivalent of $1 billion domestic and is the seventh highest grossing film of all time. Jaws is often seen as the first big blockbuster film, which is something that theater goers still experience every summer, 40 years later. At its release, it was the highest grossing film of all time. Jaws was also lauded by audiences and [critics](http://www.metacritic.com/movie/jaws/critic-reviews). Of course, like everything, there are some bad reviews of the film, but overall, Jaws has withstood the test of time in terms of critical and audience appeal. As previously mentioned, Jaws is considered to be the first true blockbuster film. In that way, it's not only successful, but a milestone in film history. I've often heard stories about how people around the country were afraid to go swimming in beaches after seeing the film. John Williams' iconic score is something that most people, even if they haven't seen the film, would be able to instantly recognize. I'll mention this in my next point, but it also solidified the career of a young Steven Spielberg, made John Williams a recognizable name and possibly the most famous composer of our time. Spielberg is one of the most famous director/producers of all time. He's also one of the most successful with critics as well as at the box office. His name alone is as recognizable as Jaws itself, which is not something many directors or producers could say. Finally, Jaws is not just a stupid blockbuster. Despite a troubled production filled with mechanical shark breakdowns, a boat sinking which nearly lost the film, and going over budget, Jaws' cinematic quality and appeal is undeniable. It's a well-acted, suspenseful thriller that employs expert filmmaking technique and craftsmanship. It's often been said that Spielberg eventually chose not to show the shark as much because it didn't look realistic enough. Due to that effective choice, the shark seems more terrifying. Spielberg is undoubtedly a master craftsman in film and he pulled not only effective thrills, but great and classic performances from his three leads, with Robert Shaw being particularly great. While modern blockbusters have flashy effects that eventually show their age, Jaws has remained an effective thriller with solid effects.

t3_5vqic0

CMV: "End of the world" predictions are human hubris.

Every time there is a prediction of the exact date of the end of the world, I am punched with human hubris in the face. They feel they are sooooo special, huh? Special snowflakes... In an Earth that is billions of years old... somehow the end of the world is in the same lifespan as that human claiming it the end of the world... Coincidence? I think not... These people are so self important... so self important... they really believe they'll witness huge events, unwitnessed by anyone else since all of humanity first beginnings... How absurd and self absorbed they are!

CMV: "End of the world" predictions are human hubris. Every time there is a prediction of the exact date of the end of the world, I am punched with human hubris in the face. They feel they are sooooo special, huh? Special snowflakes... In an Earth that is billions of years old... somehow the end of the world is in the same lifespan as that human claiming it the end of the world... Coincidence? I think not... These people are so self important... so self important... they really believe they'll witness huge events, unwitnessed by anyone else since all of humanity first beginnings... How absurd and self absorbed they are!

t3_3cyfh9

CMV: Nations should be allowed to claim celestial bodies

[The Outer Space Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty) outlaws the claiming of celestial bodies by any nation, though in my opinion this discourages progress by killing incentives to expand into outer space, thereby also killing competition between nations which has historically been the single largest cause for space exploration. By allowing nations to claim celestial bodies, you open scores of new incentives to expand into outer space, providing opportunities for economic growth, technological strides, and by extension ensure the survival of the human race. _____ > *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: Nations should be allowed to claim celestial bodies. [The Outer Space Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty) outlaws the claiming of celestial bodies by any nation, though in my opinion this discourages progress by killing incentives to expand into outer space, thereby also killing competition between nations which has historically been the single largest cause for space exploration. By allowing nations to claim celestial bodies, you open scores of new incentives to expand into outer space, providing opportunities for economic growth, technological strides, and by extension ensure the survival of the human race.

t3_4vqeok

CMV: Male Submissives will not be accepted by women, and should get treatment.

I was talking with a friend of mine about his relationship with his girlfriend. His girlfriend wants him to be a dom, and he's a submissive. The two have been in a rocky relationship for the last 4 years now, and I've been there as sort of a couples counselor (I've been there for other problems, but they both come to me when they have doubts about the other). And I got into a talk with the boyfriend about his sexual orientation and his preferred position. At first he was unwilling to talk, but soon came to me and asked me to help him be a dom. I told him I would and we've been doing research together on the BDSM community, and talking about how he can change. As someone who studies psychology, I don't personally see anything wrong with submissive males as long as they don't have underlying problems like co-dependency. However, I've noticed this time and time again. Often times people come to me for problems, and many times I find that guys are often timid and uncomfortable with being dominant in bed. I've never really thought about whether they should change until recently, but it seems that they're thrown aside according to me and my friend's research on the subject. Male submissive seem to be everywhere, and yet dominant women seem to be rare. From what I can also gather, much of the submissive's relationship with the dom, at least as far as a m/F relationship, seems to be abusive (I didn't go into the inverse, so I don't know if it's just common for doms to be abusive). This has lead me to believe that submissive men should seek help. Not that there's anything wrong with them, but that it's not worth living that life style. I'm hoping to see hard evidence in going agaisnt this. I'm not going to go back on what I said and tell him he shouldn't change over anecdotal evidence. I'm sure there are successful relationships, but given from what me and him have looked up, I think changing is the best option. 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: Male Submissives will not be accepted by women, and should get treatment. I was talking with a friend of mine about his relationship with his girlfriend. His girlfriend wants him to be a dom, and he's a submissive. The two have been in a rocky relationship for the last 4 years now, and I've been there as sort of a couples counselor (I've been there for other problems, but they both come to me when they have doubts about the other). And I got into a talk with the boyfriend about his sexual orientation and his preferred position. At first he was unwilling to talk, but soon came to me and asked me to help him be a dom. I told him I would and we've been doing research together on the BDSM community, and talking about how he can change. As someone who studies psychology, I don't personally see anything wrong with submissive males as long as they don't have underlying problems like co-dependency. However, I've noticed this time and time again. Often times people come to me for problems, and many times I find that guys are often timid and uncomfortable with being dominant in bed. I've never really thought about whether they should change until recently, but it seems that they're thrown aside according to me and my friend's research on the subject. Male submissive seem to be everywhere, and yet dominant women seem to be rare. From what I can also gather, much of the submissive's relationship with the dom, at least as far as a m/F relationship, seems to be abusive (I didn't go into the inverse, so I don't know if it's just common for doms to be abusive). This has lead me to believe that submissive men should seek help. Not that there's anything wrong with them, but that it's not worth living that life style. I'm hoping to see hard evidence in going agaisnt this. I'm not going to go back on what I said and tell him he shouldn't change over anecdotal evidence. I'm sure there are successful relationships, but given from what me and him have looked up, I think changing is the best option. Change my view.

t3_37zgxy

CMV: Public nudity should remain illegal.

We live in a society where it is simply offensive and unprofessional to strut around in whatever you want, including nudity. I could make a case that wearing revealing clothing should be illegal to, but that is for another CMV I suppose. Kids should not have to worry about seeing genitalia in public, and parents should not have to worry about their kids worrying about these things. This includes the concept that men can walk around without shirts on, but women cannot. Breasts are sexual organs, the male nipple is not. EDIT: Additionally, walking around naked will only provoke sex offenders to attack. EDIT: My view has already been changed. Now I am talking about in the public school setting specifically. 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: Public nudity should remain illegal. We live in a society where it is simply offensive and unprofessional to strut around in whatever you want, including nudity. I could make a case that wearing revealing clothing should be illegal to, but that is for another CMV I suppose. Kids should not have to worry about seeing genitalia in public, and parents should not have to worry about their kids worrying about these things. This includes the concept that men can walk around without shirts on, but women cannot. Breasts are sexual organs, the male nipple is not. EDIT: Additionally, walking around naked will only provoke sex offenders to attack. EDIT: My view has already been changed. Now I am talking about in the public school setting specifically. CMV.

t3_2dtp7w

CMV: I think the rioters in Ferguson Missouri are unjust in their actions.

Sure it was tragic that this kid was shot, But I don't think that should mean Riots and protests. The thing is, If you are stopped by a police officer, you should stop . Maybe shooting the kid wasn't quite in reason, but you still don't just run. Now, let's get back to the real topic. The appropriate response to a shooting from a cop is to mourn and maybe suspend/demote/etc. right? well, apparently not. These rioters are creating huge amounts of property damage, stealing thousands of dollars in merchandise, and in general causing terror, not to mention potentially damaging any evidence that may exist.. Many people of this town are rioting, but do all of them actually know Micheal brown? and, let's not forget that they released the name of the cop to the public. If you have a name, it isn't very hard to find out where someone lives. Because of this, the media, for pressuring the chief of police to release the guys name, is also at fault. because they released his name, they could very well have put the cop's life in danger. Also, if just some guy were to shoot michael, I'd bet there wouldn't be riots. maybe a few protests, sure, but not riots. I think that the rioters and media need to stop vilifying the police, as it causes horrible things like the riots, which could proceed to have even more people get killed. EDIT: Very reluctantly, I changed my view because of two people. good job, commenters, good job. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think the rioters in Ferguson Missouri are unjust in their actions. Sure it was tragic that this kid was shot, But I don't think that should mean Riots and protests. The thing is, If you are stopped by a police officer, you should stop . Maybe shooting the kid wasn't quite in reason, but you still don't just run. Now, let's get back to the real topic. The appropriate response to a shooting from a cop is to mourn and maybe suspend/demote/etc. right? well, apparently not. These rioters are creating huge amounts of property damage, stealing thousands of dollars in merchandise, and in general causing terror, not to mention potentially damaging any evidence that may exist.. Many people of this town are rioting, but do all of them actually know Micheal brown? and, let's not forget that they released the name of the cop to the public. If you have a name, it isn't very hard to find out where someone lives. Because of this, the media, for pressuring the chief of police to release the guys name, is also at fault. because they released his name, they could very well have put the cop's life in danger. Also, if just some guy were to shoot michael, I'd bet there wouldn't be riots. maybe a few protests, sure, but not riots. I think that the rioters and media need to stop vilifying the police, as it causes horrible things like the riots, which could proceed to have even more people get killed. EDIT: Very reluctantly, I changed my view because of two people. good job, commenters, good job.

t3_29qrns

CMV: You're a borderline bad person if you have the means to recycle but choose not to.

I'm defining "borderline bad person" as someone who chooses an easier route to life simply for its efficiency and not its overall effect on everyone around them. Recycling is essential to the survival of our planet. By recycling, you partially halt the production of new, non-renewable resources that's production releases harmful gasses into our atmosphere. Not only is their production toxic, but the substances required to make plastic, for example, are in limited supply. It makes economic sense to recycle. When a substance ends up in a landfill, it induces an economic burden on whoever runs the landfill (often the government). Reusing materials eliminates the cost of producing new materials. In short, you're a bad person if you deliberately choose to slowly but surely destroy the Earth when you could easily change your ways.

CMV: You're a borderline bad person if you have the means to recycle but choose not to. I'm defining "borderline bad person" as someone who chooses an easier route to life simply for its efficiency and not its overall effect on everyone around them. Recycling is essential to the survival of our planet. By recycling, you partially halt the production of new, non-renewable resources that's production releases harmful gasses into our atmosphere. Not only is their production toxic, but the substances required to make plastic, for example, are in limited supply. It makes economic sense to recycle. When a substance ends up in a landfill, it induces an economic burden on whoever runs the landfill (often the government). Reusing materials eliminates the cost of producing new materials. In short, you're a bad person if you deliberately choose to slowly but surely destroy the Earth when you could easily change your ways.

t3_2w7o39

CMV: There is no law Congress can pass that will improve the nation's approach to information security and privacy

1. I cannot think of a single law or policy that has improved our approach to information security and privacy. It was been a steady path downward since the beginning. 2. I believe any attempt made by Congress to this effect will have little to no impact. People in government believe they are above the law and exceptions will be made internally. If the government wants to know something, it will find a way, civil liberties be damned. 3. Any proposed change in a law or policy that would improve our approach to information security and privacy would not have the desired effect. The governments contemptuous attitude will not change and it will find a way around it. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is no law Congress can pass that will improve the nation's approach to information security and privacy. 1. I cannot think of a single law or policy that has improved our approach to information security and privacy. It was been a steady path downward since the beginning. 2. I believe any attempt made by Congress to this effect will have little to no impact. People in government believe they are above the law and exceptions will be made internally. If the government wants to know something, it will find a way, civil liberties be damned. 3. Any proposed change in a law or policy that would improve our approach to information security and privacy would not have the desired effect. The governments contemptuous attitude will not change and it will find a way around it.

t3_4axxvc

It's Fresh Topic Friday! - 2016/03/18

A lot of subreddits face the problem of balancing a new user's desire to read fresh content with a regular user's desire to do the same. The problem being that fresh to newcomers is not fresh to long time readers. CMV has tried a variety of options to have interesting submissions without limiting even the most common of views. Fresh Topic Fridays is an approach to the problem that we're trying out. During this time, all posts must be manually approved by moderators. **Any post made on FTF may not be highly similar to a post made in the past month.** [Please see the FAQ for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/freshtopicfriday) Any other questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and leave us feedback.

It's Fresh Topic Friday! - 2016/03/18. A lot of subreddits face the problem of balancing a new user's desire to read fresh content with a regular user's desire to do the same. The problem being that fresh to newcomers is not fresh to long time readers. CMV has tried a variety of options to have interesting submissions without limiting even the most common of views. Fresh Topic Fridays is an approach to the problem that we're trying out. During this time, all posts must be manually approved by moderators. **Any post made on FTF may not be highly similar to a post made in the past month.** [Please see the FAQ for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/freshtopicfriday) Any other questions? Suggestions? Leave a comment below. You can treat this thread as a meta thread and leave us feedback.

t3_321bho

CMV: I don't believe chicken cannibalism is immoral.

There are certain variations of cannibalism that I don't find immoral at all. I am fine with chickens eating chickens, bugs eating bugs and although it freaks me out a bit, cats eating cats. I can't justify any objection to cannibalism I have. It hurts nobody and feeds an animal. So I'm wondering exactly what would be immoral about me feeding my chickens my left over chicken? I could be wrong, and maybe it is somehow poisonous or disturbing for them to eat their own flesh, but I couldn't find anything on that after a quick Google search. To me this ultimately comes down to people trying to make their unjustified queasiness into law. _____ > *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 believe chicken cannibalism is immoral. There are certain variations of cannibalism that I don't find immoral at all. I am fine with chickens eating chickens, bugs eating bugs and although it freaks me out a bit, cats eating cats. I can't justify any objection to cannibalism I have. It hurts nobody and feeds an animal. So I'm wondering exactly what would be immoral about me feeding my chickens my left over chicken? I could be wrong, and maybe it is somehow poisonous or disturbing for them to eat their own flesh, but I couldn't find anything on that after a quick Google search. To me this ultimately comes down to people trying to make their unjustified queasiness into law.

t3_2uos4z

CMV: People have a right not to choose get vaccinated and reddit's consistent attacks on the anti-vaccination movement are motivated by the insecurity of its users.

I just can't understand or even tolerate reddit's mindless preoccupation with forcing vaccination upon people who don't want it, however stupid the reasoning of the anti-vaccination movement may be. It's not your body and frankly, it's none of your business. Even if you or a close family member has a medical issue that keeps them from being vaccinated, the freedom of the majority to make their own decisions regarding their lives is more important. Please don't respond with a somber story about how your child or someone you know can't get immunized, so that gives you a right to force it upon others. Taking medical decisions away from the populace and making them for them, even ones that you may perceive as universally "good", is not fair. It's equivalent to a fundamentalist country mandating baptism, as without it dying child may not go on to the afterlife. These are both decisions in which individuals (or in these cases, their parents) should have a right to make for themselves, even if a large percentage of the population thinks they are necessary. The right to make most of your own decisions regarding your health is an important part of living in a free and just society. People need and deserve the right to do what they want with their bodies, even if it does mean a danger to themselves (and in this case, a minority of others as well). As per usual in democracy, the needs of the few should not outweigh the needs of the majority. I know this issue is a debate in and of itself, so please just roll with me here and debate the issue in the title, not skirt the issue and debate the right to choose your own health, I'm not looking to discuss that. I'm looking to discuss whether vaccination should be included in the right to make your own health choices (as opposed to making vaccination law), not whether you think people have a right to their own health as a whole (I do and will not change that view). Governments should continue to push widespread immunization campaigns. People should continue to get all the shots they can. But forced decisions are not in the spirit of democracy. People have a right to be stupid and, given a humane society, perhaps we should even help them out if the consequences of their actions get them in a bit of trouble. We can't allow a small (and I mean ^^^really, ^^^^really ^^^^^small) percentage of children with weak immune systems compromise the integrity of our legal system. On a side note, I get the vibe that reddit's habit of beating the anti-vaccination horse to death isn't really about being caring or humane or because they have a personal interest in seeing people vaccinated due to their own health issues. It's because the average internet geek has finally discovered the anti-vaccination crowd, a group that they can mock and berate while having their peers agree with them. ABBA, you know. Vaccination hadn't even been a debate for me before frequenting the internet, I thought of it as something a crazy minority of people didn't do, and the rest of society just continued living their lives. It's like worrying about a crazy cult, and in response banning cults. It just wasn't (and for me, still isn't) something that intelligent and rational people shouldn't waste their time thinking about. Wow, that got a bit rambly! Anyhow, CMV! EDIT: title is confusingly worded, sorry about that. EDIT 2: I have to go out for a bit. I'll engage a bit more later. EDIT 3: Fine, I'm sorry about the stupid jab.

CMV: People have a right not to choose get vaccinated and reddit's consistent attacks on the anti-vaccination movement are motivated by the insecurity of its users. I just can't understand or even tolerate reddit's mindless preoccupation with forcing vaccination upon people who don't want it, however stupid the reasoning of the anti-vaccination movement may be. It's not your body and frankly, it's none of your business. Even if you or a close family member has a medical issue that keeps them from being vaccinated, the freedom of the majority to make their own decisions regarding their lives is more important. Please don't respond with a somber story about how your child or someone you know can't get immunized, so that gives you a right to force it upon others. Taking medical decisions away from the populace and making them for them, even ones that you may perceive as universally "good", is not fair. It's equivalent to a fundamentalist country mandating baptism, as without it dying child may not go on to the afterlife. These are both decisions in which individuals (or in these cases, their parents) should have a right to make for themselves, even if a large percentage of the population thinks they are necessary. The right to make most of your own decisions regarding your health is an important part of living in a free and just society. People need and deserve the right to do what they want with their bodies, even if it does mean a danger to themselves (and in this case, a minority of others as well). As per usual in democracy, the needs of the few should not outweigh the needs of the majority. I know this issue is a debate in and of itself, so please just roll with me here and debate the issue in the title, not skirt the issue and debate the right to choose your own health, I'm not looking to discuss that. I'm looking to discuss whether vaccination should be included in the right to make your own health choices (as opposed to making vaccination law), not whether you think people have a right to their own health as a whole (I do and will not change that view). Governments should continue to push widespread immunization campaigns. People should continue to get all the shots they can. But forced decisions are not in the spirit of democracy. People have a right to be stupid and, given a humane society, perhaps we should even help them out if the consequences of their actions get them in a bit of trouble. We can't allow a small (and I mean ^^^really, ^^^^really ^^^^^small) percentage of children with weak immune systems compromise the integrity of our legal system. On a side note, I get the vibe that reddit's habit of beating the anti-vaccination horse to death isn't really about being caring or humane or because they have a personal interest in seeing people vaccinated due to their own health issues. It's because the average internet geek has finally discovered the anti-vaccination crowd, a group that they can mock and berate while having their peers agree with them. ABBA, you know. Vaccination hadn't even been a debate for me before frequenting the internet, I thought of it as something a crazy minority of people didn't do, and the rest of society just continued living their lives. It's like worrying about a crazy cult, and in response banning cults. It just wasn't (and for me, still isn't) something that intelligent and rational people shouldn't waste their time thinking about. Wow, that got a bit rambly! Anyhow, CMV! EDIT: title is confusingly worded, sorry about that. EDIT 2: I have to go out for a bit. I'll engage a bit more later. EDIT 3: Fine, I'm sorry about the stupid jab.

t3_1jhe9m

I believe internet trolling is good for humanity - CMV

When internet trolling is described in the media it sounds like one of the most evil acts a human can engage in. It's inextricably tied up with words like 'abuse' or 'attack', and people have been arrested for it. However I believe that this is evidence of a complete lack of understanding on society's part. I think it represents a failure to separate the internet and the physical world, and a failure to adapt to internet culture. I believe that being on both the giving and receiving end of trolling can have psychological benefits and encourage a better informed view of the world. By witnessing how human's behave in anonymity we are seeing true honesty, a representation of what we really are. This is a vital educational resource as before the internet there was no practical way of achieving mass anonymous communication. If we troll others we learn about ourselves. We can ask ourselves questions about how we are behaving and knowing ourselves is the first step towards developing ourselves into better people. We also learn from the response of the person we're trolling. We find out how humans react, and crafting different reactions becomes a creative process. It becomes a challenge to see what new and interesting reactions we can dig out from each other's psyches, and there's only one place I can think of in the real world where that happens. Therapy. The person on the receiving end is given a challenge. They have to find a way to deal with their feelings that are being surfaced, and by doing this they are engaging in self-improvement. The response to repeated trolling is to let go, to relax, to recognise it as what it is: Silly words that don't matter, and by doing this people are better equipped to handle similar events in the physical world. On the internet I believe that nothing can harm you. If you browse the 'dangerous' parts of the internet you will only ever be confronted with words and images. The challenge is 100% psychological, and it's through the internet that we learn that we can be desensitized to anything, and become psychologically powerful in a way that was never possible before, as long as we have the courage to get involved, rather than cop out and have the person sending offensive messages sent to jail. EDIT: I just wanted to add this which I wrote in a comment because it further clarifies my view: It's my belief that for you to offend someone on the internet, you need to awaken something inside them which causes them pain. You don't transmit pain into their brain, it's already there. It's my understanding that suppressed feelings are unhealthy and that openness leads to a better state of mind. Trolling encourages openness, it forces you to face your fears, and it does all this in a safe environment where you don't need to fear anything but yourself.

I believe internet trolling is good for humanity - CMV. When internet trolling is described in the media it sounds like one of the most evil acts a human can engage in. It's inextricably tied up with words like 'abuse' or 'attack', and people have been arrested for it. However I believe that this is evidence of a complete lack of understanding on society's part. I think it represents a failure to separate the internet and the physical world, and a failure to adapt to internet culture. I believe that being on both the giving and receiving end of trolling can have psychological benefits and encourage a better informed view of the world. By witnessing how human's behave in anonymity we are seeing true honesty, a representation of what we really are. This is a vital educational resource as before the internet there was no practical way of achieving mass anonymous communication. If we troll others we learn about ourselves. We can ask ourselves questions about how we are behaving and knowing ourselves is the first step towards developing ourselves into better people. We also learn from the response of the person we're trolling. We find out how humans react, and crafting different reactions becomes a creative process. It becomes a challenge to see what new and interesting reactions we can dig out from each other's psyches, and there's only one place I can think of in the real world where that happens. Therapy. The person on the receiving end is given a challenge. They have to find a way to deal with their feelings that are being surfaced, and by doing this they are engaging in self-improvement. The response to repeated trolling is to let go, to relax, to recognise it as what it is: Silly words that don't matter, and by doing this people are better equipped to handle similar events in the physical world. On the internet I believe that nothing can harm you. If you browse the 'dangerous' parts of the internet you will only ever be confronted with words and images. The challenge is 100% psychological, and it's through the internet that we learn that we can be desensitized to anything, and become psychologically powerful in a way that was never possible before, as long as we have the courage to get involved, rather than cop out and have the person sending offensive messages sent to jail. EDIT: I just wanted to add this which I wrote in a comment because it further clarifies my view: It's my belief that for you to offend someone on the internet, you need to awaken something inside them which causes them pain. You don't transmit pain into their brain, it's already there. It's my understanding that suppressed feelings are unhealthy and that openness leads to a better state of mind. Trolling encourages openness, it forces you to face your fears, and it does all this in a safe environment where you don't need to fear anything but yourself.

t3_19yu4r

I feel that you can't become world renowned for something through talent alone - you have to be extremely lucky. CMV.

Of course you'd need to have *some* talent. i.e, you won't get there through luck alone. But I feel you can't get there through *talent* alone - you need to be in the right place at the right time.

I feel that you can't become world renowned for something through talent alone - you have to be extremely lucky. CMV. Of course you'd need to have *some* talent. i.e, you won't get there through luck alone. But I feel you can't get there through *talent* alone - you need to be in the right place at the right time.

t3_520lyk

CMV: As an overweight, unattractive person, I would rather be single than date "in my league"

I am an overweight unattractive man.You could rate me 2/10 at most. I find women who are overweight and unattractive completely repulsive. It is not that I am a hypocrite. I am aware of what I am. However, I do not want to associate with women who are like me. I feel zero sexual attraction to an overweight woman. The thought of kissing one makes my skin crawl. Not only that, but I would not want to be seen with one. I would rather live alone than live with someone I am ashamed of, someone I feel no attraction to. It is not that I think I am "better" than ugly women. It is not that I am a "nice guy" and women can't appreciate me or something. No, I realize I am on their level. It is just that I would rather have no one than have one of them. I started thinking about this when I say [this comment thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/4x46lo/thought_i_was_doing_my_socially_awkward_neckbeard/d6cd68d). Everyone was making fun of a fat man for refusing to date an overweight woman. But I would have done the exact same. I see no reason to be in a relationship if I am not attracted to my partner. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: As an overweight, unattractive person, I would rather be single than date "in my league". I am an overweight unattractive man.You could rate me 2/10 at most. I find women who are overweight and unattractive completely repulsive. It is not that I am a hypocrite. I am aware of what I am. However, I do not want to associate with women who are like me. I feel zero sexual attraction to an overweight woman. The thought of kissing one makes my skin crawl. Not only that, but I would not want to be seen with one. I would rather live alone than live with someone I am ashamed of, someone I feel no attraction to. It is not that I think I am "better" than ugly women. It is not that I am a "nice guy" and women can't appreciate me or something. No, I realize I am on their level. It is just that I would rather have no one than have one of them. I started thinking about this when I say [this comment thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/4x46lo/thought_i_was_doing_my_socially_awkward_neckbeard/d6cd68d). Everyone was making fun of a fat man for refusing to date an overweight woman. But I would have done the exact same. I see no reason to be in a relationship if I am not attracted to my partner.

t3_3mbmyw

CMV : Psychology is not inferior to science

Psychology is not inferior to science Some people pretend to like science to gain respect Everyone love it when people love them Quotes float around saying if you discuss people you are not a great mind "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." 50% marriages end up in divorce People end up hating people whom they loved so much one time Marriage is a life time decision still so many people suck at it When you sit in your chair in a slow afternoon, you don't think about movements of electrons, you think about the girl who never responded to your texts, or that guy, you think might have been the one but got away Psychology is easier, I am engineering drop out studying psychology, I have seen them both But it certainly is not inferior It can have a massive impact on your life and hence its important _____ > *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 : Psychology is not inferior to science. Psychology is not inferior to science Some people pretend to like science to gain respect Everyone love it when people love them Quotes float around saying if you discuss people you are not a great mind "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." 50% marriages end up in divorce People end up hating people whom they loved so much one time Marriage is a life time decision still so many people suck at it When you sit in your chair in a slow afternoon, you don't think about movements of electrons, you think about the girl who never responded to your texts, or that guy, you think might have been the one but got away Psychology is easier, I am engineering drop out studying psychology, I have seen them both But it certainly is not inferior It can have a massive impact on your life and hence its important

t3_23zqmn

CMV: Technology, especially the internet, is helping bring about the end of history.

Lets look at the world as it is now, while it is bad, it isn't as bad as in the early-mid 20th century. There are no dictatorships or militant states that are a threat to the worldwide hegemony of enlightened liberal democracies. Even countries like Russia that are believed to be de facto totalitarian still have to respect many of the institutions of democracy. In first world, even those on the poorer levels of the socio-economic strata still live better than the great nobles of the past. We have longer lifespans, plagues aren't something we're just to expect, and we aren't always one long winter away from mass starvation. We spend so much time on entertainment its ridiculous, even the most hedonistic rich nobles of antiquity lived hard lives in comparison. Look at the world's reaction to this whole Crimea business, its a very small scale military operation and I can count the casualties with one hand. And everyone is acting like Putin is fucking Blitzkrieging Europe and going to leave 10 dead and 3 pregnant for every step he takes along the way. This just shows how spoiled we are, 150 years ago this wouldn't cause anyone to look twice. Putin is a bitch compared to Alexander, Genghis, and Adolf, yet he is the most evil man in the world right now. The world isn't perfect, we have a long way to go. But large scale conflicts like the Crusades, World War, Cold War, etc. Are long gone, if such an event were to happen on a large scale we would be nuclear dust before you tie your boot strings together. The middle east and Africa are fucked up, but no indications it is going to spiral further downwards and again, it isn't particularly large scale or a threat to our existence. What part does the internet play in this? This relates mostly to the first world, but nonetheless it applies. We are more educated and knowledgeable in subjects like economics, politics, philosophy, etc. than people even 80 years ago. People back then had more in practical knowledge , but in terms of abstract thinking they don't have shit on us. We aren't the simpletons that would be swayed like Hitler (also because history has made us learn our lesson). I just can't see the world of the online marketplace of ideals, that such crude things like militant islam or fascism can become global forces able to break the hegemony of enlightened democracies. _____ > *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: Technology, especially the internet, is helping bring about the end of history. Lets look at the world as it is now, while it is bad, it isn't as bad as in the early-mid 20th century. There are no dictatorships or militant states that are a threat to the worldwide hegemony of enlightened liberal democracies. Even countries like Russia that are believed to be de facto totalitarian still have to respect many of the institutions of democracy. In first world, even those on the poorer levels of the socio-economic strata still live better than the great nobles of the past. We have longer lifespans, plagues aren't something we're just to expect, and we aren't always one long winter away from mass starvation. We spend so much time on entertainment its ridiculous, even the most hedonistic rich nobles of antiquity lived hard lives in comparison. Look at the world's reaction to this whole Crimea business, its a very small scale military operation and I can count the casualties with one hand. And everyone is acting like Putin is fucking Blitzkrieging Europe and going to leave 10 dead and 3 pregnant for every step he takes along the way. This just shows how spoiled we are, 150 years ago this wouldn't cause anyone to look twice. Putin is a bitch compared to Alexander, Genghis, and Adolf, yet he is the most evil man in the world right now. The world isn't perfect, we have a long way to go. But large scale conflicts like the Crusades, World War, Cold War, etc. Are long gone, if such an event were to happen on a large scale we would be nuclear dust before you tie your boot strings together. The middle east and Africa are fucked up, but no indications it is going to spiral further downwards and again, it isn't particularly large scale or a threat to our existence. What part does the internet play in this? This relates mostly to the first world, but nonetheless it applies. We are more educated and knowledgeable in subjects like economics, politics, philosophy, etc. than people even 80 years ago. People back then had more in practical knowledge , but in terms of abstract thinking they don't have shit on us. We aren't the simpletons that would be swayed like Hitler (also because history has made us learn our lesson). I just can't see the world of the online marketplace of ideals, that such crude things like militant islam or fascism can become global forces able to break the hegemony of enlightened democracies.

t3_3sknon

CMV: The point of buying the same game on two different consoles?

I've had an on-going debate with my brother about the amount of money he spends RE-BUYING games. He will first buy a game at full price (£40 ~ $60) when it comes out on the PS3/PS4, but will then proceed to buy the game AGAIN on Steam when it's released on PC and available on offer. I think he's a mug for buying the same game twice. I agree with supporting the developers but he's insistent that "lots of people do it" - but with no substantial source (or any in fact) that other people do in fact buy games twice. Apart from the fact that he's a fool, is there any benefit in buying a game on console and then on PC? What am I missing? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The point of buying the same game on two different consoles?. I've had an on-going debate with my brother about the amount of money he spends RE-BUYING games. He will first buy a game at full price (£40 ~ $60) when it comes out on the PS3/PS4, but will then proceed to buy the game AGAIN on Steam when it's released on PC and available on offer. I think he's a mug for buying the same game twice. I agree with supporting the developers but he's insistent that "lots of people do it" - but with no substantial source (or any in fact) that other people do in fact buy games twice. Apart from the fact that he's a fool, is there any benefit in buying a game on console and then on PC? What am I missing?

t3_1kenmc

I think scientific experiments on human test subjects that are likely to be considered unethical should be offered to consenting adults that express a desire to commit suicide for "understandable" reasons. CMV

A person that wants to commit suicide because of a temporary/reversible thing that is commonplace (for example, breaking up with a SO) is not an understandable reason in this context, but a person whose quality of life has been significantly reduced (say due to incurable disease) is understandable. If they express the desire to kill themselves, are likely to act on this desire, and the desire to do so is understandable, then this person should be given the option to take part in unethical scientific experiments because the potential discoveries and the information/inventions they yield are worth the risks when a consenting adult is placed in such a circumstance. CMV.

I think scientific experiments on human test subjects that are likely to be considered unethical should be offered to consenting adults that express a desire to commit suicide for "understandable" reasons. CMV. A person that wants to commit suicide because of a temporary/reversible thing that is commonplace (for example, breaking up with a SO) is not an understandable reason in this context, but a person whose quality of life has been significantly reduced (say due to incurable disease) is understandable. If they express the desire to kill themselves, are likely to act on this desire, and the desire to do so is understandable, then this person should be given the option to take part in unethical scientific experiments because the potential discoveries and the information/inventions they yield are worth the risks when a consenting adult is placed in such a circumstance. CMV.

t3_222civ

CMV:If Supreme Court Justices actually did what they were supposed to do, virtually every decision would be a 9-0 vote. The fact that many votes - especially on "hot button" issues - are 5-4 votes indicates that the Justices are deciding politically, rather than simply interpreting the Constitution

[This](http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/01/so-much-for-politics-more-than-half-of-supreme-court-decisions-unanimous/) is somewhat dated information, but it generally speaks to my point. Even though that article's overall view counters my view, it states: > With 58 decisions in so far, 30, or 52%, have been 9-0 votes, well above the 30% in 2007 and the five-year average of 39% for unanimous opinions. Another 12% were 8-1, compared with a five-year average of 10%. In all, 87% of the decisions so far have garnered more consensus than the 5-4 split usually associated with conservative decisions in the court run by Chief Justice John Roberts. The five-year average for 5-4 votes is 24%. While the Constitution is certainly an ambiguous document if you're looking for ambiguity, it isn't really that complex and is generally straight forward. And it should be especially straight forward to the greatest legal minds in the country (if we are able to assume that that group includes the Supreme Court Justices). So, if all the Justices are doing is interpreting the Constitution and telling us what it means, there should be very little dissension. Virtually every vote should be 9-0, with a few 8-1 decisions thrown in. A 5-4 decision should be virtually unheard of. Having so many votes that are *not* 9-0, indicates that the Justices are either (a) not very good at interpreting the Constitution (i.e., they aren't really qualified for the job) or (b) they are basing their votes upon their own personal and/or political opinions, rather than an interpretation of the Constitution.

CMV:If Supreme Court Justices actually did what they were supposed to do, virtually every decision would be a 9-0 vote. The fact that many votes - especially on "hot button" issues - are 5-4 votes indicates that the Justices are deciding politically, rather than simply interpreting the Constitution. [This](http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/01/so-much-for-politics-more-than-half-of-supreme-court-decisions-unanimous/) is somewhat dated information, but it generally speaks to my point. Even though that article's overall view counters my view, it states: > With 58 decisions in so far, 30, or 52%, have been 9-0 votes, well above the 30% in 2007 and the five-year average of 39% for unanimous opinions. Another 12% were 8-1, compared with a five-year average of 10%. In all, 87% of the decisions so far have garnered more consensus than the 5-4 split usually associated with conservative decisions in the court run by Chief Justice John Roberts. The five-year average for 5-4 votes is 24%. While the Constitution is certainly an ambiguous document if you're looking for ambiguity, it isn't really that complex and is generally straight forward. And it should be especially straight forward to the greatest legal minds in the country (if we are able to assume that that group includes the Supreme Court Justices). So, if all the Justices are doing is interpreting the Constitution and telling us what it means, there should be very little dissension. Virtually every vote should be 9-0, with a few 8-1 decisions thrown in. A 5-4 decision should be virtually unheard of. Having so many votes that are *not* 9-0, indicates that the Justices are either (a) not very good at interpreting the Constitution (i.e., they aren't really qualified for the job) or (b) they are basing their votes upon their own personal and/or political opinions, rather than an interpretation of the Constitution.

t3_1ldv93

After some thought I can't seem to justify how one can be opposed to apartheid, but find it acceptable to limit rights based on citizenship. CMV. Please read description.

I understand this is an emotive issue, but I am interested in why we consider apartheid morally repugnant but citizenship not so. Now - I understand that this has very practical aspects to it. For example - a country can support only a certain number of people, and people like to migrate to more prosperous countries. Perhaps you don't want them voting for officials when they have their "own" country's interest in mind. Perhaps you want to eliminate competition for "your people". But I am not convinced. Apartheid is the first readily available parallel I could think of, and I can't seem to pry the two apart. Why is it not ok to restrict the rights of people based on the colour of their skin, but ok to restrict it based on where they were born? Now - I don't want to address immigration in the US - or any other country - which is what I'm afraid this might devolve into. I'm asking about the ethics of citizenship. In the 18th century - in the US - Black people had to work as slaves and had little recourse. They could never dream of getting a job. Things got better eventually, and today the world is a much better place for it. But we still hold on to notions of citizenship. But you say - "you can *become* a citizen". You just have to do an arbitrary number of things to "prove" yourself. But this is no different than saying "I'll let race X do things race Y can do anyway, but they have to prove themselves first".

After some thought I can't seem to justify how one can be opposed to apartheid, but find it acceptable to limit rights based on citizenship. CMV. Please read description. I understand this is an emotive issue, but I am interested in why we consider apartheid morally repugnant but citizenship not so. Now - I understand that this has very practical aspects to it. For example - a country can support only a certain number of people, and people like to migrate to more prosperous countries. Perhaps you don't want them voting for officials when they have their "own" country's interest in mind. Perhaps you want to eliminate competition for "your people". But I am not convinced. Apartheid is the first readily available parallel I could think of, and I can't seem to pry the two apart. Why is it not ok to restrict the rights of people based on the colour of their skin, but ok to restrict it based on where they were born? Now - I don't want to address immigration in the US - or any other country - which is what I'm afraid this might devolve into. I'm asking about the ethics of citizenship. In the 18th century - in the US - Black people had to work as slaves and had little recourse. They could never dream of getting a job. Things got better eventually, and today the world is a much better place for it. But we still hold on to notions of citizenship. But you say - "you can *become* a citizen". You just have to do an arbitrary number of things to "prove" yourself. But this is no different than saying "I'll let race X do things race Y can do anyway, but they have to prove themselves first".

t3_212in2

I believe that you can't offend someone, just get offended by someone else, basically that there are no such thing as offencive person, CMV

Let me start by saying I don't mean slander or defamation of some kind, nor do I mean humiliation or physical assault. What U'm basically saying that every person has his own beliefs and chooses to react differently to what I say or do. For example: If i wear a shirt that says "Slavery get's shit done" with a picture of a pyramid some people may be offended by that, some people don't. But calling me offensive by wearing that shirt is wrong. Another example: If I'm in line and I say to my friend "that fat lady over there is super slow" in a way she would hear it. she can choose to get offended but what I said and she can choose to not give a fuck. But saying I offended her is wrong. The reason I believe in this is because being offended is super subjective to the matter that me liking the color blue can be offensive to someone, and for that reason I don't believe there are offensive people, but just people who get offended.

I believe that you can't offend someone, just get offended by someone else, basically that there are no such thing as offencive person, CMV. Let me start by saying I don't mean slander or defamation of some kind, nor do I mean humiliation or physical assault. What U'm basically saying that every person has his own beliefs and chooses to react differently to what I say or do. For example: If i wear a shirt that says "Slavery get's shit done" with a picture of a pyramid some people may be offended by that, some people don't. But calling me offensive by wearing that shirt is wrong. Another example: If I'm in line and I say to my friend "that fat lady over there is super slow" in a way she would hear it. she can choose to get offended but what I said and she can choose to not give a fuck. But saying I offended her is wrong. The reason I believe in this is because being offended is super subjective to the matter that me liking the color blue can be offensive to someone, and for that reason I don't believe there are offensive people, but just people who get offended.

t3_34xeq0

CMV:Daft Punk's ''Homework'' is one of the most overrated albums of all time.

_____ Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely anti-Daft Punk. I love their album Discovery, plus some other tracks from their other albums (except the album Human After All, which was a disaster). However, I often hear people call Homework ''the best house album of all time''. Of course, music taste is subjective, but what did DP really revolutionarize or invent with Homework? Sure, Around the World, Burnin', Da Funk and Revolution 909 are catchy tracks, but it seems to me that all of the ingredients used in these tracks had already been used before multiple times (and better), mostly by Chicago House/other French Touch producers. However, if the entire album was as good as these tracks, I wouldn't mind; it'd truly be one of the best house albums of all time. This is not the case with ''Homework''. It contains many tracks which repeat their - often weak - hooks ad nauseum (Indo Silver Club, Alive, Phoenix, Fresh), and then there are those which are simply unlistenable (Rock 'n Roll, Rollin' & Scratchin'). Also, if we look outside of house music but at electronic music in general, we see that artists/groups such as Aphex Twin, Autechre and Boards of Canada were putting out stuff that was genuinely revolutionary and much more creative in sound than what Daft Punk was making. So, change my view. Am I missing something, something that makes Homework a genius album?

CMV:Daft Punk's ''Homework'' is one of the most overrated albums of all time. _____ Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely anti-Daft Punk. I love their album Discovery, plus some other tracks from their other albums (except the album Human After All, which was a disaster). However, I often hear people call Homework ''the best house album of all time''. Of course, music taste is subjective, but what did DP really revolutionarize or invent with Homework? Sure, Around the World, Burnin', Da Funk and Revolution 909 are catchy tracks, but it seems to me that all of the ingredients used in these tracks had already been used before multiple times (and better), mostly by Chicago House/other French Touch producers. However, if the entire album was as good as these tracks, I wouldn't mind; it'd truly be one of the best house albums of all time. This is not the case with ''Homework''. It contains many tracks which repeat their - often weak - hooks ad nauseum (Indo Silver Club, Alive, Phoenix, Fresh), and then there are those which are simply unlistenable (Rock 'n Roll, Rollin' & Scratchin'). Also, if we look outside of house music but at electronic music in general, we see that artists/groups such as Aphex Twin, Autechre and Boards of Canada were putting out stuff that was genuinely revolutionary and much more creative in sound than what Daft Punk was making. So, change my view. Am I missing something, something that makes Homework a genius album?

t3_1cgcmg

I think the Confederate States of America had the right idea -- CMV

First of all: I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about states' rights. With the gun debate raging fiercely, I couldn't help but think that some people perceive an AWB or any gun control measures as good legislation because of the situation where they're from, and others think it's bad legislation, because they have a different background. It seems inappropriate to have a "one size fits all" federal law when the circumstances are different for each state, and even for each county within each state. So it seems to me like the best system is one where individual states have the ability to make their own laws, and not have federal laws forced upon them. For example, if California wants an AWB and Texas doesn't, then why should Texas be forced to have an AWB? Why can't California have their own AWB (they already do) and be happy with it? Why do they have to tell other states what's best for them? I can't really see any benefit in having a large federal government that's out of touch with local issues. If you take the size of the federal government to the extreme, there's almost no point in having individual states if the laws are all the same. Then if you take the size of the federal government to the other extreme, toward minimalism, you have individual states making laws that are most appropriate for them, but you lose the unity- each one might as well be its own country using its own currency with its own army. So as I was lying in bed, thinking about how the balance between a big federal government and states rights should be heavily tipped toward states' rights, with the federal government providing the most barebones unity possible: armed forces, and currency. Why SHOULD we have a large federal government? What do other states care if one decides to have legal marijuana or prostitution, or have 21st century prohibition? And then I realized: isn't that what the CSA fought for in the Civil War? They lost, of course, so the yanks got to write the history books and enact their large federal government, which is what we're told in elementary school was the right thing to do because slavery is bad and the CSA was bad. I'm no historian, but am I a Confederate? CMV. Edit: Clarified a bit.

I think the Confederate States of America had the right idea -- CMV. First of all: I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about states' rights. With the gun debate raging fiercely, I couldn't help but think that some people perceive an AWB or any gun control measures as good legislation because of the situation where they're from, and others think it's bad legislation, because they have a different background. It seems inappropriate to have a "one size fits all" federal law when the circumstances are different for each state, and even for each county within each state. So it seems to me like the best system is one where individual states have the ability to make their own laws, and not have federal laws forced upon them. For example, if California wants an AWB and Texas doesn't, then why should Texas be forced to have an AWB? Why can't California have their own AWB (they already do) and be happy with it? Why do they have to tell other states what's best for them? I can't really see any benefit in having a large federal government that's out of touch with local issues. If you take the size of the federal government to the extreme, there's almost no point in having individual states if the laws are all the same. Then if you take the size of the federal government to the other extreme, toward minimalism, you have individual states making laws that are most appropriate for them, but you lose the unity- each one might as well be its own country using its own currency with its own army. So as I was lying in bed, thinking about how the balance between a big federal government and states rights should be heavily tipped toward states' rights, with the federal government providing the most barebones unity possible: armed forces, and currency. Why SHOULD we have a large federal government? What do other states care if one decides to have legal marijuana or prostitution, or have 21st century prohibition? And then I realized: isn't that what the CSA fought for in the Civil War? They lost, of course, so the yanks got to write the history books and enact their large federal government, which is what we're told in elementary school was the right thing to do because slavery is bad and the CSA was bad. I'm no historian, but am I a Confederate? CMV. Edit: Clarified a bit.

t3_2c5qiq

CMV: I should call the cops more often

I live in an area that is being gentrified and still suffers from lots of street crime, gang violence, and poor quality of life. I used to just ignore alot of minor issues; I figured it doesn't affect me, i shouldn't worry about it. In the past few years, I've gotten to know my neighbors, become more involved in the community, and have settled in for the long haul. I'm sick of letting bad behavior go unpunished, and I feel like unless I start reporting every instance of shady behavior, nothing is going to get finished. I want a stronger police presence on my streets. It's not just the blatant crime that needs to be stopped, it's also small things like double parking & littering. I don't know if it's the best solution, but i can't think of anything more immediately positive. Go ahead - 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 should call the cops more often. I live in an area that is being gentrified and still suffers from lots of street crime, gang violence, and poor quality of life. I used to just ignore alot of minor issues; I figured it doesn't affect me, i shouldn't worry about it. In the past few years, I've gotten to know my neighbors, become more involved in the community, and have settled in for the long haul. I'm sick of letting bad behavior go unpunished, and I feel like unless I start reporting every instance of shady behavior, nothing is going to get finished. I want a stronger police presence on my streets. It's not just the blatant crime that needs to be stopped, it's also small things like double parking & littering. I don't know if it's the best solution, but i can't think of anything more immediately positive. Go ahead - CMV

t3_4fpdpk

CMV: Related to trans bathrooms, if gender isn't defined by genitalia then it isn't defined by dress code or sexual preference either.

Related to the debate on trans people (generally MtF) in women's bathrooms the vast majority of people seem to be in agreement that trans people should be permitted to use the restroom for the gender they identify as. Target for instance has said that employees and customers will be encouraged to use the restroom that “corresponds with their gender identity.” I guess my point is restricting "trans people" down to people "dressed as women" would be another form of discrimination against them. Is anyone turning away women in tshirts and jeans from restrooms for not meeting the dress code? If not then why would a trans person who is not wearing makeup and walking around in a tshirt and jeans be any different? One person I spoke with brought up breast implants but again breasts seems like a silly requirement to use a restroom. If genital is irrelevant then wouldn't breasts also be irrelevant? Further more, even many trans people who would prefer breasts haven't yet taken the plunge for surgery and may not even have the funds if they were ready to such an operation. Further more, women attracted to women still use the womens restroom right? If a trans person is bisexual or gay there would be no legal means of telling them not to use the women's restroom. Some people will say "that slippery slope argument is such BS" but why? If gender is not defined by genitalia then why would it be defined by a dress code, breasts, or sexual preference? In theory it should be completely legal then for MtF transvestite that is dressed and looks almost completely traditionally male and is attracted to women to use the women's restroom if that's the identity they are comfortable with right? Is't their identity chosen by them and them alone? Having some other person determine their gender identity for them based on some other factor just seems like another means of discrimination. If a straight male used a women's restroom because that's the identity they feel comfortable with then it should be completely legal shouldn't it? Wouldn't it be wrong and discriminatory to disagree with the persons stated gender identity? It seems like the only legally enforceable alternative to separating restrooms based on genitala of the individuals is to just let everyone use what ever room they want to use.

CMV: Related to trans bathrooms, if gender isn't defined by genitalia then it isn't defined by dress code or sexual preference either. Related to the debate on trans people (generally MtF) in women's bathrooms the vast majority of people seem to be in agreement that trans people should be permitted to use the restroom for the gender they identify as. Target for instance has said that employees and customers will be encouraged to use the restroom that “corresponds with their gender identity.” I guess my point is restricting "trans people" down to people "dressed as women" would be another form of discrimination against them. Is anyone turning away women in tshirts and jeans from restrooms for not meeting the dress code? If not then why would a trans person who is not wearing makeup and walking around in a tshirt and jeans be any different? One person I spoke with brought up breast implants but again breasts seems like a silly requirement to use a restroom. If genital is irrelevant then wouldn't breasts also be irrelevant? Further more, even many trans people who would prefer breasts haven't yet taken the plunge for surgery and may not even have the funds if they were ready to such an operation. Further more, women attracted to women still use the womens restroom right? If a trans person is bisexual or gay there would be no legal means of telling them not to use the women's restroom. Some people will say "that slippery slope argument is such BS" but why? If gender is not defined by genitalia then why would it be defined by a dress code, breasts, or sexual preference? In theory it should be completely legal then for MtF transvestite that is dressed and looks almost completely traditionally male and is attracted to women to use the women's restroom if that's the identity they are comfortable with right? Is't their identity chosen by them and them alone? Having some other person determine their gender identity for them based on some other factor just seems like another means of discrimination. If a straight male used a women's restroom because that's the identity they feel comfortable with then it should be completely legal shouldn't it? Wouldn't it be wrong and discriminatory to disagree with the persons stated gender identity? It seems like the only legally enforceable alternative to separating restrooms based on genitala of the individuals is to just let everyone use what ever room they want to use.

t3_1va41b

I believe that it's a good idea to teach three year olds about sex. CMV.

I think that as a society we are grossed out by sex, but that a good way to move forward is through making it seem normal right out of the box. If a three year old starts the process about talking about sex with you, then you can be sure when they're grown up they'll talk about sex with you and won't make any rash decisions later in life. To be clear, I am talking about answering the question, "How were you made?" at a 3 year old level, so for example a simple answer like "When a man and a woman want a baby and know each other well, the man puts his penis inside the woman's vagina." So far the arguments I've heard against are: "They are 3 years old." or "They're not old enough." So what dictates that a 3 year old isn't ready to learn about sex? Doing some quick googling it seems like it might be developmentally uncommon for a three year old to learn about it, but I can see no reason why a norm can't change.

I believe that it's a good idea to teach three year olds about sex. CMV. I think that as a society we are grossed out by sex, but that a good way to move forward is through making it seem normal right out of the box. If a three year old starts the process about talking about sex with you, then you can be sure when they're grown up they'll talk about sex with you and won't make any rash decisions later in life. To be clear, I am talking about answering the question, "How were you made?" at a 3 year old level, so for example a simple answer like "When a man and a woman want a baby and know each other well, the man puts his penis inside the woman's vagina." So far the arguments I've heard against are: "They are 3 years old." or "They're not old enough." So what dictates that a 3 year old isn't ready to learn about sex? Doing some quick googling it seems like it might be developmentally uncommon for a three year old to learn about it, but I can see no reason why a norm can't change.

t3_3gqanu

CMV: Roger Goodell has Done a good Job as Commissioner

The NFL and more specifically Roger Goodell has done a good job disciplining their players. Ray Rice, AP, Greg Hardy and Tom Brady all broke the rules and were appriopately disciplined. Most people don't like him because of his ruling about Tom Brady but I don't get why when Brady is obviously guilty. He ruined the it integrity of the game and going before a federal court is a joke. A lot of players have bad behavior and I believe he has done a good job disciplining players and trying to improve the safety of players. Whether it be through rule changes or improving equipment. In conclusion, Goodell has done a great job discipline guilty players and improving their safety. _____ > *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: Roger Goodell has Done a good Job as Commissioner. The NFL and more specifically Roger Goodell has done a good job disciplining their players. Ray Rice, AP, Greg Hardy and Tom Brady all broke the rules and were appriopately disciplined. Most people don't like him because of his ruling about Tom Brady but I don't get why when Brady is obviously guilty. He ruined the it integrity of the game and going before a federal court is a joke. A lot of players have bad behavior and I believe he has done a good job disciplining players and trying to improve the safety of players. Whether it be through rule changes or improving equipment. In conclusion, Goodell has done a great job discipline guilty players and improving their safety.

t3_3f2ewm

CMV: The cop did nothing wrong.

In the Sam Dubose video, it doesn't seem like the cop did anything wrong at all. The guy was driving illegally. He had alcohol right near him so he was probably driving intoxicated, and he tried to flee the scene. I don't see how the cop was acting out of line by shooting him. Not only is he literally driving away from a cop during a traffic stop (which the stop was for a good reason), but he also could have killed someone if he was drunk. Both very common reasons to pull out a gun. It just seems like people are angry because of previous incidents and the recent anti-cop stuff. The video is also hard to see what's going on, so if I have something wrong, let me know. Thanks! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The cop did nothing wrong. In the Sam Dubose video, it doesn't seem like the cop did anything wrong at all. The guy was driving illegally. He had alcohol right near him so he was probably driving intoxicated, and he tried to flee the scene. I don't see how the cop was acting out of line by shooting him. Not only is he literally driving away from a cop during a traffic stop (which the stop was for a good reason), but he also could have killed someone if he was drunk. Both very common reasons to pull out a gun. It just seems like people are angry because of previous incidents and the recent anti-cop stuff. The video is also hard to see what's going on, so if I have something wrong, let me know. Thanks!

t3_1el45s

I believe that the Palestinian people are just as responsible for the segregation as the Israelis. CMV

I'm from a reform Jewish family, but my views have been switched around a lot. For a while I believed it was the Palestinians fault, and then I changed it to being the Jewish fault, but now I'm saying they are equally responsible. What the Zionists did was wrong, they kicked people out of their land and attacked them, it is very bad, but I don't see how they are entirely to blame for what is going on now. The Jewish people have been kicked out of more countries than I can count, and are almost always being exterminated (Inquisition, Holocaust etc.), yet to my knowledge they have never formed a terrorism group to attack the people that caused that to them. The fact is that Hamas leads the Palestinians. Hamas has launched 1435 bombs in Israel in 2012 alone and that is not even talking about the bus bombings, and attacks in other countries. Palestine is an area led by terrorists, plain and simple. While Israel did cause a lot of the anger that led to Hamas, it is absurd to say that only Israel is responsible right now for what is happening.

I believe that the Palestinian people are just as responsible for the segregation as the Israelis. CMV. I'm from a reform Jewish family, but my views have been switched around a lot. For a while I believed it was the Palestinians fault, and then I changed it to being the Jewish fault, but now I'm saying they are equally responsible. What the Zionists did was wrong, they kicked people out of their land and attacked them, it is very bad, but I don't see how they are entirely to blame for what is going on now. The Jewish people have been kicked out of more countries than I can count, and are almost always being exterminated (Inquisition, Holocaust etc.), yet to my knowledge they have never formed a terrorism group to attack the people that caused that to them. The fact is that Hamas leads the Palestinians. Hamas has launched 1435 bombs in Israel in 2012 alone and that is not even talking about the bus bombings, and attacks in other countries. Palestine is an area led by terrorists, plain and simple. While Israel did cause a lot of the anger that led to Hamas, it is absurd to say that only Israel is responsible right now for what is happening.

t3_1yau28

I don't think it'd be such a bad thing if the human race died out. CMV.

I don't plan on having children, and I feel the best thing we can do for the planet is to stop breeding and slowly let the human race go extinct. When people hear the words "voluntary human extinction movement," I think they immediately picture mass suicide and going around murdering each other. This is not what I'm suggesting at all. We should just simply stop reproducing. The reason? The human race is destructive and self-centered. We think we're the most important species on the planet, so we abuse and kill other species. We treat the planet like a garbage dump. Look at all the damage we've caused. We hear so much about "going green" and "saving the planet," but the problems we're facing are huge, and no amount of recycling and turning off the lights when you leave a room is going to reverse them. We have to leave the planet before we destroy it for good. Change my view!

I don't think it'd be such a bad thing if the human race died out. CMV. I don't plan on having children, and I feel the best thing we can do for the planet is to stop breeding and slowly let the human race go extinct. When people hear the words "voluntary human extinction movement," I think they immediately picture mass suicide and going around murdering each other. This is not what I'm suggesting at all. We should just simply stop reproducing. The reason? The human race is destructive and self-centered. We think we're the most important species on the planet, so we abuse and kill other species. We treat the planet like a garbage dump. Look at all the damage we've caused. We hear so much about "going green" and "saving the planet," but the problems we're facing are huge, and no amount of recycling and turning off the lights when you leave a room is going to reverse them. We have to leave the planet before we destroy it for good. Change my view!

t3_1rw71r

I believe that marriage serves no purpose and, if anything, is detrimental to society. CMV.

I don't think it's necessary in modern society. It's just making someone your permanent girlfriend/boyfriend. People expect you to marry, but what other reason is there? If you really love someone, why do you need to sign a formal agreement to prove you love each other? How does marriage benefit anyone? In my opinion, it creates more problems than it solves. Divorces can be really messy, and the expectation that a stable life includes a husband or wife probably causes a lot of people to marry someone they don't really want to. Edit: So I'm realizing that I would have to have a different opinion on this topic if I was actually married. Now I'm wondering how society would be different without the notion of marriage at all, and would we be better or worse off?

I believe that marriage serves no purpose and, if anything, is detrimental to society. CMV. I don't think it's necessary in modern society. It's just making someone your permanent girlfriend/boyfriend. People expect you to marry, but what other reason is there? If you really love someone, why do you need to sign a formal agreement to prove you love each other? How does marriage benefit anyone? In my opinion, it creates more problems than it solves. Divorces can be really messy, and the expectation that a stable life includes a husband or wife probably causes a lot of people to marry someone they don't really want to. Edit: So I'm realizing that I would have to have a different opinion on this topic if I was actually married. Now I'm wondering how society would be different without the notion of marriage at all, and would we be better or worse off?

t3_1tx0tf

I think that it's morally wrong for parents to raise their children with their personal religious/philosophical beliefs. CMV.

I'm a Satanist, and while I know that if I ever have kids I would be happy for them to adopt the same beliefs as my own, I could never in all good conscience indoctrinate them with my views from the very first years of their life. I don't understand how people can be okay with teaching their children set beliefs from their own personal religions/philosophies as if they are fact. To me, that is actively choosing to blinker your child to so many different outlooks and moral stances on life. It's denying them the right to build their own character and ethical values, and undermining their own personal judgement. I think a vital part of growing up and earning your independence is through finding your own morals and beliefs, as searching to find ones which appeal to you not only will enhance your knowledge of the world around you but also is really important in understanding what sort of a person you are. You can take pride in that you took the time and effort to evaluate the countless possibilities to choose how you wish to live your life. I watched a documentary where kids from the Westboro Baptist Church were interviewed, and my heart just broke - because they weren't born homophobic and hateful, they were raised to be that way. It's horrible and I can't understand how people can justify it. And yes, I understand some people will argue they can change their beliefs when they get older. But again, with those Westboro Baptist Church kids, even if they did, they still have to live with the fact that there was a time in their lives when they stood for extremely terrible things. I imagine it would most likely haunt them for the rest of their lives. So who are we to say our beliefs are what should be taught? Cmv if you can! :D

I think that it's morally wrong for parents to raise their children with their personal religious/philosophical beliefs. CMV. I'm a Satanist, and while I know that if I ever have kids I would be happy for them to adopt the same beliefs as my own, I could never in all good conscience indoctrinate them with my views from the very first years of their life. I don't understand how people can be okay with teaching their children set beliefs from their own personal religions/philosophies as if they are fact. To me, that is actively choosing to blinker your child to so many different outlooks and moral stances on life. It's denying them the right to build their own character and ethical values, and undermining their own personal judgement. I think a vital part of growing up and earning your independence is through finding your own morals and beliefs, as searching to find ones which appeal to you not only will enhance your knowledge of the world around you but also is really important in understanding what sort of a person you are. You can take pride in that you took the time and effort to evaluate the countless possibilities to choose how you wish to live your life. I watched a documentary where kids from the Westboro Baptist Church were interviewed, and my heart just broke - because they weren't born homophobic and hateful, they were raised to be that way. It's horrible and I can't understand how people can justify it. And yes, I understand some people will argue they can change their beliefs when they get older. But again, with those Westboro Baptist Church kids, even if they did, they still have to live with the fact that there was a time in their lives when they stood for extremely terrible things. I imagine it would most likely haunt them for the rest of their lives. So who are we to say our beliefs are what should be taught? Cmv if you can! :D

t3_1vkrzs

I don't think bobsledding, luge, or skeleton require any other skill other than being able to sprint for 10 seconds. CMV

In the Winter Olympics, bobsledding, luge, and skeleton are events which I don't think require much skill. Sure, you have to run fast at the start but i feel the rest of the event is just sliding down a hill. The track is banked so no turns have to be made or decisions to be made about where to turn. Especially in the 4 man event, they all pile into the sled and just wait for the ride to end. There is no way each guy could have a specific job or skill required to go down faster. I know they go really fast but isn't it just a matter of holding on?

I don't think bobsledding, luge, or skeleton require any other skill other than being able to sprint for 10 seconds. CMV. In the Winter Olympics, bobsledding, luge, and skeleton are events which I don't think require much skill. Sure, you have to run fast at the start but i feel the rest of the event is just sliding down a hill. The track is banked so no turns have to be made or decisions to be made about where to turn. Especially in the 4 man event, they all pile into the sled and just wait for the ride to end. There is no way each guy could have a specific job or skill required to go down faster. I know they go really fast but isn't it just a matter of holding on?

t3_1evxsz

The Call of duty series isn't as bad as people say.CMV

pretty much the only reasons ive heard are "why cant every FPS be Doom?!?!?!?"(I'd like to add here that I think that DOOM is an equal,if not better game than COD,but saying the argument because they're diffrent kinds of FPS from diffrent era's) "everyone who uses their mic is a bratty 7 year old" (there's a mute option. use it.) "Knifing is OP"(I agree,but its not gamebreakingly OP) keep in mind,I usually dont do multiplayer and stick mostly to zombies,but when I do play multiplayer,its either hardcore or party games,so I dont know if that's relevant.

The Call of duty series isn't as bad as people say.CMV. pretty much the only reasons ive heard are "why cant every FPS be Doom?!?!?!?"(I'd like to add here that I think that DOOM is an equal,if not better game than COD,but saying the argument because they're diffrent kinds of FPS from diffrent era's) "everyone who uses their mic is a bratty 7 year old" (there's a mute option. use it.) "Knifing is OP"(I agree,but its not gamebreakingly OP) keep in mind,I usually dont do multiplayer and stick mostly to zombies,but when I do play multiplayer,its either hardcore or party games,so I dont know if that's relevant.

t3_3uq9i3

CMV: I would have an easier time fitting in my home town if I were a full-Mexican American, instead of Hispanic/half White

I live in deep South Texas and am half Mexican/Half white. I look white, but not "WASP-Mayo-sweaters on my dog White" as a friend puts it. I grew up mostly with Mexican grandparents, one being an immigrant to the US at 16 (she was from Monterrey), and many of the traditions they steeped me in, including me speaking some of the language. However, my grandparents were wealthier than many mexicans at the time (50's) and had a higher quality of life. the culture was very ranch-based/wealthier mixed, and partly from Monterrey. ...However. My girlfriend is full Mexican, but a different type of mexican. she's third generation, like me, but had parents of a different part of mexico and a different...economic situation. They were poor. She is culturally different than me, in that she is full mexican, third generation, in a mexican culture borne from poor immigrants' children's children. This happens to be the dominant "type" of culture that resides in this area of the country. Some people would call it a little bit "ghetto". I think that's disrespectful. And yet... it's also a culture that just doesn't really love my type in it. They call their family members who "act white" coconuts, they speak english in an ever so-slightly different way ("I cay-n't" for *I can't*, lots of *s*'s on the ends of things "nowheres", etc). Some are happy and accepting of me (calling me *vato* instead of my name... or *guero*, except jokingly...) or that my girlfriend's mom talks about how I'm a nice *white* boy, except, even better(!) he's *half* and looks white, but isn't freaked out or anything by mexican culture.... It just reminds me of being a little boy, getting made fun of by other kids when i spoke spanish, or having mexican food, or doing anything for Dia de los Muertos with my grandma. "You look kinda stupid when you do it, like you're trying too hard" "You're too white". Even my girlfriend says my feelings aren't very warranted- she is supportive when i talk about it, but she says she can't help but feel i got it turned around. "in north Texas, people look to make sure I'm not shoplifting. my family is *happy* that you're white, because *nice boys are white*." But I'm aware I have some white privilege. except...it kinda doesn't *feel* like an advantage to me in a mostly mexican town with mexican people making up most of it, (mexican police officers and city government, too, just to make sure you don't point that out.) Am I just whining? Is it stupid that I wish I was just full mexican? or at least look the part a little more? I feel like my dad just culturally screwed me into a bunch of stereotypes of me being a -racist dickhead who can't handle spice - for the rest of my life. Or mexican dudes being mad that my race "takes the nice chicas". In a CMV about racism once, I read someone point out "when they call you a Gaijin, do you think to yourself, '*man, I wish I was Japanese*'? no? Then can it really be them who have the institutional power?" Well, yeah. I wish I was Mexican. It'd make things easier. I almost do really wish I wasn't mixed ethnicity.

CMV: I would have an easier time fitting in my home town if I were a full-Mexican American, instead of Hispanic/half White. I live in deep South Texas and am half Mexican/Half white. I look white, but not "WASP-Mayo-sweaters on my dog White" as a friend puts it. I grew up mostly with Mexican grandparents, one being an immigrant to the US at 16 (she was from Monterrey), and many of the traditions they steeped me in, including me speaking some of the language. However, my grandparents were wealthier than many mexicans at the time (50's) and had a higher quality of life. the culture was very ranch-based/wealthier mixed, and partly from Monterrey. ...However. My girlfriend is full Mexican, but a different type of mexican. she's third generation, like me, but had parents of a different part of mexico and a different...economic situation. They were poor. She is culturally different than me, in that she is full mexican, third generation, in a mexican culture borne from poor immigrants' children's children. This happens to be the dominant "type" of culture that resides in this area of the country. Some people would call it a little bit "ghetto". I think that's disrespectful. And yet... it's also a culture that just doesn't really love my type in it. They call their family members who "act white" coconuts, they speak english in an ever so-slightly different way ("I cay-n't" for *I can't*, lots of *s*'s on the ends of things "nowheres", etc). Some are happy and accepting of me (calling me *vato* instead of my name... or *guero*, except jokingly...) or that my girlfriend's mom talks about how I'm a nice *white* boy, except, even better(!) he's *half* and looks white, but isn't freaked out or anything by mexican culture.... It just reminds me of being a little boy, getting made fun of by other kids when i spoke spanish, or having mexican food, or doing anything for Dia de los Muertos with my grandma. "You look kinda stupid when you do it, like you're trying too hard" "You're too white". Even my girlfriend says my feelings aren't very warranted- she is supportive when i talk about it, but she says she can't help but feel i got it turned around. "in north Texas, people look to make sure I'm not shoplifting. my family is *happy* that you're white, because *nice boys are white*." But I'm aware I have some white privilege. except...it kinda doesn't *feel* like an advantage to me in a mostly mexican town with mexican people making up most of it, (mexican police officers and city government, too, just to make sure you don't point that out.) Am I just whining? Is it stupid that I wish I was just full mexican? or at least look the part a little more? I feel like my dad just culturally screwed me into a bunch of stereotypes of me being a -racist dickhead who can't handle spice - for the rest of my life. Or mexican dudes being mad that my race "takes the nice chicas". In a CMV about racism once, I read someone point out "when they call you a Gaijin, do you think to yourself, '*man, I wish I was Japanese*'? no? Then can it really be them who have the institutional power?" Well, yeah. I wish I was Mexican. It'd make things easier. I almost do really wish I wasn't mixed ethnicity.

t3_3ccudu

CMV: Photojournalism is entirely right place, right time

Notice how I'm not saying photography, but photojournalism. Professional photographers practice and train themselves with lighting and all that, but when it comes to a story, no one gives a shit about beauty, you just have to point and shoot. If you're at the scene, you've got it. One thing that mystified me was after the Kenya school shooting in April, there were some photos that made it big and people said they captured the moment perfectly. To be frank, it appeared as if said photographer simply got to the scene while the bodies were still warm, took a photo, and got paid. I fail to see how that's a skill. I'm not saying no photojournalist possesses remarkable skill, but it seems that anybody could get a newsworthy photo with a nice camera and luck. My friends in journalism vehemently insist I'm wrong but they can't articulate why. _____ > *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: Photojournalism is entirely right place, right time. Notice how I'm not saying photography, but photojournalism. Professional photographers practice and train themselves with lighting and all that, but when it comes to a story, no one gives a shit about beauty, you just have to point and shoot. If you're at the scene, you've got it. One thing that mystified me was after the Kenya school shooting in April, there were some photos that made it big and people said they captured the moment perfectly. To be frank, it appeared as if said photographer simply got to the scene while the bodies were still warm, took a photo, and got paid. I fail to see how that's a skill. I'm not saying no photojournalist possesses remarkable skill, but it seems that anybody could get a newsworthy photo with a nice camera and luck. My friends in journalism vehemently insist I'm wrong but they can't articulate why.

t3_2a08q8

CMV: I believe racism against whites is more prevalent than racism against blacks in the US

I'm an 18 year old who lives in a very diverse community. Whites definitely make up the majority, but there is a very large population of blacks, indians, and hispanics. I'm a very open minded individual and have not the slightest racist bone in my body. Maybe it's because of the culture I was brought up in, but I don't believe racism has it's place in 21st century America. Granted, I have a very small sampling to observe as I have lived in the same general area most of my life. It may be way different in other parts of the country, but for the most part I genuinely believe that racism is more prevalent against whites than it is blacks. I work in a very diverse work place. The blacks talk bad about the 'white boys'. They make remarks how whites wouldn't last a day where their from. In my school, no one would bat an eye if a black student said something to a white student along the lines of 'not everyones as spoiled as you white boy', 'me and my niggas gonna mess you up' or 'you wouldn't understand cause you're white'. But people would lose there mind a white student said anything even remotely racist. On the football field it's 'you're pretty good for a white boy', 'yeah he's pretty athletic.. for a white boy' or 'insertstatementhere for a white boy'. I was at a grad party the other day and I saw a black man wearing a shirt and it said 'you wouldn't understand, it's a black thing'. I feel like blacks generalize white people. Obviously there are outliers to my statement, I understand that. But I believe that as a whole, black people feel too entitled. I think the fight for civil rights would be much more successful if blacks didn't have this attitude of having something to prove. I know many people who feel like they have to 'make it' just to prove people wrong. I'd like to conclude with this statement. I have many black friends who say 'man, you wouldn't understand. you're white'. What am I missing? What as a white guy can I not understand about racism? _____ > *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 racism against whites is more prevalent than racism against blacks in the US. I'm an 18 year old who lives in a very diverse community. Whites definitely make up the majority, but there is a very large population of blacks, indians, and hispanics. I'm a very open minded individual and have not the slightest racist bone in my body. Maybe it's because of the culture I was brought up in, but I don't believe racism has it's place in 21st century America. Granted, I have a very small sampling to observe as I have lived in the same general area most of my life. It may be way different in other parts of the country, but for the most part I genuinely believe that racism is more prevalent against whites than it is blacks. I work in a very diverse work place. The blacks talk bad about the 'white boys'. They make remarks how whites wouldn't last a day where their from. In my school, no one would bat an eye if a black student said something to a white student along the lines of 'not everyones as spoiled as you white boy', 'me and my niggas gonna mess you up' or 'you wouldn't understand cause you're white'. But people would lose there mind a white student said anything even remotely racist. On the football field it's 'you're pretty good for a white boy', 'yeah he's pretty athletic.. for a white boy' or 'insertstatementhere for a white boy'. I was at a grad party the other day and I saw a black man wearing a shirt and it said 'you wouldn't understand, it's a black thing'. I feel like blacks generalize white people. Obviously there are outliers to my statement, I understand that. But I believe that as a whole, black people feel too entitled. I think the fight for civil rights would be much more successful if blacks didn't have this attitude of having something to prove. I know many people who feel like they have to 'make it' just to prove people wrong. I'd like to conclude with this statement. I have many black friends who say 'man, you wouldn't understand. you're white'. What am I missing? What as a white guy can I not understand about racism?

t3_6vef2r

CMV: Pepsi Is Better than Coke

I believe that Pepsi is better than Coke. NO BAMBOOZLE! Here is my reasoning: A. Pepsi is sweeter: Pepsi is sweeter than Coke, hands down. It adds to the taste so much B. Coke is too fizzy: Coca-Cola is much more fizzy than Pepsi. Therefore, taking away from much of the taste. Pepsi is les fizzy, but still fizzy enough making it very tastable and delicious without having to put it in a cup. C. Design: I know this might be a shitty reason, but it's true. Pepsi's bottle/can design is much more smooth and elegant. And their logo is brilliant. Cokes logo is just its name in a fancy font. I always ask for Pepsi, not Coke, and when they don't have Pepsi, i say "do you have Coke instead?" Too bad for that AskReddit thread And that is why I like Pepsi better than Coke. Come at me bro. But if there's one thing that you should know, it's that Dr. Pepper is better than them all. CMV!!!!!!

CMV: Pepsi Is Better than Coke. I believe that Pepsi is better than Coke. NO BAMBOOZLE! Here is my reasoning: A. Pepsi is sweeter: Pepsi is sweeter than Coke, hands down. It adds to the taste so much B. Coke is too fizzy: Coca-Cola is much more fizzy than Pepsi. Therefore, taking away from much of the taste. Pepsi is les fizzy, but still fizzy enough making it very tastable and delicious without having to put it in a cup. C. Design: I know this might be a shitty reason, but it's true. Pepsi's bottle/can design is much more smooth and elegant. And their logo is brilliant. Cokes logo is just its name in a fancy font. I always ask for Pepsi, not Coke, and when they don't have Pepsi, i say "do you have Coke instead?" Too bad for that AskReddit thread And that is why I like Pepsi better than Coke. Come at me bro. But if there's one thing that you should know, it's that Dr. Pepper is better than them all. CMV!!!!!!

t3_1ubs0e

I distrust people who have broken engagements in the past. CMV.

I feel like people who have broken engagements in the past are less trustworthy. I know it's irrational to feel this way, but I still feel it when I am on FB and see an acquaintance who broke off an engagement years ago getting engaged again. I mean, it's one thing to get divorced years down the road because people and life circumstances change. But to break off an engagement before you're even married... doesn't really make sense to me. It makes me think that either that person is 1) making promises they aren't sure they can keep, or 2) really clueless about what they want, and that makes me distrust them. I don't really know why I feel this way. Maybe it's because I'm someone who readily admits when I don't know how I feel about something, and I almost never say anything I don't mean. I also don't throw around the "l-word" easily -- I've waited months before I finally said it because I wanted to be sure that I really loved the other person (even in spite of their flaws) and it's not just a brief moment of infatuation where I love my idea of who they are, because I don't think it's something anyone should take back because of their own misunderstanding. So I don't understand how someone could make a commitment to marry someone if they aren't 100% sure it's what they want. I suspect this also has a little to do with a past relationship where a girl who broke off an engagement eventually "stole" my boyfriend, only to mistreat him and dump him later. CMV!

I distrust people who have broken engagements in the past. CMV. I feel like people who have broken engagements in the past are less trustworthy. I know it's irrational to feel this way, but I still feel it when I am on FB and see an acquaintance who broke off an engagement years ago getting engaged again. I mean, it's one thing to get divorced years down the road because people and life circumstances change. But to break off an engagement before you're even married... doesn't really make sense to me. It makes me think that either that person is 1) making promises they aren't sure they can keep, or 2) really clueless about what they want, and that makes me distrust them. I don't really know why I feel this way. Maybe it's because I'm someone who readily admits when I don't know how I feel about something, and I almost never say anything I don't mean. I also don't throw around the "l-word" easily -- I've waited months before I finally said it because I wanted to be sure that I really loved the other person (even in spite of their flaws) and it's not just a brief moment of infatuation where I love my idea of who they are, because I don't think it's something anyone should take back because of their own misunderstanding. So I don't understand how someone could make a commitment to marry someone if they aren't 100% sure it's what they want. I suspect this also has a little to do with a past relationship where a girl who broke off an engagement eventually "stole" my boyfriend, only to mistreat him and dump him later. CMV!

t3_6hb6uy

CMV: Banning alcohol makes more sense than banning guns.

Alcohol is responsible for far more death and violence than guns are, yet very few people are in favor of banning booze. Every argument I've heard for banning guns seems to apply even more so to alcohol, and there isn't a very clear distinction why one should be legal and the other illegal. For example: Australia banned guns, and has less gun violence. Great! Saudi Arabia banned alcohol and has fewer alcohol deaths. Even during the US's experiment with prohibition, alcohol consumption dropped considerably. That's hardly an argument in favor of prohibition. _____ > *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: Banning alcohol makes more sense than banning guns. Alcohol is responsible for far more death and violence than guns are, yet very few people are in favor of banning booze. Every argument I've heard for banning guns seems to apply even more so to alcohol, and there isn't a very clear distinction why one should be legal and the other illegal. For example: Australia banned guns, and has less gun violence. Great! Saudi Arabia banned alcohol and has fewer alcohol deaths. Even during the US's experiment with prohibition, alcohol consumption dropped considerably. That's hardly an argument in favor of prohibition.

t3_6ags8c

CMV: I'm only in my job for the pay and benefits. As long as I keep that to myself, there's no harm done.

EDIT: By no harm done, I mean no harm done ***to me***. --- I'm the type of person who 100% follows the philosophy of work to live. My job is a means to an end, and that end is funding the life I want to live. I have a nice apartment with my girlfriend, a wonderful puppy, a nice car (not extravagant, but nice), and everything I need for my hobbies (guitar/amplifier/pedals, game systems, books, a basketball, my computer, athletic shoes, hiking gear). I also make enough to save some on the side. It's safe to say that I have what I need for now and I'm living comfortably. Of course, I have bills. Rent, car, car insurance, phone, groceries, and student loans. My student loans will be gone in about a year, so that will be an extra $650/month to put towards a house with a yard for the dog, savings for the places I want to travel to, or possibly even a ring. So it's needless to say that I have plenty of things I need money for, and my job compensates enough for them. Now a lot of people say employers don't like to hear that you're only in the job for the money, and I agree. Employers want to hire people who are driven to do their job and improve themselves and the company. I get that. But that's just not me. I don't have a work-related passion or career ambition. That doesn't mean I'll turn down promotions or anything, but if the promotion doesn't seem like something I'd want to do for one reason or another, I'm not going to take it, and my employer will/should understand that. As long as I can tolerate my job for 40 hours a week and it can fund all the things I listed above, I'm happy. And that's where I am with my job right now. I don't hate my work, but it's not my passion at all. But I still work hard at it. Now I'm not here to debate whether or not my outlook on my work and career is good or not. That's how I am and I'm not looking to change unless I absolutely need to. But it's my belief that as long as I keep these personal details to myself and my employer doesn't know, then there's no harm done. I can let them think all they want that I love my job and love working for the company and desperately want to advance and so on. And I'll continue to work hard to paint that picture. But just know that on the inside, this is how I truly feel about any job. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I'm only in my job for the pay and benefits. As long as I keep that to myself, there's no harm done. EDIT: By no harm done, I mean no harm done ***to me***. --- I'm the type of person who 100% follows the philosophy of work to live. My job is a means to an end, and that end is funding the life I want to live. I have a nice apartment with my girlfriend, a wonderful puppy, a nice car (not extravagant, but nice), and everything I need for my hobbies (guitar/amplifier/pedals, game systems, books, a basketball, my computer, athletic shoes, hiking gear). I also make enough to save some on the side. It's safe to say that I have what I need for now and I'm living comfortably. Of course, I have bills. Rent, car, car insurance, phone, groceries, and student loans. My student loans will be gone in about a year, so that will be an extra $650/month to put towards a house with a yard for the dog, savings for the places I want to travel to, or possibly even a ring. So it's needless to say that I have plenty of things I need money for, and my job compensates enough for them. Now a lot of people say employers don't like to hear that you're only in the job for the money, and I agree. Employers want to hire people who are driven to do their job and improve themselves and the company. I get that. But that's just not me. I don't have a work-related passion or career ambition. That doesn't mean I'll turn down promotions or anything, but if the promotion doesn't seem like something I'd want to do for one reason or another, I'm not going to take it, and my employer will/should understand that. As long as I can tolerate my job for 40 hours a week and it can fund all the things I listed above, I'm happy. And that's where I am with my job right now. I don't hate my work, but it's not my passion at all. But I still work hard at it. Now I'm not here to debate whether or not my outlook on my work and career is good or not. That's how I am and I'm not looking to change unless I absolutely need to. But it's my belief that as long as I keep these personal details to myself and my employer doesn't know, then there's no harm done. I can let them think all they want that I love my job and love working for the company and desperately want to advance and so on. And I'll continue to work hard to paint that picture. But just know that on the inside, this is how I truly feel about any job.

t3_1rn7nx

I think taxes are good for freedom, and libertarians have been tricked by the rich. CMV

There was a long facebook thread on this point after the Pope started shit talking capitalism, and it made me realize something. I no longer understand people who tell me that they think taxes should be radically lowered and most government services privatized. I think that everyone who holds this opinion has been more or less tricked by the rich and powerful into thinking that taxes and government are antithetical to liberty when they really aren't. Taxing and spending creates a more even playing field and government is (at least supposed to be) a check on the ability of the rich and powerful to do whatever the fuck they want. Key to my view is this: who stands to gain the most from a society with less government and lower taxes? Clearly not the poor. Obviously I don't think that 100% taxes is good either. Don't reduce this to the absurd. As I have said in other fora, I believe the job of good economic governance is to strike a balance between encouraging individual creativity and making sure the most fortunate and successful don't break the system by becoming too powerful. To head this avenue of attack off at the pass: I am an adult (most of the time) living int he USA, and I pay a ridiculously low rate of state and federal income tax and sales tax. The kicker of it all is that I used to be a radical libertarian too, before I reached the age of reason (about 25). So I don't think you will, but I want to hear your best arguments for why taxes kill freedom.

I think taxes are good for freedom, and libertarians have been tricked by the rich. CMV. There was a long facebook thread on this point after the Pope started shit talking capitalism, and it made me realize something. I no longer understand people who tell me that they think taxes should be radically lowered and most government services privatized. I think that everyone who holds this opinion has been more or less tricked by the rich and powerful into thinking that taxes and government are antithetical to liberty when they really aren't. Taxing and spending creates a more even playing field and government is (at least supposed to be) a check on the ability of the rich and powerful to do whatever the fuck they want. Key to my view is this: who stands to gain the most from a society with less government and lower taxes? Clearly not the poor. Obviously I don't think that 100% taxes is good either. Don't reduce this to the absurd. As I have said in other fora, I believe the job of good economic governance is to strike a balance between encouraging individual creativity and making sure the most fortunate and successful don't break the system by becoming too powerful. To head this avenue of attack off at the pass: I am an adult (most of the time) living int he USA, and I pay a ridiculously low rate of state and federal income tax and sales tax. The kicker of it all is that I used to be a radical libertarian too, before I reached the age of reason (about 25). So I don't think you will, but I want to hear your best arguments for why taxes kill freedom.

t3_1o7aa8

I believe the term "rape survivor" doesn't make any sense. CMV

**Disclaimer: I am not trying to offend victims of rape or make rape out to be anything but the horrific thing it is. Please do not come preaching to me about this. Rape has affected my the lives of those close to me multiple times, and I'm not looking to argue about anything besides the point in my title.** Calling someone a survivor of something implies that it is a potentially lethal thing. For example, a plane crash survivor. Everyone knows that plane crashes can and do kill people, so if you were in one and you didn't die, you are a survivor. Rape doesn't kill people. It is assumed you are a survivor of something that is nonlethal. "I got shot with a paintball gun, but I survived. I'm a paintball survivor." This seems equally nonsensical.

I believe the term "rape survivor" doesn't make any sense. CMV. **Disclaimer: I am not trying to offend victims of rape or make rape out to be anything but the horrific thing it is. Please do not come preaching to me about this. Rape has affected my the lives of those close to me multiple times, and I'm not looking to argue about anything besides the point in my title.** Calling someone a survivor of something implies that it is a potentially lethal thing. For example, a plane crash survivor. Everyone knows that plane crashes can and do kill people, so if you were in one and you didn't die, you are a survivor. Rape doesn't kill people. It is assumed you are a survivor of something that is nonlethal. "I got shot with a paintball gun, but I survived. I'm a paintball survivor." This seems equally nonsensical.

t3_44kylw

CMV: Bodily Autonomy, just like bearing arms is demonstrably not an absolute, unlimited and inviolable right. Strong supporters of abortion rights often look just as dumb as strong supporters of gun rights

I realized that the arguments of bodily autonomy and bearing of arms are equivalent and opposite. And that there is quite possibly some hypocrisy in the mix somewhere. Strong supporters of gun rights say that the right to bear arms is absolute, and inviolable. And that any violation of this right is a grave offense. But obviously civillians can't acquire any arms. "Arms" includes litterally every weapon ever invented. Strong supporters of abortions say that bodily autonomy rights are absolute and inviolable, and that any violation of them is a grave offense But if that were the case if you had the money, you would be able to have any part of your body safely and professionally removed. But obviously that wouldn't happen. You would most likely end up with referrals for mental evaluation. My View: strong supporters of abortion rights are often just as nutty and black-and-white as second amendment constitutionalists.

CMV: Bodily Autonomy, just like bearing arms is demonstrably not an absolute, unlimited and inviolable right. Strong supporters of abortion rights often look just as dumb as strong supporters of gun rights. I realized that the arguments of bodily autonomy and bearing of arms are equivalent and opposite. And that there is quite possibly some hypocrisy in the mix somewhere. Strong supporters of gun rights say that the right to bear arms is absolute, and inviolable. And that any violation of this right is a grave offense. But obviously civillians can't acquire any arms. "Arms" includes litterally every weapon ever invented. Strong supporters of abortions say that bodily autonomy rights are absolute and inviolable, and that any violation of them is a grave offense But if that were the case if you had the money, you would be able to have any part of your body safely and professionally removed. But obviously that wouldn't happen. You would most likely end up with referrals for mental evaluation. My View: strong supporters of abortion rights are often just as nutty and black-and-white as second amendment constitutionalists.

t3_216vt1

"Scared Straight" does more harm than good. CMV.

[Scared straight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nuQYWxjABE) is a program or something where they take troubled kids and have them yelled at by real prisoners to try to scare them away from being bad kids. While I have no doubt that this scares them, and I am sure at that moment it makes them regret what they have done, I think in the long term that fear subsides and the only thing left is "I am such a bad kid that I got sent to prison to be threatened by real criminals." [Labeling theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory) is basically the idea of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you convince a child that they are bad, they will fill that role. I think it is hard to argue against this. This is why most people would agree that it is good to encourage your child, reenforce their good behavior. When they are bad you tell them that they know better, and that you expect better of them. You wouldn't tell your kid that they are shitty and use that to motivate them. If you saw a parent that tried to convince their child that they were bad you would expect the child to be bad and the parent to be pretty lousy. Ultimately I think that this program will only, if anything, result in the child feeling like a criminal. I am sure it scares the hell out of them. But fear is temporary. It turns into a mild concern. I don't think that the feeling of "man I don't want to go back there" outweighs the feeling of "man I can't believe I got sent there in the first place." Not to mention the fact that no one *plans* on going to jail or getting in trouble when the do bad things. So again, "this is who I am" takes another step above "I don't want to be there." All of this effort would be better spent finding ways to encourage the child. Giving the child a reason to stay out of prison rather than just threatening them with it. You can't tell me that it is easier to bus some kids to a prison than it is to find one legitimate activity that they enjoy and giving them a damn basketball or stakeboard. 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 just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

"Scared Straight" does more harm than good. CMV. [Scared straight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nuQYWxjABE) is a program or something where they take troubled kids and have them yelled at by real prisoners to try to scare them away from being bad kids. While I have no doubt that this scares them, and I am sure at that moment it makes them regret what they have done, I think in the long term that fear subsides and the only thing left is "I am such a bad kid that I got sent to prison to be threatened by real criminals." [Labeling theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory) is basically the idea of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you convince a child that they are bad, they will fill that role. I think it is hard to argue against this. This is why most people would agree that it is good to encourage your child, reenforce their good behavior. When they are bad you tell them that they know better, and that you expect better of them. You wouldn't tell your kid that they are shitty and use that to motivate them. If you saw a parent that tried to convince their child that they were bad you would expect the child to be bad and the parent to be pretty lousy. Ultimately I think that this program will only, if anything, result in the child feeling like a criminal. I am sure it scares the hell out of them. But fear is temporary. It turns into a mild concern. I don't think that the feeling of "man I don't want to go back there" outweighs the feeling of "man I can't believe I got sent there in the first place." Not to mention the fact that no one *plans* on going to jail or getting in trouble when the do bad things. So again, "this is who I am" takes another step above "I don't want to be there." All of this effort would be better spent finding ways to encourage the child. Giving the child a reason to stay out of prison rather than just threatening them with it. You can't tell me that it is easier to bus some kids to a prison than it is to find one legitimate activity that they enjoy and giving them a damn basketball or stakeboard. CMV

t3_45xuy9

CMV: I don't see anything wrong with requiring presentation of a photo ID.

This is mostly coming from the most recent Last Week Tonight bit on youtube. It can be found [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto). I was hoping to maybe get some more seriously formatted opinions on the issue here, as that video didn't seem to sit correctly with me. So I guess I'll state my case and a little background information. I am a dual Canadian & US Citizen currently living in Canada. This issue was also recently brought up here in the most recent election. More info [here](http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2015/10/12/protests-over-niqab-voting-in-canadas-federal-election/). While I do not wholly agree with the response to the issue here, I still believe that it is an issue. I am required to present a photo ID to prove my age in order to purchase or consume alcohol, to open a bank account, apply for any government programs, get mortgage or other loan, drive a car, or to take an exam at my University. Why is it so unreasonable to ask that someone present a piece of photo ID to vote? Who are these people exactly that don't have any form of photo ID? I have heard the counter argument that it can be difficult to get a piece of photo ID, but isn't that its own issue that should be dealt with separately? In none of the other aforementioned scenarios would it be OK for me to present various non-photo IDs just because it can be difficult to acquire photo ID. EDIT: So apparently there a multitude of factors that I didn't consider, mostly due to ignorance. View changed. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I don't see anything wrong with requiring presentation of a photo ID. This is mostly coming from the most recent Last Week Tonight bit on youtube. It can be found [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto). I was hoping to maybe get some more seriously formatted opinions on the issue here, as that video didn't seem to sit correctly with me. So I guess I'll state my case and a little background information. I am a dual Canadian & US Citizen currently living in Canada. This issue was also recently brought up here in the most recent election. More info [here](http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2015/10/12/protests-over-niqab-voting-in-canadas-federal-election/). While I do not wholly agree with the response to the issue here, I still believe that it is an issue. I am required to present a photo ID to prove my age in order to purchase or consume alcohol, to open a bank account, apply for any government programs, get mortgage or other loan, drive a car, or to take an exam at my University. Why is it so unreasonable to ask that someone present a piece of photo ID to vote? Who are these people exactly that don't have any form of photo ID? I have heard the counter argument that it can be difficult to get a piece of photo ID, but isn't that its own issue that should be dealt with separately? In none of the other aforementioned scenarios would it be OK for me to present various non-photo IDs just because it can be difficult to acquire photo ID. EDIT: So apparently there a multitude of factors that I didn't consider, mostly due to ignorance. View changed.

t3_1lr6qf

I think naked protesters only hurt their causes. CMV

This year there have been so many protesters, mainly women, who have taken to wearing no shirts in a bid to get a message across. Some examples are: [This](http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/oct/03/femen-topless-protest-tunisian-woman-video) protest in Paris [This](http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/may/23/euro-2012-topless-activists-ukraine) protest in the Ukraine And most famously of all the protests in Paris that came as a result of [this.](http://www.policymic.com/articles/30936/amina-femen-19-year-old-tunisian-girl-faces-death-threats-over-topless-pictures) The things these women are fighting for and trying to bring to people's attention are very important issues. But why do they need to paint protest signs on their naked bodies? If anything the stories are overshadowed by the fact that a tonne of naked women are being arrested and causing public unrest. Yes, their cause is being written about, but it's generally somewhere below the first paragraph. Then there are articles like [this](http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-man-who-made-femen-new-film-outs-victor-svyatski-as-the-mastermind-behind-the-protest-group-and-its-breastbaring-stunts-8797042.html) which show it really is just coordinated stunts. If you look at the women protesting, they are all gorgeous and fit. It has to be coordinated because if these were protests by REAL feminists there would be women of every shape and size. TL;DR These women are just using an excuse to flaunt their bodies and hide behind a cause as an excuse. This is detrimental to the causes and doesn't do anything to help. CMV.

I think naked protesters only hurt their causes. CMV. This year there have been so many protesters, mainly women, who have taken to wearing no shirts in a bid to get a message across. Some examples are: [This](http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/oct/03/femen-topless-protest-tunisian-woman-video) protest in Paris [This](http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/may/23/euro-2012-topless-activists-ukraine) protest in the Ukraine And most famously of all the protests in Paris that came as a result of [this.](http://www.policymic.com/articles/30936/amina-femen-19-year-old-tunisian-girl-faces-death-threats-over-topless-pictures) The things these women are fighting for and trying to bring to people's attention are very important issues. But why do they need to paint protest signs on their naked bodies? If anything the stories are overshadowed by the fact that a tonne of naked women are being arrested and causing public unrest. Yes, their cause is being written about, but it's generally somewhere below the first paragraph. Then there are articles like [this](http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-man-who-made-femen-new-film-outs-victor-svyatski-as-the-mastermind-behind-the-protest-group-and-its-breastbaring-stunts-8797042.html) which show it really is just coordinated stunts. If you look at the women protesting, they are all gorgeous and fit. It has to be coordinated because if these were protests by REAL feminists there would be women of every shape and size. TL;DR These women are just using an excuse to flaunt their bodies and hide behind a cause as an excuse. This is detrimental to the causes and doesn't do anything to help. CMV.

t3_4pikrc

CMV:Being mixed-raced isn't that big of a deal. Letting your race define you isn't beneficial in the long-run

I've come across several interesting subreddits. One is /r/hapas and the other is /r/asianamerican. They post a lot of their problems they encounter (such as Asian girls going for Caucasian males, getting stereotyped in pop culture and media, racism stories, etc.). They put a lot of emphasis on their heritage(s) and it feels like this adds a lot of unnecessary stress into their lives. I also got a chance to read about Elliot Rodger, the kid who killed his Chinese roommates before shooting people at his campus. It's actually really fascinating how much people put online, as I read his blog, was able to watch is vlogs on youtube and saw screencaps of forum activity such as "rate-me" threads. He blamed pretty much everything on being half-Asian-half-white, yet there are hundreds of millions of mixed-race people in the world who live normal lives. Though I this is an extreme case. Is it really that important? I understand that race is identity, I understand that being of a certain race (esp being mixed-race) will affect how people see them, but why do they source whatever negative experiences they encounter or missed opportunities to it?

CMV:Being mixed-raced isn't that big of a deal. Letting your race define you isn't beneficial in the long-run. I've come across several interesting subreddits. One is /r/hapas and the other is /r/asianamerican. They post a lot of their problems they encounter (such as Asian girls going for Caucasian males, getting stereotyped in pop culture and media, racism stories, etc.). They put a lot of emphasis on their heritage(s) and it feels like this adds a lot of unnecessary stress into their lives. I also got a chance to read about Elliot Rodger, the kid who killed his Chinese roommates before shooting people at his campus. It's actually really fascinating how much people put online, as I read his blog, was able to watch is vlogs on youtube and saw screencaps of forum activity such as "rate-me" threads. He blamed pretty much everything on being half-Asian-half-white, yet there are hundreds of millions of mixed-race people in the world who live normal lives. Though I this is an extreme case. Is it really that important? I understand that race is identity, I understand that being of a certain race (esp being mixed-race) will affect how people see them, but why do they source whatever negative experiences they encounter or missed opportunities to it?

t3_6vtw54

CMV: In English, Iraq should be called Mesopotamia, Iran Persia, Syria Assyria, and Sudan Nubia

I think that these four countries should change their english language names to the ones associated with their ancient histories. I believe that the contemporary names of these countries give impressions of primitiveness and of being enemies of the west, but the ancient names make Westerners remember all the things that these countries have contributed to civilization (although to my understanding Nubia didn't really do much and black nationalists just claim that it did, it still would sound better than Sudan though) and their ancient histories. In part due to the increased rivalry with the West after the rise of Islam the contemporary names seem more hostile than the ancient names. If Iraq does not want an english name derived from Greek they could use Babylonia or Sumeria and get a similar effect. Syria might have a problem with ethnic tensions due to the Christians being called Assyrians, Aramaia may also be a word that could be used but it may have similar problems. However the defeat of ISIS may cause a resurgence in secular nationalism which may make such problems not as relevant as the Syrian Muslims may want to identify as being a continuation of Assyria too. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: In English, Iraq should be called Mesopotamia, Iran Persia, Syria Assyria, and Sudan Nubia. I think that these four countries should change their english language names to the ones associated with their ancient histories. I believe that the contemporary names of these countries give impressions of primitiveness and of being enemies of the west, but the ancient names make Westerners remember all the things that these countries have contributed to civilization (although to my understanding Nubia didn't really do much and black nationalists just claim that it did, it still would sound better than Sudan though) and their ancient histories. In part due to the increased rivalry with the West after the rise of Islam the contemporary names seem more hostile than the ancient names. If Iraq does not want an english name derived from Greek they could use Babylonia or Sumeria and get a similar effect. Syria might have a problem with ethnic tensions due to the Christians being called Assyrians, Aramaia may also be a word that could be used but it may have similar problems. However the defeat of ISIS may cause a resurgence in secular nationalism which may make such problems not as relevant as the Syrian Muslims may want to identify as being a continuation of Assyria too.