Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1qlrpx

I think atheism is a philosophically untenable position. CMV

Just what the title says. For the purposes of this: By "General atheism" I mean the belief that there exists no being properly referred to as 'god' By "Specific atheism" I mean disbelief in some particular being referred to as 'god' By "Agnosticism" I mean the suspense of judgement regarding the existence of a being properly referred to as "god" **So here's the argument:** 1. There is some possible conception of god based on some notion of "infinity" or "perfection" or "Eternity" (as god-notions typically are) such that god's existence and god's non-existence are functionally indistinguishable from our perspective, e.g. a god that hides, a spinozistic pantheist god, a watchmaker god, a malebranchian functional occasionalist god, a berkelian overmind god, etc. 2. Evidence for or against such a god is, in principle, unavailable to us. 3. Evidence of some sort is required for a belief to be justified 4. Disbelief in such a god is an epistemically unjustified doxastic attitude. 5. Belief in such a god is an epistemically unjustified doxastic attitude. 6. Agnosticism is the only possible justified attitude, given that our evidence for or against such a god is perfectly equal. **Now, to head off some objections:** "The burden of proof is on the person making the claim of god's existence": No, the burden of proof is on any person making any claim at all. If you deny god's existence, you are asserting the existence of an uncreated world. You require an equal degree of proof as the theist to justify your claim. ""Atheism" as it is typically used does not entail "general atheism"": If this is the case, then atheism is an empty and meaningless category. If "Atheism" simply refers to specific atheism, then it applies to everyone. Everyone has some god that they fail to believe in, not least because most conceptions of god logically contradict most other conceptions of god. Every atheist, theist, and agnostic that ever lived was a specific atheist. If "Atheist" is to meaningfully pick out any distinct segment of the population, it must refer to general atheists. "There is some middle ground between specific atheism and general atheism": What could this be? Disbelief in *most* conceptions of god? This is still specific atheism, and still applies to 100% of the population, so cannot be a meaningful descriptor. "Evidence is not required for a belief to be justified": Sure, maybe. I find this claim implausible, but let's address it. What theory of epistemic justification allows for the denial of such a god's existence? Such a god's existence or non-existence will be equally coherent with any system of beliefs, except perhaps the belief in some other god, which still rules out atheism. There is no reliable belief-forming process that appears to be capable of producing a belief in general atheism. We certainly aren't truth trackers with respect to such a god's existence. Proper functionalism is only coherent in theistic terms, so that again rules out general atheism. This isn't an exhaustive list, but it does show that denying the requirement of evidence doesn't automatically give you justification for your claim. So there you go. Where did I go wrong? Most of my friends are atheists, and they don't appear to find this argument particularly convincing. What is it that motivates your atheism in light of this, atheists of reddit?

I think atheism is a philosophically untenable position. CMV. Just what the title says. For the purposes of this: By "General atheism" I mean the belief that there exists no being properly referred to as 'god' By "Specific atheism" I mean disbelief in some particular being referred to as 'god' By "Agnosticism" I mean the suspense of judgement regarding the existence of a being properly referred to as "god" **So here's the argument:** 1. There is some possible conception of god based on some notion of "infinity" or "perfection" or "Eternity" (as god-notions typically are) such that god's existence and god's non-existence are functionally indistinguishable from our perspective, e.g. a god that hides, a spinozistic pantheist god, a watchmaker god, a malebranchian functional occasionalist god, a berkelian overmind god, etc. 2. Evidence for or against such a god is, in principle, unavailable to us. 3. Evidence of some sort is required for a belief to be justified 4. Disbelief in such a god is an epistemically unjustified doxastic attitude. 5. Belief in such a god is an epistemically unjustified doxastic attitude. 6. Agnosticism is the only possible justified attitude, given that our evidence for or against such a god is perfectly equal. **Now, to head off some objections:** "The burden of proof is on the person making the claim of god's existence": No, the burden of proof is on any person making any claim at all. If you deny god's existence, you are asserting the existence of an uncreated world. You require an equal degree of proof as the theist to justify your claim. ""Atheism" as it is typically used does not entail "general atheism"": If this is the case, then atheism is an empty and meaningless category. If "Atheism" simply refers to specific atheism, then it applies to everyone. Everyone has some god that they fail to believe in, not least because most conceptions of god logically contradict most other conceptions of god. Every atheist, theist, and agnostic that ever lived was a specific atheist. If "Atheist" is to meaningfully pick out any distinct segment of the population, it must refer to general atheists. "There is some middle ground between specific atheism and general atheism": What could this be? Disbelief in *most* conceptions of god? This is still specific atheism, and still applies to 100% of the population, so cannot be a meaningful descriptor. "Evidence is not required for a belief to be justified": Sure, maybe. I find this claim implausible, but let's address it. What theory of epistemic justification allows for the denial of such a god's existence? Such a god's existence or non-existence will be equally coherent with any system of beliefs, except perhaps the belief in some other god, which still rules out atheism. There is no reliable belief-forming process that appears to be capable of producing a belief in general atheism. We certainly aren't truth trackers with respect to such a god's existence. Proper functionalism is only coherent in theistic terms, so that again rules out general atheism. This isn't an exhaustive list, but it does show that denying the requirement of evidence doesn't automatically give you justification for your claim. So there you go. Where did I go wrong? Most of my friends are atheists, and they don't appear to find this argument particularly convincing. What is it that motivates your atheism in light of this, atheists of reddit?

t3_1q0h60

I think that conservative ideology from the past 13 years has done so much harm in the US that my generation will be cleaning it up our entire lives, CMV.

Starting with President Bush in 2001, the GOP has been placing corporate pawns into the government to expressly deregulate our economy in almost every single way which has lead to enormous income disparity. I could go on and on about the sinister Republican party, but my beef is more with it's constituents. I think that they continually vote against their interests because they do not know what the Republican party is actually doing. I think that they mainly hear about guns, Jesus, abortion and freedom and nothing more. When I have discussions with my family and wifes family (all fundie conservatives), it is very apparent that they have no idea what is going on in our government. My dad misread a [senate bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1336) that I emailed him completely against it until I told him it was legislation from Ted Cruz and then he said it was a good idea because Cruz was a Christian. I really do believe that good, loving and caring people are being duped and played by the people that claim to represent them. I really do not think that the current far-right will last much longer, as I think that the US will have a very hard liberal push within the next 15-30 years as my generation (I'm 24) gains more of a financial stake in the economy. While this is good, I'm resentful of the current crop of conservatives running the government. They openly blame a strawman of liberalism as the downfall of the economy/country, push harmful legislation, and then will die, leaving people like me to clean up their mess.

I think that conservative ideology from the past 13 years has done so much harm in the US that my generation will be cleaning it up our entire lives, CMV. Starting with President Bush in 2001, the GOP has been placing corporate pawns into the government to expressly deregulate our economy in almost every single way which has lead to enormous income disparity. I could go on and on about the sinister Republican party, but my beef is more with it's constituents. I think that they continually vote against their interests because they do not know what the Republican party is actually doing. I think that they mainly hear about guns, Jesus, abortion and freedom and nothing more. When I have discussions with my family and wifes family (all fundie conservatives), it is very apparent that they have no idea what is going on in our government. My dad misread a [senate bill](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1336) that I emailed him completely against it until I told him it was legislation from Ted Cruz and then he said it was a good idea because Cruz was a Christian. I really do believe that good, loving and caring people are being duped and played by the people that claim to represent them. I really do not think that the current far-right will last much longer, as I think that the US will have a very hard liberal push within the next 15-30 years as my generation (I'm 24) gains more of a financial stake in the economy. While this is good, I'm resentful of the current crop of conservatives running the government. They openly blame a strawman of liberalism as the downfall of the economy/country, push harmful legislation, and then will die, leaving people like me to clean up their mess.

t3_1k2sc2

Sampling music is stealing. CMV.

Those who sample other people's work admit that they're talentless and couldn't produce good music on their own without ripping someone else off. This whole debacle whether sampling is stealing or not is moot. It IS stealing regardless if they're world-renowned or if they have a huge fanbase. If you have to steal segments of other people's work, you admit that you couldn't make anything good on your own. It's lazy and it's blatantly wrong and those who support it are supporting theft. I'll let wiki do the talking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_sampling

Sampling music is stealing. CMV. Those who sample other people's work admit that they're talentless and couldn't produce good music on their own without ripping someone else off. This whole debacle whether sampling is stealing or not is moot. It IS stealing regardless if they're world-renowned or if they have a huge fanbase. If you have to steal segments of other people's work, you admit that you couldn't make anything good on your own. It's lazy and it's blatantly wrong and those who support it are supporting theft. I'll let wiki do the talking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_sampling

t3_1l80o3

I think having paparazzi follow celebrities around is a part of being famous and acting out against the paparazzi doing their job is ludicrous. CMV

The paparazzi's job is to follow the famous people around. The celebrities are in the public eye; this is what comes with fame. To be annoyed by having the paparazzi around them is really part of their job and honestly should have seen it coming. To act out against the paparazzi for doing their job would be like someone beating up a person trying to get to you try a perfume in a mall. The person is a shopper and are subject to being asked about different merchandise. It's part of going to the mall. Is it annoying? Sure. And if you hit them you'd probably get thrown out of the mall because they're just doing their job. Celebrities need to just accept that the paparazzi is there and stop acting out against them. It's part of the job, they should get over it. TL;DR: Having paparazzi follow a celebrity around is part of the job. Famous people need to stop whining and trying to hurt them for doing their job.

I think having paparazzi follow celebrities around is a part of being famous and acting out against the paparazzi doing their job is ludicrous. CMV. The paparazzi's job is to follow the famous people around. The celebrities are in the public eye; this is what comes with fame. To be annoyed by having the paparazzi around them is really part of their job and honestly should have seen it coming. To act out against the paparazzi for doing their job would be like someone beating up a person trying to get to you try a perfume in a mall. The person is a shopper and are subject to being asked about different merchandise. It's part of going to the mall. Is it annoying? Sure. And if you hit them you'd probably get thrown out of the mall because they're just doing their job. Celebrities need to just accept that the paparazzi is there and stop acting out against them. It's part of the job, they should get over it. TL;DR: Having paparazzi follow a celebrity around is part of the job. Famous people need to stop whining and trying to hurt them for doing their job.

t3_1exfdx

I'm highly skeptical that the earth will become overcrowded. CMV.

A lot of people are concerned that the earth will become overpopulated or too crowded. I'm highly skeptical that this will happen in the next couple centuries, for a few reasons. First, I think improving technology will help support people as populations rise. Second, I think local areas of low resource (e.g. water) will naturally shed population if living conditions get too difficult. Third, I think some governments may adopt population control measures if serious issues begin to form. Fourth, I don't think there is any evidence that developing country growth rates continue unabated. As far as I know, as middle classes grow, population growth tends to slow down dramatically. I realize all I have here is an unsubstantiated series of thoughts, so please CMV.

I'm highly skeptical that the earth will become overcrowded. CMV. A lot of people are concerned that the earth will become overpopulated or too crowded. I'm highly skeptical that this will happen in the next couple centuries, for a few reasons. First, I think improving technology will help support people as populations rise. Second, I think local areas of low resource (e.g. water) will naturally shed population if living conditions get too difficult. Third, I think some governments may adopt population control measures if serious issues begin to form. Fourth, I don't think there is any evidence that developing country growth rates continue unabated. As far as I know, as middle classes grow, population growth tends to slow down dramatically. I realize all I have here is an unsubstantiated series of thoughts, so please CMV.

t3_46gvki

CMV: I believe that false rape accusation that have already led to convictions should not include a criminal penalty.

My opinion is entirely practical. I in no way think the false accusations should be taken lightly. I do not believe that the male victim is not harmed or that he doesn't deserve justice. In fact that is exactly why I believe this should be the state of affairs. After a false rape accusations has resulted in a conviction the damage is already done. However, one of the few ways to disprove a false allegation (DNA being another) is the alleged victim retracting their claim. If there is a criminal penalty involved that will surely lessen the number of people that will risk coming forward. And although I would like to punish these criminals as much as any other, it seems self evident that freeing the innocent victim is the bigger priority. Now before a conviction, sure throw them under the jail. I would go so far as to make the penalty equal to the sentence the raper would have suffered. But after the point of conviction our priorities should immediately shift to any innocents that might (and statistics says do) exist. Anyway I think that is it. CMV _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that false rape accusation that have already led to convictions should not include a criminal penalty. My opinion is entirely practical. I in no way think the false accusations should be taken lightly. I do not believe that the male victim is not harmed or that he doesn't deserve justice. In fact that is exactly why I believe this should be the state of affairs. After a false rape accusations has resulted in a conviction the damage is already done. However, one of the few ways to disprove a false allegation (DNA being another) is the alleged victim retracting their claim. If there is a criminal penalty involved that will surely lessen the number of people that will risk coming forward. And although I would like to punish these criminals as much as any other, it seems self evident that freeing the innocent victim is the bigger priority. Now before a conviction, sure throw them under the jail. I would go so far as to make the penalty equal to the sentence the raper would have suffered. But after the point of conviction our priorities should immediately shift to any innocents that might (and statistics says do) exist. Anyway I think that is it. CMV

t3_2dif9h

CMV: Hitting a woman is, in fact (IN GENERAL), more wrong than hitting a man.

I often hear people say (including several threads on CMV); "if women want full equality with men, then that means they should be prepared to accept the same physical consequences that men face when picking a fight". Or in simpler terms; equal rights, equal fights. I don't think this is true, because as a general rule of thumb, women are not as strong as men. I believe it is unnecessarily brutal to treat a 120 pound woman in a fight the same way one would treat a 180 pound man. Say a 190 pound body builder gets into an altercation with said 120 pound women. She throws a punch. In all likelihood, she will not cause much damage to him, but he can sure as hell cause a lot of damage to her. While obviously it is acceptable to fight someone to get them off of you when they are an aggressor, and women should still face the same legal consequences as man for starting fights, I don't think it's acceptable to hit as hard as if one were fighting a man of equal size and strength, because it is simply unnecessary to use the same measure of force to win a fight against a weaker opponent, and to use such extra force is uncalled for and cruel. People will often say; "Well, if you can beat up a weak, scrawny guy, you should be able to beat up a woman, too". I don't agree, because I also think it's wrong to beat up a far weaker man than oneself to the same extent one would beat an equal opponent. I do believe all of this would be negated if the man and woman were of roughly equal size and strength, and that it would be just as wrong for a very strong woman to beat up a weak man. _____ > *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: Hitting a woman is, in fact (IN GENERAL), more wrong than hitting a man. I often hear people say (including several threads on CMV); "if women want full equality with men, then that means they should be prepared to accept the same physical consequences that men face when picking a fight". Or in simpler terms; equal rights, equal fights. I don't think this is true, because as a general rule of thumb, women are not as strong as men. I believe it is unnecessarily brutal to treat a 120 pound woman in a fight the same way one would treat a 180 pound man. Say a 190 pound body builder gets into an altercation with said 120 pound women. She throws a punch. In all likelihood, she will not cause much damage to him, but he can sure as hell cause a lot of damage to her. While obviously it is acceptable to fight someone to get them off of you when they are an aggressor, and women should still face the same legal consequences as man for starting fights, I don't think it's acceptable to hit as hard as if one were fighting a man of equal size and strength, because it is simply unnecessary to use the same measure of force to win a fight against a weaker opponent, and to use such extra force is uncalled for and cruel. People will often say; "Well, if you can beat up a weak, scrawny guy, you should be able to beat up a woman, too". I don't agree, because I also think it's wrong to beat up a far weaker man than oneself to the same extent one would beat an equal opponent. I do believe all of this would be negated if the man and woman were of roughly equal size and strength, and that it would be just as wrong for a very strong woman to beat up a weak man.

t3_1gi2c1

I believe that if you don't have your own place and/or a good job you are automatically a turn off to women no matter what other qualities you have CMV

This is a limiting belief preventing me from meeting new people so I would like /r/cmv to help me overcome this view to allow me to meet people and date again. Women on r/askwomen and /r/okcupid write that men who live with their parents tend to be red flags. I'm still in my early 20s which makes it slightly more forgiving as well as the bad economy but it still hinders me. CMV

I believe that if you don't have your own place and/or a good job you are automatically a turn off to women no matter what other qualities you have CMV. This is a limiting belief preventing me from meeting new people so I would like /r/cmv to help me overcome this view to allow me to meet people and date again. Women on r/askwomen and /r/okcupid write that men who live with their parents tend to be red flags. I'm still in my early 20s which makes it slightly more forgiving as well as the bad economy but it still hinders me. CMV

t3_1fu2ck

I believe if gay marriage is accepted, polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc . . . will follow. Please CMV.

Unless there is some sort of line we don't cross, I think all sexual relationships, weather it's polygamy, polyandry, incest, underage relationships, bestiality, will eventually become accepted. Look at gay marriage, and how people's opinions have changed regarding it. Why won't the same thing happen for other types of relationships? Nothing against gays or people in various other relationship types. We all need to be loved =) Thanks!

I believe if gay marriage is accepted, polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc . . . will follow. Please CMV. Unless there is some sort of line we don't cross, I think all sexual relationships, weather it's polygamy, polyandry, incest, underage relationships, bestiality, will eventually become accepted. Look at gay marriage, and how people's opinions have changed regarding it. Why won't the same thing happen for other types of relationships? Nothing against gays or people in various other relationship types. We all need to be loved =) Thanks!

t3_6dn6q2

CMV: The Republican position of being pro-life AND opposing birth control and sex ed is absolutely indefensible and ridiculous

I would be *really* impressed if you guys could manage to change my view on this... because I honestly don't know how it can be done. I think the evidence and reasoning I have here is pretty solid so if you can convince me I'm wrong I'd appreciate it. So, Republicans are infamously pro-life as the GOP's [own website openly admits](https://www.gop.com/topic/family-values-pro-life/canonical/). BUT, at the same time: * they are hyper opposed to Planned Parenthood despite the fact that abortions make up less than 5% of PP services and PP's other services actually *prevent* abortions with birth control. if you are pro-life then it is incomprehensibly insane and ridiculous to be against birth control. * It is also insane to promote abstinence only education and want to ban PP [from teaching in schools](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/alaska-senate-passes-bill-block-planned-parenthood-teaching-sex-ed) and other moves to [combat sex ed](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/sex-education-programs-gop_n_2993788.html). * This last point is somewhat of a tangent, but the fact that it's old white men making decisions about women's health only *further* exemplifies the evidence that these people are clueless and absurd. This is an untenable, self-destructive position. Abortions are at their lowest number in decades, and these people are eager to combat *the reason why* -- birth control. This is comic book, cartoon super villain level insanity and blindness -- they are trying to destroy the very thing that is preventing the practice that *they* revile. If you are eagerly pro-life, then you should be *more* pro-BC and pro-sex-ed than the pro-choicers. It is indefensible, immoral, hypocritical and insane to be vigilantly pro-life while failing to be pro-BC and pro-sex ed. _____ > *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 Republican position of being pro-life AND opposing birth control and sex ed is absolutely indefensible and ridiculous. I would be *really* impressed if you guys could manage to change my view on this... because I honestly don't know how it can be done. I think the evidence and reasoning I have here is pretty solid so if you can convince me I'm wrong I'd appreciate it. So, Republicans are infamously pro-life as the GOP's [own website openly admits](https://www.gop.com/topic/family-values-pro-life/canonical/). BUT, at the same time: * they are hyper opposed to Planned Parenthood despite the fact that abortions make up less than 5% of PP services and PP's other services actually *prevent* abortions with birth control. if you are pro-life then it is incomprehensibly insane and ridiculous to be against birth control. * It is also insane to promote abstinence only education and want to ban PP [from teaching in schools](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/alaska-senate-passes-bill-block-planned-parenthood-teaching-sex-ed) and other moves to [combat sex ed](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/sex-education-programs-gop_n_2993788.html). * This last point is somewhat of a tangent, but the fact that it's old white men making decisions about women's health only *further* exemplifies the evidence that these people are clueless and absurd. This is an untenable, self-destructive position. Abortions are at their lowest number in decades, and these people are eager to combat *the reason why* -- birth control. This is comic book, cartoon super villain level insanity and blindness -- they are trying to destroy the very thing that is preventing the practice that *they* revile. If you are eagerly pro-life, then you should be *more* pro-BC and pro-sex-ed than the pro-choicers. It is indefensible, immoral, hypocritical and insane to be vigilantly pro-life while failing to be pro-BC and pro-sex ed.

t3_4fqwcx

CMV: I don't view what Curt Schilling's said to be that bad.

I want to start this by saying I'm very much in support of the lgbt community. They're treated horribly now, they deserve much better, and it needs to get better. So if you don't know the situation, heres's who Curt Schilling's is. "Curtis Montague Schilling is a former American Major League Baseball right-handed pitcher, former video game developer and former baseball color analyst." He posted this on facebook and the lgbt community made a huge deal out of it, which it maybe is. He got fired from ESPN today. https://i.gyazo.com/06df8c2a5670d85048ca41341c7ab6be.png I don't really get it. Like if you're a trans man who is really technically a woman in the medical sense that would be fine for you to use the women's restroom, and it should definitely not be criticized. That guy, no it wouldn't be fine, but the lgbt community treats it as disrespectful. Someone said if you're in public eye you shouldn't joke about that, and that makes sense, it just doesn't seem to me that that particular joke is so disrespectful. Thoughts? > *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 view what Curt Schilling's said to be that bad. I want to start this by saying I'm very much in support of the lgbt community. They're treated horribly now, they deserve much better, and it needs to get better. So if you don't know the situation, heres's who Curt Schilling's is. "Curtis Montague Schilling is a former American Major League Baseball right-handed pitcher, former video game developer and former baseball color analyst." He posted this on facebook and the lgbt community made a huge deal out of it, which it maybe is. He got fired from ESPN today. https://i.gyazo.com/06df8c2a5670d85048ca41341c7ab6be.png I don't really get it. Like if you're a trans man who is really technically a woman in the medical sense that would be fine for you to use the women's restroom, and it should definitely not be criticized. That guy, no it wouldn't be fine, but the lgbt community treats it as disrespectful. Someone said if you're in public eye you shouldn't joke about that, and that makes sense, it just doesn't seem to me that that particular joke is so disrespectful. Thoughts? > *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_393acp

CMV: Edward Snowden should be pardoned.

Snowden leaked classified information, which is a crime, but the circumstances of the leak, and how he did it, are such that he deserves to be pardoned. Snowden did not leak for personal gain, but for public benefit. He did not sell secrets to a foreign power. The programs he revealed [were illegal](https://www.eff.org/files/2015/05/07/aclu_v._clapper_-_court_of_appeals_opinion.pdf). If he had not been a national security employee, his actions would have been covered by the whistleblower protection act, and not be a crime at all. Two years on from his leaks, it is clear that Snowden has not acted in a way deserving of legal punishment, and it would be better for the United States if he were to be pardoned and allowed to return home, instead of his looming prosecution, especially considering that [he could not raise a public interest defense](https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible) at trial. Snowden broke the law. But the pardon power exists precisely because the law does not cover all possible contingencies, and there is supposed to be the possibility of mercy in an exceptional case. Snowden's case is nothing if not exceptional, and he should be pardoned. Edit: Ok, I'm heading to bed now. Thanks for all the responses, I'll try to catch up on more tomorrow - this thread kinda blew up on me. Edit 2: I've awarded a delta to /u/MrApophenia who convinced me that the first-best solution would be for Snowden to return to the US on the condition, which he's publicly agreed to, of a trial where he can raise a public interest defense. If convicted at that trial, a pardon might still be considered. This would require an assurance that the espionage act charges be permanently dropped. _____ > *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: Edward Snowden should be pardoned. Snowden leaked classified information, which is a crime, but the circumstances of the leak, and how he did it, are such that he deserves to be pardoned. Snowden did not leak for personal gain, but for public benefit. He did not sell secrets to a foreign power. The programs he revealed [were illegal](https://www.eff.org/files/2015/05/07/aclu_v._clapper_-_court_of_appeals_opinion.pdf). If he had not been a national security employee, his actions would have been covered by the whistleblower protection act, and not be a crime at all. Two years on from his leaks, it is clear that Snowden has not acted in a way deserving of legal punishment, and it would be better for the United States if he were to be pardoned and allowed to return home, instead of his looming prosecution, especially considering that [he could not raise a public interest defense](https://freedom.press/blog/2013/12/if-snowden-returned-us-trial-all-whistleblower-evidence-would-likely-be-inadmissible) at trial. Snowden broke the law. But the pardon power exists precisely because the law does not cover all possible contingencies, and there is supposed to be the possibility of mercy in an exceptional case. Snowden's case is nothing if not exceptional, and he should be pardoned. Edit: Ok, I'm heading to bed now. Thanks for all the responses, I'll try to catch up on more tomorrow - this thread kinda blew up on me. Edit 2: I've awarded a delta to /u/MrApophenia who convinced me that the first-best solution would be for Snowden to return to the US on the condition, which he's publicly agreed to, of a trial where he can raise a public interest defense. If convicted at that trial, a pardon might still be considered. This would require an assurance that the espionage act charges be permanently dropped.

t3_5vj64r

CMV: Humans are more valuable than all known non-human animals

I do not mean other animals are irrelevant or not important. Clearly, they are necessary for our own survival. But just as a currency has many denominations (1$, 20$, 100$, etc), and some are more valuable than others while all are necessary, so too are other animals necessary, but not as valuable as humans. My standard for "having value" correlates to the ability to improve one's self, the species as a whole, and any other thing to which we assign value. Humans are the only known species to worry about their effect on the planet, and other species. We are the only species known to deliberately put off momentary pleasure for a long period of time (weeks/months/years) for the sake of some gain/reward. We have empathy for beings we haven't even met, across the world. There are certainly corollaries in the animal kingdom, and the closer those corollaries come to mirroring our own abilities, the more valuable we find them. A dog shows more empathy than an ant, for example, and so we find more value in them No other animal has the ability to be as evil as humans, one could argue. But this is simply the result of having more ability. I could probably do more damage with $20 than $1, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. Again, value correlates to ability. _____ > *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: Humans are more valuable than all known non-human animals. I do not mean other animals are irrelevant or not important. Clearly, they are necessary for our own survival. But just as a currency has many denominations (1$, 20$, 100$, etc), and some are more valuable than others while all are necessary, so too are other animals necessary, but not as valuable as humans. My standard for "having value" correlates to the ability to improve one's self, the species as a whole, and any other thing to which we assign value. Humans are the only known species to worry about their effect on the planet, and other species. We are the only species known to deliberately put off momentary pleasure for a long period of time (weeks/months/years) for the sake of some gain/reward. We have empathy for beings we haven't even met, across the world. There are certainly corollaries in the animal kingdom, and the closer those corollaries come to mirroring our own abilities, the more valuable we find them. A dog shows more empathy than an ant, for example, and so we find more value in them No other animal has the ability to be as evil as humans, one could argue. But this is simply the result of having more ability. I could probably do more damage with $20 than $1, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. Again, value correlates to ability.

t3_203oif

I know this is a bit of a tired topic but, legal marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples. Please CMV

My arguments are as such: >Isn't prohibiting homosexual marriage just as descriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, as some states used to do? * Laws against interracial marriaged served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was utterly irrelevant to the fundemental nature of marriage. Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman. Allowing two men or women to marry would change that fundemental definition. >Shouldn't the benefits of marriage be available to two adults regardless of gender? If a man can marry a woman, but another woman doesn't have the right to marry a woman, isn't that sexism? * The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all. (If they were, single people would have as much right to consider it "discriminatory" too). Society grants benefits of marriage because marriage has benefits for society- including the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (a mother and father) homosexual relationships on the other hand have no comparable benefits for society, and impose substantial costs. Some of them being drug use, casual sex in favor of monogamy, and many diseases brough on by the homosexual lifestyle.

I know this is a bit of a tired topic but, legal marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples. Please CMV. My arguments are as such: >Isn't prohibiting homosexual marriage just as descriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, as some states used to do? * Laws against interracial marriaged served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was utterly irrelevant to the fundemental nature of marriage. Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman. Allowing two men or women to marry would change that fundemental definition. >Shouldn't the benefits of marriage be available to two adults regardless of gender? If a man can marry a woman, but another woman doesn't have the right to marry a woman, isn't that sexism? * The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all. (If they were, single people would have as much right to consider it "discriminatory" too). Society grants benefits of marriage because marriage has benefits for society- including the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (a mother and father) homosexual relationships on the other hand have no comparable benefits for society, and impose substantial costs. Some of them being drug use, casual sex in favor of monogamy, and many diseases brough on by the homosexual lifestyle.

t3_2b1qla

CMV: There should be no sales tax when buying a used car, no matter what state you live in.

* Vehicles are only counted toward the GDP and production values of **the year that they are manufactured.** Even vehicles that sit in a warehouse and are counted in inventory are only counted the year they are produced. * When you purchased a used vehicle, it can be assumed the taxes were paid on it the first time it was purchased, when it was new. * The state essentially tries to charge you for making a transaction. Why are they charging someone for buying from an individual? It's not their business. I'll provide the scenario that has brought this up. I am in the process of "buying" the car I've been driving the past three years from my mother. The way it's working is that she's just taking $5k from me and saying we're even. I was trying to get the title transferred over to me yesterday and was asked if the car was a gift. The car isn't a gift, but there's no bill of sale. I think what we did was defined as a gift, but nobody told me about the fact I'd be paying the 8% tax on it and I was baffled. I didn't buy the vehicle. I haven't given the money up on it yet, either. I can't get out of the $400 in tax I'm going to have to pay on a transaction I haven't made, that isn't even happening. It's a bit confusing. I don't understand why the state is charging you for a car that's already had taxes paid on it, that's been paid off in full. You don't pay taxes every time you use an iPod or cell phone. Why are vehicles any different when they are a commodity?

CMV: There should be no sales tax when buying a used car, no matter what state you live in. * Vehicles are only counted toward the GDP and production values of **the year that they are manufactured.** Even vehicles that sit in a warehouse and are counted in inventory are only counted the year they are produced. * When you purchased a used vehicle, it can be assumed the taxes were paid on it the first time it was purchased, when it was new. * The state essentially tries to charge you for making a transaction. Why are they charging someone for buying from an individual? It's not their business. I'll provide the scenario that has brought this up. I am in the process of "buying" the car I've been driving the past three years from my mother. The way it's working is that she's just taking $5k from me and saying we're even. I was trying to get the title transferred over to me yesterday and was asked if the car was a gift. The car isn't a gift, but there's no bill of sale. I think what we did was defined as a gift, but nobody told me about the fact I'd be paying the 8% tax on it and I was baffled. I didn't buy the vehicle. I haven't given the money up on it yet, either. I can't get out of the $400 in tax I'm going to have to pay on a transaction I haven't made, that isn't even happening. It's a bit confusing. I don't understand why the state is charging you for a car that's already had taxes paid on it, that's been paid off in full. You don't pay taxes every time you use an iPod or cell phone. Why are vehicles any different when they are a commodity?

t3_1ntqck

I don't think killing someone is worse than severely damaging them (physically, emotionally, sexually, etc). CMV

People generally say (or what I've heard from people) that the worst crime that can be committed is murder. I agree that murder is horrible and that it should be punished accordingly. But I don't see why killing someone is worse than permanently damaging them. Take someone who is emotionally abusive. The person they abuse will possibly struggle for the rest of their life. It's possible that it could ruin their life, and that they'll be depressed/self injure/kill themselves/ etc. Or someone who is paralyzed. I think that's worse than being killed. CMV

I don't think killing someone is worse than severely damaging them (physically, emotionally, sexually, etc). CMV. People generally say (or what I've heard from people) that the worst crime that can be committed is murder. I agree that murder is horrible and that it should be punished accordingly. But I don't see why killing someone is worse than permanently damaging them. Take someone who is emotionally abusive. The person they abuse will possibly struggle for the rest of their life. It's possible that it could ruin their life, and that they'll be depressed/self injure/kill themselves/ etc. Or someone who is paralyzed. I think that's worse than being killed. CMV

t3_5r0t2p

CMV: Things are going to stay boring and comfortable. The world is improving, and nothing is going to change that.

I've pretty much just stopped watching the news at this point because nothing that happens ever effects anything for me. Things are boring and comfortable for me, as they always have been, and as they probably always will be. I'm a straight, white, upper middle class canadian male in mechanical engineering, for context. That might explain why I have this view, I've had it pretty easy, but I've also never seen evidence to the contrary of this view that isn't sensationalized or unconvincing. I don't see any risk for war, for dystopias forming, for ecological disaster that we can't easily overcome, for any terrorist attack significant enough to effect the average person outside of what they see on the news. I don't see any real risk of a change to my situation. People in positions of power got there for a reason, their decisions are more well informed and well thought out than any of the people I talk to on reddit. I have faith in humanity. I truly believe the system works in 99.9% of cases. There are places where the system doesn't exist yet, and they have it bad, but those places have been improving and will continue to improve. These aren't the opinions of, well, anyone I talk to here. So change my view, give me the comprehensive, logical steps that take us from here to disaster that don't involve "X goes literally insane and attacks Y with nukes". Tell me why everyone here is so negative about the future. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Things are going to stay boring and comfortable. The world is improving, and nothing is going to change that. I've pretty much just stopped watching the news at this point because nothing that happens ever effects anything for me. Things are boring and comfortable for me, as they always have been, and as they probably always will be. I'm a straight, white, upper middle class canadian male in mechanical engineering, for context. That might explain why I have this view, I've had it pretty easy, but I've also never seen evidence to the contrary of this view that isn't sensationalized or unconvincing. I don't see any risk for war, for dystopias forming, for ecological disaster that we can't easily overcome, for any terrorist attack significant enough to effect the average person outside of what they see on the news. I don't see any real risk of a change to my situation. People in positions of power got there for a reason, their decisions are more well informed and well thought out than any of the people I talk to on reddit. I have faith in humanity. I truly believe the system works in 99.9% of cases. There are places where the system doesn't exist yet, and they have it bad, but those places have been improving and will continue to improve. These aren't the opinions of, well, anyone I talk to here. So change my view, give me the comprehensive, logical steps that take us from here to disaster that don't involve "X goes literally insane and attacks Y with nukes". Tell me why everyone here is so negative about the future.

t3_3c7i98

CMV: I think having a preference against promiscuous people is as valid as having a height or weight preference nor does it constitute "slut-shaming".

I don't know if it is skewed on Reddit or not, but anytime I see a comment about not being attracted to a "slut" the poster gets railed for it. I also don't think it is strictly the language being used. Regardless of the label, not wanting your partner to have been with 5+ people is 100% defensible. If we, as a society, can tell people that being tall is attractive or that being fat is unattractive, we can tell being that sleeping around is unattractive. Another logically invalid argument is that the person with the preference, must not be promiscuous themselves. I think this is as non-nonsensical as telling a man he can only be attracted to men, otherwise he's hypocritical. My choice in partner is independent of my partner's choice in me, we can like different things. Many physically fit men are "chubby-chasers" and man slutty men are virginal chasers. Edit: To clarify, the use of the words "slut" earlier was merely a reflection of the term as it has been used on Reddit. I do not view a persons' worth as tied to their sexual history. I also don't have an moral qualms towards premarital sex or number of sexual partners. That said, my personal level of attraction is affected. _____ > *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 having a preference against promiscuous people is as valid as having a height or weight preference nor does it constitute "slut-shaming". I don't know if it is skewed on Reddit or not, but anytime I see a comment about not being attracted to a "slut" the poster gets railed for it. I also don't think it is strictly the language being used. Regardless of the label, not wanting your partner to have been with 5+ people is 100% defensible. If we, as a society, can tell people that being tall is attractive or that being fat is unattractive, we can tell being that sleeping around is unattractive. Another logically invalid argument is that the person with the preference, must not be promiscuous themselves. I think this is as non-nonsensical as telling a man he can only be attracted to men, otherwise he's hypocritical. My choice in partner is independent of my partner's choice in me, we can like different things. Many physically fit men are "chubby-chasers" and man slutty men are virginal chasers. Edit: To clarify, the use of the words "slut" earlier was merely a reflection of the term as it has been used on Reddit. I do not view a persons' worth as tied to their sexual history. I also don't have an moral qualms towards premarital sex or number of sexual partners. That said, my personal level of attraction is affected.

t3_1bcelp

I hate pop-music. CMV

I like music of all kinds, in fact I pride myself in being able to find an artist I like in every genre. However, I can't bring myself to like anything connected to "pop". This includes stuff like Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Maroon 5, Taylor Swift, Ke$ha, Katy Perry, etc. I can't see the value in this kind of music and never understood how anyone could listen to it. Help me understand the inherent value in creatively shallow "pop-music".

I hate pop-music. CMV. I like music of all kinds, in fact I pride myself in being able to find an artist I like in every genre. However, I can't bring myself to like anything connected to "pop". This includes stuff like Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Maroon 5, Taylor Swift, Ke$ha, Katy Perry, etc. I can't see the value in this kind of music and never understood how anyone could listen to it. Help me understand the inherent value in creatively shallow "pop-music".

t3_5mzu9h

CMV: Breaking up with someone or refusing to date them because of their sexual history is perfectly okay

I'm not sure how wide spread this view actually is, so tell me if I'm beating on a straw man. Let's say a woman had a threesome in college. Years later, she meets a guy and start dating. After a few years in, once they got pretty serious, she shares her experience. He is repulsed and disgusted by the thought, and leaves her. He did not do anything wrong. Or maybe a girl develops a crush on a guy. She confesses her feeling, but she has a reputation of sleeping around and he doesn't want to date a woman like that. No one deserves relationships and love. It's not a right. It is an agreement between two people who want to enjoy each other's company. If one person wants to end it for any reason, that is perfectly fine. The other person is not entitled to their affection. Some people think it is slut shaming. And maybe it is on some level. That woman who is refused because of her past will probably feel shame. But I think the real thing that makes slut shaming bad is malicious intent. Shaming a person for the sole reason of making them feel bad about it is what I disagree with. While there is nothing wrong with the act of casual sex, threesomes, or whatever there maybe still be negative consequences. That's part of life and there is nothing wrong with a person having preferences. I'm a woman, but I wouldn't want to date a guy with too much of a past. I don't think he did anything wrong, but it would be hard to get over and form the same bond worth him. Also, this preference can come from insecurity but it doesn't necessarily. It could come from religious values, moral values, or general views on sex.

CMV: Breaking up with someone or refusing to date them because of their sexual history is perfectly okay. I'm not sure how wide spread this view actually is, so tell me if I'm beating on a straw man. Let's say a woman had a threesome in college. Years later, she meets a guy and start dating. After a few years in, once they got pretty serious, she shares her experience. He is repulsed and disgusted by the thought, and leaves her. He did not do anything wrong. Or maybe a girl develops a crush on a guy. She confesses her feeling, but she has a reputation of sleeping around and he doesn't want to date a woman like that. No one deserves relationships and love. It's not a right. It is an agreement between two people who want to enjoy each other's company. If one person wants to end it for any reason, that is perfectly fine. The other person is not entitled to their affection. Some people think it is slut shaming. And maybe it is on some level. That woman who is refused because of her past will probably feel shame. But I think the real thing that makes slut shaming bad is malicious intent. Shaming a person for the sole reason of making them feel bad about it is what I disagree with. While there is nothing wrong with the act of casual sex, threesomes, or whatever there maybe still be negative consequences. That's part of life and there is nothing wrong with a person having preferences. I'm a woman, but I wouldn't want to date a guy with too much of a past. I don't think he did anything wrong, but it would be hard to get over and form the same bond worth him. Also, this preference can come from insecurity but it doesn't necessarily. It could come from religious values, moral values, or general views on sex.

t3_2hkja5

CMV: Weight lifting gloves and straps are a bad idea for most lifters when training with free weights

First, a disclaimer - I am not a muscle head nor do I subscribe to any specific fitness regimen. I train both weight training as well as mid distance running for overall fitness improvement. In my experience, most of the people that I see at the gym are not power lifters, but more likely general fitness advocates. Weight lifting gloves and straps are typically used to protect the hands and artificially augment your grip strength. I don't use either with my understanding being that I don't want to overdevelop my muscles beyond my hands ability to handle the weight I am moving. I do not see a benefit in being able to lift more weight than my hands will support. The only exceptions that I can see is for gloves, when the user is trying to prevent callouses from forming. I typically see this with female lifters, but I could see where some male lifters may have a similar need. I believe that this is a minority of lifters who do free weights and even then I'm not sure I understand why they would want to wear gloves instead of using a padded machine. Change my view so I can understand why this is a good idea. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Weight lifting gloves and straps are a bad idea for most lifters when training with free weights. First, a disclaimer - I am not a muscle head nor do I subscribe to any specific fitness regimen. I train both weight training as well as mid distance running for overall fitness improvement. In my experience, most of the people that I see at the gym are not power lifters, but more likely general fitness advocates. Weight lifting gloves and straps are typically used to protect the hands and artificially augment your grip strength. I don't use either with my understanding being that I don't want to overdevelop my muscles beyond my hands ability to handle the weight I am moving. I do not see a benefit in being able to lift more weight than my hands will support. The only exceptions that I can see is for gloves, when the user is trying to prevent callouses from forming. I typically see this with female lifters, but I could see where some male lifters may have a similar need. I believe that this is a minority of lifters who do free weights and even then I'm not sure I understand why they would want to wear gloves instead of using a padded machine. Change my view so I can understand why this is a good idea.

t3_5rk10h

CMV:The far-left has regressed from protecting Muslims to promoting Islam.

The regressive left's attacks on woman of Muslim heritage, Ayaan Hirsi Ali made me begin to wonder if they were really interested in the people and their freedom of religion - that would be the progressive stance - or actually more interested in promoting Islam itself - the regressive stance. Because Islam and the far-left share the ideal of anti-individualism, they may see it as a vector for their collectivist vision. Additional examples are the fact that the organizer of the Woman's March in DC openly has defended Sharia law, the number of liberal defenses of the hijab I have encountered, and occasional quips from lefties openly decrying western individualism. So in short, do I have a basis in reality for claiming there a substantial movement on the far left to not simply defend the religious and civil rights of Muslims (progressive), but to actively promote their religion (regressive)? _____ > *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 far-left has regressed from protecting Muslims to promoting Islam. The regressive left's attacks on woman of Muslim heritage, Ayaan Hirsi Ali made me begin to wonder if they were really interested in the people and their freedom of religion - that would be the progressive stance - or actually more interested in promoting Islam itself - the regressive stance. Because Islam and the far-left share the ideal of anti-individualism, they may see it as a vector for their collectivist vision. Additional examples are the fact that the organizer of the Woman's March in DC openly has defended Sharia law, the number of liberal defenses of the hijab I have encountered, and occasional quips from lefties openly decrying western individualism. So in short, do I have a basis in reality for claiming there a substantial movement on the far left to not simply defend the religious and civil rights of Muslims (progressive), but to actively promote their religion (regressive)?

t3_4oz0nx

CMV: The primary goal of young Americans should be to emigrate to the EU.

Why should Americans emigrate? Especially for those in the working class, there are few jobs that offer decent benefits and a living wage. Those that exist are often in prohibitively expenaive markets, and unlike in developing countries there's little prospect of near term improvement. Theres also a neat loophole in US law where you can renounce your citizenship without gaining another, making you hard to deport. I learned it in /r/iwantout. Why the EU? It's more diverse than Cananda and more balanced population wise. Germany offers free tuition to non-EU students, NL has a limited migration agreement with the US (both of which allow you to convert to permanent residency and citizenship) and most such countries offer country club benefits to all legal residents. Getting into the EU, even into some countries prisons, is far better than being lower middle class in the US. _____ > *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 primary goal of young Americans should be to emigrate to the EU. Why should Americans emigrate? Especially for those in the working class, there are few jobs that offer decent benefits and a living wage. Those that exist are often in prohibitively expenaive markets, and unlike in developing countries there's little prospect of near term improvement. Theres also a neat loophole in US law where you can renounce your citizenship without gaining another, making you hard to deport. I learned it in /r/iwantout. Why the EU? It's more diverse than Cananda and more balanced population wise. Germany offers free tuition to non-EU students, NL has a limited migration agreement with the US (both of which allow you to convert to permanent residency and citizenship) and most such countries offer country club benefits to all legal residents. Getting into the EU, even into some countries prisons, is far better than being lower middle class in the US.

t3_24qdla

CMV:"X Privilege" as a phrase is no longer useful and the terminology should be abandoned in an effort to actually solve the issues presented by privilege.

" Insert-Prefix Privilege" Is no longer useful for accomplishing it's goals or reminding people of their privilege. Furthermore in the broader discussions with people unawares, mentioning privilege merely polarizes the argument to the point that discussion is impossible, which is exactly counter intuitive to the goals set by using the phrase in the first place. Also, while I am aware the proper use of the phrase is merely a jab at informing people that their decisions are informed or motivated by anecdotal evidence, the general population and thus the actual vocal majority of people who use "X privilege" as a phrase merely do so to invalidate other parties from offering their outsiders perspective on an issue. I.E. "You can't understand what I'm going through, check your privilege." If people who support privilege as an idea, desire to actually see results, you can't coin a phrase that just upsets the people who you are actually trying to cause change in to describe them because as far as they are concerned, it's all they've ever known and thus you are effectively insulting them. It's not effective. Please, CMV.

CMV:"X Privilege" as a phrase is no longer useful and the terminology should be abandoned in an effort to actually solve the issues presented by privilege. " Insert-Prefix Privilege" Is no longer useful for accomplishing it's goals or reminding people of their privilege. Furthermore in the broader discussions with people unawares, mentioning privilege merely polarizes the argument to the point that discussion is impossible, which is exactly counter intuitive to the goals set by using the phrase in the first place. Also, while I am aware the proper use of the phrase is merely a jab at informing people that their decisions are informed or motivated by anecdotal evidence, the general population and thus the actual vocal majority of people who use "X privilege" as a phrase merely do so to invalidate other parties from offering their outsiders perspective on an issue. I.E. "You can't understand what I'm going through, check your privilege." If people who support privilege as an idea, desire to actually see results, you can't coin a phrase that just upsets the people who you are actually trying to cause change in to describe them because as far as they are concerned, it's all they've ever known and thus you are effectively insulting them. It's not effective. Please, CMV.

t3_1must6

I think that the "wage-gap" between men and women, is a result of men working more hours and being willing to do more labor intensive jobs. CMV

So basically I hear people say that women get less pay for the same work. I don't think this is true at all. I think men and women are paid equally but that men work more hours. I don't think there is any problem with equality in this country based off of the sexes. This is not to say that women are lazy. It's that men are far more likely to think about their money as more valuable than their time where women think about their time (specifically with family) as more valuable than money. This is obviously not true with EVERYONE but in the general population I believe it is true. This also accounts for there being more Men the higher up you go. A job like "CEO" or "CFO" or "President" of a company would require much more time spent on the job, and less time spent on family or free time. It's not even that men are more willing to work more hours, it's that they focus less on the time spent and more on the $$$$ coming in. While women focus more on the time spent and less on the $$$$ coming in. The more labor intensive job is about the fact that men are more capable (in most cases) to do a job like Construction worker, firefighter, or other jobs that require an excessive amount of Physical labor. Warren Farrell shows this [here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ArKVUt4fBfQ#t=219) by separating Women and Men and asking questions about jobs they have done in their lifetime. Again, there are exceptions to this but the majority of men are more willing to work in harsh conditions than the majority of women. CMV EDIT: Video time isn't linking, it is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ArKVUt4fBfQ#t=219 Or you can watch the whole video

I think that the "wage-gap" between men and women, is a result of men working more hours and being willing to do more labor intensive jobs. CMV. So basically I hear people say that women get less pay for the same work. I don't think this is true at all. I think men and women are paid equally but that men work more hours. I don't think there is any problem with equality in this country based off of the sexes. This is not to say that women are lazy. It's that men are far more likely to think about their money as more valuable than their time where women think about their time (specifically with family) as more valuable than money. This is obviously not true with EVERYONE but in the general population I believe it is true. This also accounts for there being more Men the higher up you go. A job like "CEO" or "CFO" or "President" of a company would require much more time spent on the job, and less time spent on family or free time. It's not even that men are more willing to work more hours, it's that they focus less on the time spent and more on the $$$$ coming in. While women focus more on the time spent and less on the $$$$ coming in. The more labor intensive job is about the fact that men are more capable (in most cases) to do a job like Construction worker, firefighter, or other jobs that require an excessive amount of Physical labor. Warren Farrell shows this [here](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ArKVUt4fBfQ#t=219) by separating Women and Men and asking questions about jobs they have done in their lifetime. Again, there are exceptions to this but the majority of men are more willing to work in harsh conditions than the majority of women. CMV EDIT: Video time isn't linking, it is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ArKVUt4fBfQ#t=219 Or you can watch the whole video

t3_3enhtb

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, July 18, 2015 - Friday, July 24, 2015

Totals: 7 days, 159 posts, 11,696 comments. Included in this report: The top 159 posts, and 11,283 of the top comments, by 2,617 distinct authors. No comments or posts were gilded :( --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |1108|/u/stoopydumbut|[CMV: Hard-shell tacos don't make any sense](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e8bz5/cmv_hardshell_tacos_dont_make_any_sense/?ref=search_posts)| |1085|/u/efficiens|[CMV: X is better than Y](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ecjmj/cmv_x_is_better_than_y/?ref=search_posts)| |872|/u/elvish_visionary|[CMV: Parents should be allowed to have children with severe mental disability euthanized](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e5jk8/cmv_parents_should_be_allowed_to_have_children/?ref=search_posts)| |595|/u/IgnisDomini|[CMV: There should be NO restrictions on immigration WHATSOEVER. People should be able to migrate between countries completely freely, with no restrictions.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dut0b/cmv_there_should_be_no_restrictions_on/?ref=search_posts)| |535|/u/MaxisMax|[CMV:Climate change should be the dominant international issue for politicians and activists today.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dt3vy/cmvclimate_change_should_be_the_dominant/?ref=search_posts)| |498|/u/LukeBabbitt|[CMV: Taco Bell is by far the best fast food choice for vegetarians](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3eftjs/cmv_taco_bell_is_by_far_the_best_fast_food_choice/?ref=search_posts)| |458|/u/Porkrind710|[CMV: Superman should not have been able to beat Zod in Man of Steel.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dz3mn/cmv_superman_should_not_have_been_able_to_beat/?ref=search_posts)| |378|/u/shayzfordays|[CMV: The criteria for being a vegetarian isnt not eating meat, its not buying meat.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dq7xo/cmv_the_criteria_for_being_a_vegetarian_isnt_not/?ref=search_posts)| |280|/u/DrProbably|[CMV: The term "white trash" is racist to every race but whites](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dxn2g/cmv_the_term_white_trash_is_racist_to_every_race/?ref=search_posts)| |274|/u/etown361|[CMV: I don't think the Chattanooga shootings were terrorist attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e2rf6/cmv_i_dont_think_the_chattanooga_shootings_were/?ref=search_posts)| |248|/u/ClydeCKO|[CMV: Not Everyone Is Beautiful. Self-esteem Efforts Are Misguided.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e33lg/cmv_not_everyone_is_beautiful_selfesteem_efforts/?ref=search_posts)| |190|/u/Tony_M_Cannoli|[CMV: If marijuana should be legal, LSD should be legal.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dv2ay/cmv_if_marijuana_should_be_legal_lsd_should_be/?ref=search_posts)| |177|/u/krisbrad|[CMV: There is no good reason to colonize mars.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e37pc/cmv_there_is_no_good_reason_to_colonize_mars/?ref=search_posts)| |151|/u/Drauv|[CMV:Mainstream Republican Policies Show Lack of Empathy](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dsku2/cmvmainstream_republican_policies_show_lack_of/?ref=search_posts)| |116|/u/PixInsightFTW|[CMV: Strong belief in the existence of alien life (intelligent or otherwise) is currently unscientific](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dqi0b/cmv_strong_belief_in_the_existence_of_alien_life/?ref=search_posts)| |113|/u/MemeticParadigm|[CMV: Bernie Sanders is at least as electable as Hillary Clinton.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e3iqi/cmv_bernie_sanders_is_at_least_as_electable_as/?ref=search_posts)| |106|/u/r4ndpaulsbrilloballs|[CMV: I think the United States should confiscate the estimated $32 Trillion hidden from Uncle Sam in Tax Havens](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3eabpx/cmv_i_think_the_united_states_should_confiscate/?ref=search_posts)| |102|/u/mormotomyia|[CMV:Every not economically sustainable political ideology is utter nonsence](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e2ahz/cmvevery_not_economically_sustainable_political/?ref=search_posts)| |99|/u/gojays2025|[CMV: You will probably have a happier life without children.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dutu1/cmv_you_will_probably_have_a_happier_life_without/?ref=search_posts)| |94|/u/Tattooedwolf|[CMV: Free markets are great, but they are inappropriate for necessities like housing, etc.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e0cjp/cmv_free_markets_are_great_but_they_are/?ref=search_posts)| |91|/u/parissyndrome1988|[CMV: The West Coast quality of life is overrated and it's not nearly as politically progressive as people think it is.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dz3bb/cmv_the_west_coast_quality_of_life_is_overrated/?ref=search_posts)| |83|/u/DanyalEscaped|[CMV: I'm opposed to a higher minimum wage.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3efcig/cmv_im_opposed_to_a_higher_minimum_wage/?ref=search_posts)| |83|/u/notdez|[CMV: The GOP's Secret Science Bill requiring EPA to make studies publicly available is a good thing.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dy0xj/cmv_the_gops_secret_science_bill_requiring_epa_to/?ref=search_posts)| |83|/u/Count_Spockula|[CMV: Reddit is being reduced to mindless Clickbait by overuse of headlines using "Scientists Say" or "Scientists Discover"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dvy1l/cmv_reddit_is_being_reduced_to_mindless_clickbait/?ref=search_posts)| |81|/u/skilliard4|[CMV: Google Is The Most Powerful Company In The Western World, And It Could Become Problematic](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e76dy/cmv_google_is_the_most_powerful_company_in_the/?ref=search_posts)| |79|/u/Quietuus|[CMV: We should totally bring back airships.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3efjue/cmv_we_should_totally_bring_back_airships/?ref=search_posts)| |75|/u/rexcerulean|[CMV: AI won't be a threat because they have no reason to possess survival instincts](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dyii5/cmv_ai_wont_be_a_threat_because_they_have_no/?ref=search_posts)| |65|/u/hammil|[CMV: The UK fox-hunting ban, as it currently stands, is inconsistent and nonsensical.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dr44t/cmv_the_uk_foxhunting_ban_as_it_currently_stands/?ref=search_posts)| |63|/u/sofian_kluft|[CMV: Esports shouldn't be called sports](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dquqv/cmv_esports_shouldnt_be_called_sports/?ref=search_posts)| |57|/u/apterium|[CMV: There are immutable ideas that solve fundamental necessities in the most efficient ways possible. If we ever encounter an alien planet, they will have many of our same social and material creations.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3egbyk/cmv_there_are_immutable_ideas_that_solve/?ref=search_posts)| |57|/u/youdonotnome|[CMV: Isn't 'brigading' kind of... what Reddit does/is for?](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dynmw/cmv_isnt_brigading_kind_of_what_reddit_doesis_for/?ref=search_posts)| |56|/u/TheThing345|[CMV:(too much) Immigration hurts a country's culture](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3drmw1/cmvtoo_much_immigration_hurts_a_countrys_culture/?ref=search_posts)| |54|/u/unlimitedpower6|[CMV: Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda" wasn't nominated for Best Music Video at the VMAs because the video isn't very good, NOT because of a bias on MTV's part.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ecm5s/cmv_nicki_minajs_anaconda_wasnt_nominated_for/?ref=search_posts)| |44|/u/alexskc95|[CMV: DPI should be the primary way to describe screen resolution, not raw number of pixels.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dqqsh/cmv_dpi_should_be_the_primary_way_to_describe/?ref=search_posts)| |42|/u/kevino434|[CMV: Ethical Vegetarians are inherently selfish.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dv3rp/cmv_ethical_vegetarians_are_inherently_selfish/?ref=search_posts)| |42|/u/getfuckingreal|[CMV: Reductions in CO2/Climate Change are never going to happen by reducing energy consumption.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dqhdc/cmv_reductions_in_co2climate_change_are_never/?ref=search_posts)| |37|/u/ExploreMeDora|[CMV: Every American enterprise should have mandatory pro-bono.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e2e0p/cmv_every_american_enterprise_should_have/?ref=search_posts)| |37|/u/RatioFitness|[CMV: Its not possible to know that teachers should make more money](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dqc8b/cmv_its_not_possible_to_know_that_teachers_should/?ref=search_posts)| |36|/u/h1t0k1r1|[CMV: Cereal first then milk.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ea4kl/cmv_cereal_first_then_milk/?ref=search_posts)| |35|/u/jimzbond|[CMV: Morality is objective, and independent of observers.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3duwps/cmv_morality_is_objective_and_independent_of/?ref=search_posts)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, July 18, 2015 - Friday, July 24, 2015. Totals: 7 days, 159 posts, 11,696 comments. Included in this report: The top 159 posts, and 11,283 of the top comments, by 2,617 distinct authors. No comments or posts were gilded :( --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |1108|/u/stoopydumbut|[CMV: Hard-shell tacos don't make any sense](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e8bz5/cmv_hardshell_tacos_dont_make_any_sense/?ref=search_posts)| |1085|/u/efficiens|[CMV: X is better than Y](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ecjmj/cmv_x_is_better_than_y/?ref=search_posts)| |872|/u/elvish_visionary|[CMV: Parents should be allowed to have children with severe mental disability euthanized](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e5jk8/cmv_parents_should_be_allowed_to_have_children/?ref=search_posts)| |595|/u/IgnisDomini|[CMV: There should be NO restrictions on immigration WHATSOEVER. People should be able to migrate between countries completely freely, with no restrictions.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dut0b/cmv_there_should_be_no_restrictions_on/?ref=search_posts)| |535|/u/MaxisMax|[CMV:Climate change should be the dominant international issue for politicians and activists today.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dt3vy/cmvclimate_change_should_be_the_dominant/?ref=search_posts)| |498|/u/LukeBabbitt|[CMV: Taco Bell is by far the best fast food choice for vegetarians](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3eftjs/cmv_taco_bell_is_by_far_the_best_fast_food_choice/?ref=search_posts)| |458|/u/Porkrind710|[CMV: Superman should not have been able to beat Zod in Man of Steel.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dz3mn/cmv_superman_should_not_have_been_able_to_beat/?ref=search_posts)| |378|/u/shayzfordays|[CMV: The criteria for being a vegetarian isnt not eating meat, its not buying meat.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dq7xo/cmv_the_criteria_for_being_a_vegetarian_isnt_not/?ref=search_posts)| |280|/u/DrProbably|[CMV: The term "white trash" is racist to every race but whites](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dxn2g/cmv_the_term_white_trash_is_racist_to_every_race/?ref=search_posts)| |274|/u/etown361|[CMV: I don't think the Chattanooga shootings were terrorist attacks](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e2rf6/cmv_i_dont_think_the_chattanooga_shootings_were/?ref=search_posts)| |248|/u/ClydeCKO|[CMV: Not Everyone Is Beautiful. Self-esteem Efforts Are Misguided.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e33lg/cmv_not_everyone_is_beautiful_selfesteem_efforts/?ref=search_posts)| |190|/u/Tony_M_Cannoli|[CMV: If marijuana should be legal, LSD should be legal.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dv2ay/cmv_if_marijuana_should_be_legal_lsd_should_be/?ref=search_posts)| |177|/u/krisbrad|[CMV: There is no good reason to colonize mars.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e37pc/cmv_there_is_no_good_reason_to_colonize_mars/?ref=search_posts)| |151|/u/Drauv|[CMV:Mainstream Republican Policies Show Lack of Empathy](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dsku2/cmvmainstream_republican_policies_show_lack_of/?ref=search_posts)| |116|/u/PixInsightFTW|[CMV: Strong belief in the existence of alien life (intelligent or otherwise) is currently unscientific](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dqi0b/cmv_strong_belief_in_the_existence_of_alien_life/?ref=search_posts)| |113|/u/MemeticParadigm|[CMV: Bernie Sanders is at least as electable as Hillary Clinton.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e3iqi/cmv_bernie_sanders_is_at_least_as_electable_as/?ref=search_posts)| |106|/u/r4ndpaulsbrilloballs|[CMV: I think the United States should confiscate the estimated $32 Trillion hidden from Uncle Sam in Tax Havens](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3eabpx/cmv_i_think_the_united_states_should_confiscate/?ref=search_posts)| |102|/u/mormotomyia|[CMV:Every not economically sustainable political ideology is utter nonsence](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e2ahz/cmvevery_not_economically_sustainable_political/?ref=search_posts)| |99|/u/gojays2025|[CMV: You will probably have a happier life without children.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dutu1/cmv_you_will_probably_have_a_happier_life_without/?ref=search_posts)| |94|/u/Tattooedwolf|[CMV: Free markets are great, but they are inappropriate for necessities like housing, etc.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e0cjp/cmv_free_markets_are_great_but_they_are/?ref=search_posts)| |91|/u/parissyndrome1988|[CMV: The West Coast quality of life is overrated and it's not nearly as politically progressive as people think it is.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dz3bb/cmv_the_west_coast_quality_of_life_is_overrated/?ref=search_posts)| |83|/u/DanyalEscaped|[CMV: I'm opposed to a higher minimum wage.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3efcig/cmv_im_opposed_to_a_higher_minimum_wage/?ref=search_posts)| |83|/u/notdez|[CMV: The GOP's Secret Science Bill requiring EPA to make studies publicly available is a good thing.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dy0xj/cmv_the_gops_secret_science_bill_requiring_epa_to/?ref=search_posts)| |83|/u/Count_Spockula|[CMV: Reddit is being reduced to mindless Clickbait by overuse of headlines using "Scientists Say" or "Scientists Discover"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dvy1l/cmv_reddit_is_being_reduced_to_mindless_clickbait/?ref=search_posts)| |81|/u/skilliard4|[CMV: Google Is The Most Powerful Company In The Western World, And It Could Become Problematic](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e76dy/cmv_google_is_the_most_powerful_company_in_the/?ref=search_posts)| |79|/u/Quietuus|[CMV: We should totally bring back airships.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3efjue/cmv_we_should_totally_bring_back_airships/?ref=search_posts)| |75|/u/rexcerulean|[CMV: AI won't be a threat because they have no reason to possess survival instincts](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dyii5/cmv_ai_wont_be_a_threat_because_they_have_no/?ref=search_posts)| |65|/u/hammil|[CMV: The UK fox-hunting ban, as it currently stands, is inconsistent and nonsensical.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dr44t/cmv_the_uk_foxhunting_ban_as_it_currently_stands/?ref=search_posts)| |63|/u/sofian_kluft|[CMV: Esports shouldn't be called sports](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dquqv/cmv_esports_shouldnt_be_called_sports/?ref=search_posts)| |57|/u/apterium|[CMV: There are immutable ideas that solve fundamental necessities in the most efficient ways possible. If we ever encounter an alien planet, they will have many of our same social and material creations.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3egbyk/cmv_there_are_immutable_ideas_that_solve/?ref=search_posts)| |57|/u/youdonotnome|[CMV: Isn't 'brigading' kind of... what Reddit does/is for?](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dynmw/cmv_isnt_brigading_kind_of_what_reddit_doesis_for/?ref=search_posts)| |56|/u/TheThing345|[CMV:(too much) Immigration hurts a country's culture](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3drmw1/cmvtoo_much_immigration_hurts_a_countrys_culture/?ref=search_posts)| |54|/u/unlimitedpower6|[CMV: Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda" wasn't nominated for Best Music Video at the VMAs because the video isn't very good, NOT because of a bias on MTV's part.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ecm5s/cmv_nicki_minajs_anaconda_wasnt_nominated_for/?ref=search_posts)| |44|/u/alexskc95|[CMV: DPI should be the primary way to describe screen resolution, not raw number of pixels.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dqqsh/cmv_dpi_should_be_the_primary_way_to_describe/?ref=search_posts)| |42|/u/kevino434|[CMV: Ethical Vegetarians are inherently selfish.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dv3rp/cmv_ethical_vegetarians_are_inherently_selfish/?ref=search_posts)| |42|/u/getfuckingreal|[CMV: Reductions in CO2/Climate Change are never going to happen by reducing energy consumption.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dqhdc/cmv_reductions_in_co2climate_change_are_never/?ref=search_posts)| |37|/u/ExploreMeDora|[CMV: Every American enterprise should have mandatory pro-bono.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3e2e0p/cmv_every_american_enterprise_should_have/?ref=search_posts)| |37|/u/RatioFitness|[CMV: Its not possible to know that teachers should make more money](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3dqc8b/cmv_its_not_possible_to_know_that_teachers_should/?ref=search_posts)| |36|/u/h1t0k1r1|[CMV: Cereal first then milk.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ea4kl/cmv_cereal_first_then_milk/?ref=search_posts)| |35|/u/jimzbond|[CMV: Morality is objective, and independent of observers.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3duwps/cmv_morality_is_objective_and_independent_of/?ref=search_posts)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

t3_1mtotq

I don't think it should be legal to smoke in public. CMV

In my mind, I see reasons why it should be illegal to smoke in public. 1. Litter. Cigarette butts are the top source of roadway litter in America (38%) and the second largest source of litter on sidewalks after gum and candy (29.8%) according to [www.kab.org](http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/LitterFactSheet_SOURCES.pdf?docID=5185). It seems impossible these days to walk a full 20 yards without seeing at least one on the ground. 2. It's harmful for bystanders. Second-hand smoke can be just as harmful as first-hand. 3. Limiting smokers to their own homes would likely reduce the amount of times they smoke and in turn reduce the amount of illnesses caused by smoking throughout the country. In all honesty, it would just help them reduce their bad habit, and I see absolutely no benefits to allowing people to smoke in public. --- EDIT: Alright, I agree that "it's bothersome" isn't the best reason, but I do still think it should be illegal. I've replaced the first point with a much better one.

I don't think it should be legal to smoke in public. CMV. In my mind, I see reasons why it should be illegal to smoke in public. 1. Litter. Cigarette butts are the top source of roadway litter in America (38%) and the second largest source of litter on sidewalks after gum and candy (29.8%) according to [www.kab.org](http://www.kab.org/site/DocServer/LitterFactSheet_SOURCES.pdf?docID=5185). It seems impossible these days to walk a full 20 yards without seeing at least one on the ground. 2. It's harmful for bystanders. Second-hand smoke can be just as harmful as first-hand. 3. Limiting smokers to their own homes would likely reduce the amount of times they smoke and in turn reduce the amount of illnesses caused by smoking throughout the country. In all honesty, it would just help them reduce their bad habit, and I see absolutely no benefits to allowing people to smoke in public. --- EDIT: Alright, I agree that "it's bothersome" isn't the best reason, but I do still think it should be illegal. I've replaced the first point with a much better one.

t3_1n1stu

Using "number of previous sexual partners" as a dating barometer is no worse than using height/weight/etc. CMV.

There seems to be a backlash (in the social circles I frequent) towards men who judge a potential girlfriend based on how many previous sexual partners she has had. The term "slut-shamer" is thrown around a lot, and people make great effort to talk about how a woman's partner count is irrelevant and shouldn't make any difference in how good a girlfriend she is, etc. I always get baffled when listening to these arguments because "previous partner count" just seems like another one of many barometers that people use when evaluating potential partners. Women will often judge men on height; "I just don't find guys under 5'6'' to be attractive, sorry!". And men will often judge women on weight; "I just don't find obese girls attractive, sorry!" And this behavior is usually seen as socially acceptable. So why is there such a furor and turmoil whenever a man says he wouldn't date a girl with 5+ partners, or 10+ partners, or whatever? It's a highly personal decision, and the social justice sex-positive crowd needs to stop expending so much energy trying to invalidate the opinions and feelings of these men. **TL;DR: If it's okay for a woman to judge a potential boyfriend based on his height, it should be okay for a man to judge a woman on equally superficial characteristics like her previous partner count. Change my view.**

Using "number of previous sexual partners" as a dating barometer is no worse than using height/weight/etc. CMV. There seems to be a backlash (in the social circles I frequent) towards men who judge a potential girlfriend based on how many previous sexual partners she has had. The term "slut-shamer" is thrown around a lot, and people make great effort to talk about how a woman's partner count is irrelevant and shouldn't make any difference in how good a girlfriend she is, etc. I always get baffled when listening to these arguments because "previous partner count" just seems like another one of many barometers that people use when evaluating potential partners. Women will often judge men on height; "I just don't find guys under 5'6'' to be attractive, sorry!". And men will often judge women on weight; "I just don't find obese girls attractive, sorry!" And this behavior is usually seen as socially acceptable. So why is there such a furor and turmoil whenever a man says he wouldn't date a girl with 5+ partners, or 10+ partners, or whatever? It's a highly personal decision, and the social justice sex-positive crowd needs to stop expending so much energy trying to invalidate the opinions and feelings of these men. **TL;DR: If it's okay for a woman to judge a potential boyfriend based on his height, it should be okay for a man to judge a woman on equally superficial characteristics like her previous partner count. Change my view.**

t3_21xe4y

CMV: Come on, it's 1914, I can come into work hungover if I want to.

Okay, using a throwaway for obvious reasons. I'm a bodyguard for a pretty important person. I won't name names but like, you've totally heard of uuuhhh his grace. Anyway, it's not as exciting as it sounds. It pays the bills and keeps me in shape. Mostly we walk around and check shit out and I make sure no weirdos get too close. There are a bunch of doofuses all pissed off about, fuck, what was it? Something something territory or sovereignty or national identity. Whatever. I can't remember but still, dudes, it's 19-fucking-14. That heavy shit went down centuries ago. Get over yourselves already. So tomorrow we have this stupid inspection but it's more like a super long parade. It's June and *hot as balls out* and fucking no one wants to be there. I'm pretty comfortable going out tonight with my boys and getting my drink on with no one being the wiser tomorrow. People do this all the time and no harm, no foul, I say. As long as there is a low probability of harm, no one gets hurt, and I can probably get away with it. Everybody wins. Nothing ever happens at these things in the first place and it's even less likely in the middle of the afternoon in this heat. So, seeing as that the probability is low, it's all good. Change my view, dweebs. _____ > *Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)*** *about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through* ***[our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***.

CMV: Come on, it's 1914, I can come into work hungover if I want to. Okay, using a throwaway for obvious reasons. I'm a bodyguard for a pretty important person. I won't name names but like, you've totally heard of uuuhhh his grace. Anyway, it's not as exciting as it sounds. It pays the bills and keeps me in shape. Mostly we walk around and check shit out and I make sure no weirdos get too close. There are a bunch of doofuses all pissed off about, fuck, what was it? Something something territory or sovereignty or national identity. Whatever. I can't remember but still, dudes, it's 19-fucking-14. That heavy shit went down centuries ago. Get over yourselves already. So tomorrow we have this stupid inspection but it's more like a super long parade. It's June and *hot as balls out* and fucking no one wants to be there. I'm pretty comfortable going out tonight with my boys and getting my drink on with no one being the wiser tomorrow. People do this all the time and no harm, no foul, I say. As long as there is a low probability of harm, no one gets hurt, and I can probably get away with it. Everybody wins. Nothing ever happens at these things in the first place and it's even less likely in the middle of the afternoon in this heat. So, seeing as that the probability is low, it's all good. Change my view, dweebs.

t3_1ue4lm

I have had a girl convince me into having sex. This is not rape. CMV.

This post is inspired by some of the comments made in a previous post on CMV. I was at a party, and a girl I've been kinda flirty with in the past tried to take me into a separate room to have sex. I said no. I didn't really feel like it, I just wanted to have a good time with my mates. She then pleaded, and tried to convince me that it would be fun and nobody would notice etc. She knew I was attracted to her, and probably knew I wouldn't continue to refuse if she persisted, which is what ended up happening. In the end it was obviously consensual, but I did indeed say no, firmly, at least once, and then continued to hesitate for a bit afterwards. Now, reverse the genders of the above story and I'd have countless people saying "no means no, this is rape", well, doesn't that mean I was raped? I'm just going by the logic I witnessed being heavily upvoted in that other thread. My above story is not rape, whatever order the gender is in. CMV. **EDIT**: The CMV post I mentioned is [this one](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1u9994/starting_to_think_the_red_pill_philosophy_will/). I'm not really talking about the OP, but some of the comments that are within. One of the main comments that inspired me to make this post was [this comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/1ucu9u/ucenodoxus_explains_why_even_a_little_redpill_is/cegx72u): > No means no. No excuses, no explanations, no sick games, no joking, no role play, no *anything* changes this simple fact. ***NO means NO!*** If someone says "No" to you and you ignore that "No", You Are Wrong. This should be recognized in all aspects of life. "Can I have a piece of your candy?" "No" Don't take it. "Can I come over to your house?" "No." Don't do it. "Can I borrow your book?" "NO" Don't do it. It's a simple monosyllabic word. Learn it, respect it. **No means No.** Problem solved. I would be interested to know what this user thinks of my situation, because by this logic it seems I *was* raped. If they said otherwise I'd be inclined to call them sexist/hypocritical. **EDIT 2**: During a conversation with a user on here it was suggested that I edit in something that I told them: While I was hesitating, the girl touched me flirtatiously. On the hands and around the waist. To some people this is inappropriate, but, it turned me on a lot. This probably played a big part in why I ended up going for it, but I still don't consider myself to be sexually violated. Again, if the roles were reversed, a lot of people would be up in arms. Make of that what you will.

I have had a girl convince me into having sex. This is not rape. CMV. This post is inspired by some of the comments made in a previous post on CMV. I was at a party, and a girl I've been kinda flirty with in the past tried to take me into a separate room to have sex. I said no. I didn't really feel like it, I just wanted to have a good time with my mates. She then pleaded, and tried to convince me that it would be fun and nobody would notice etc. She knew I was attracted to her, and probably knew I wouldn't continue to refuse if she persisted, which is what ended up happening. In the end it was obviously consensual, but I did indeed say no, firmly, at least once, and then continued to hesitate for a bit afterwards. Now, reverse the genders of the above story and I'd have countless people saying "no means no, this is rape", well, doesn't that mean I was raped? I'm just going by the logic I witnessed being heavily upvoted in that other thread. My above story is not rape, whatever order the gender is in. CMV. **EDIT**: The CMV post I mentioned is [this one](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1u9994/starting_to_think_the_red_pill_philosophy_will/). I'm not really talking about the OP, but some of the comments that are within. One of the main comments that inspired me to make this post was [this comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/1ucu9u/ucenodoxus_explains_why_even_a_little_redpill_is/cegx72u): > No means no. No excuses, no explanations, no sick games, no joking, no role play, no *anything* changes this simple fact. ***NO means NO!*** If someone says "No" to you and you ignore that "No", You Are Wrong. This should be recognized in all aspects of life. "Can I have a piece of your candy?" "No" Don't take it. "Can I come over to your house?" "No." Don't do it. "Can I borrow your book?" "NO" Don't do it. It's a simple monosyllabic word. Learn it, respect it. **No means No.** Problem solved. I would be interested to know what this user thinks of my situation, because by this logic it seems I *was* raped. If they said otherwise I'd be inclined to call them sexist/hypocritical. **EDIT 2**: During a conversation with a user on here it was suggested that I edit in something that I told them: While I was hesitating, the girl touched me flirtatiously. On the hands and around the waist. To some people this is inappropriate, but, it turned me on a lot. This probably played a big part in why I ended up going for it, but I still don't consider myself to be sexually violated. Again, if the roles were reversed, a lot of people would be up in arms. Make of that what you will.

t3_2svw2s

CMV: I believe that most people would be better off (mentally) in a feudal system.

I believe that the average citizen would be much happier under dictatorial rule and with a clear idea of who they are supposed to be. I believe that dangling a billion different choices in front of people makes them anxious to the point where every decision seems like an insurmountable obstacle. Failing to make choices and thus "progress" towards some nebulous, ever-changing goal then leads many people into depression of various levels. I believe that a rigid system and rigid societal roles would allow many to live much less stressful lives. In lieu of that I believe a large percentage of people would be much happier if they simply submitted themselves to a master of their choosing. I think that the people who yell the loudest about wanting to be individuals are mostly those who are really just trying to find someone who has the ability to tame them. I think the problem is that modern society places a lot of emphasis on being independent and so people feel like their desire to serve is unnatural or bad so they stuff it way down and pretend to be happy when they are really just dying for someone who will take them under their wing and tell them what to do. I believe that only a very small percentage of the people who want to be "owned" are able to admit to it. I believe that feudal system with competent, compassionate and naturally dominant people in positions of power would be the best solution for a post-scarcity society. _____ > *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 most people would be better off (mentally) in a feudal system. I believe that the average citizen would be much happier under dictatorial rule and with a clear idea of who they are supposed to be. I believe that dangling a billion different choices in front of people makes them anxious to the point where every decision seems like an insurmountable obstacle. Failing to make choices and thus "progress" towards some nebulous, ever-changing goal then leads many people into depression of various levels. I believe that a rigid system and rigid societal roles would allow many to live much less stressful lives. In lieu of that I believe a large percentage of people would be much happier if they simply submitted themselves to a master of their choosing. I think that the people who yell the loudest about wanting to be individuals are mostly those who are really just trying to find someone who has the ability to tame them. I think the problem is that modern society places a lot of emphasis on being independent and so people feel like their desire to serve is unnatural or bad so they stuff it way down and pretend to be happy when they are really just dying for someone who will take them under their wing and tell them what to do. I believe that only a very small percentage of the people who want to be "owned" are able to admit to it. I believe that feudal system with competent, compassionate and naturally dominant people in positions of power would be the best solution for a post-scarcity society.

t3_1bu4mb

I think drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legalized and not subjected to any undue regulation, CMV

Popular opinion on reddit of course, but I really don't know what the arguments for prohibition are, and why people are so convinced it's the right way. Perhaps there are some aspects of the argument I am missing. I admit there should be some exceptions, such as sales to, or exploitation of, minors, disclosing health risks, etc. Also, in cases where there is a likely chance of creating actual crimes, such as selling drugs that make you crazy and kill people.

I think drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legalized and not subjected to any undue regulation, CMV. Popular opinion on reddit of course, but I really don't know what the arguments for prohibition are, and why people are so convinced it's the right way. Perhaps there are some aspects of the argument I am missing. I admit there should be some exceptions, such as sales to, or exploitation of, minors, disclosing health risks, etc. Also, in cases where there is a likely chance of creating actual crimes, such as selling drugs that make you crazy and kill people.

t3_2aphgy

CMV: The "more than two shakes..." rule makes no sense.

Pretty straightforward. The two shakes rule is as best arbitrary and at worst plain wrong. 1. The point of the shaking is to clear your urethra of urine so you don't dribble on your underwear. It's a matter of cleanliness and appearance. Anyone with a penis has an obligation to leave as much as their urine in the bathroom as possible by any means necessary. That includes as many shakes as they need. 2. Shaking is not pleasurable. Like I said above, one does it to clear urine from their urethra. If I want to play with myself, I would do something more pleasurable that shaking. 3. Every urinary system is different. I'm young and pee pretty easilly. I don't have any difficulty clearing most of the time, so I pretty much only need 1-2 shakes. Older people or people with prostate/urethra issues could very well need more shakes. They have enough to worry about, making sure their urine ends up in the toilet where it belongs without having people shame them.

CMV: The "more than two shakes..." rule makes no sense. Pretty straightforward. The two shakes rule is as best arbitrary and at worst plain wrong. 1. The point of the shaking is to clear your urethra of urine so you don't dribble on your underwear. It's a matter of cleanliness and appearance. Anyone with a penis has an obligation to leave as much as their urine in the bathroom as possible by any means necessary. That includes as many shakes as they need. 2. Shaking is not pleasurable. Like I said above, one does it to clear urine from their urethra. If I want to play with myself, I would do something more pleasurable that shaking. 3. Every urinary system is different. I'm young and pee pretty easilly. I don't have any difficulty clearing most of the time, so I pretty much only need 1-2 shakes. Older people or people with prostate/urethra issues could very well need more shakes. They have enough to worry about, making sure their urine ends up in the toilet where it belongs without having people shame them.

t3_4g8tmc

CMV: I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania Primary

I am a registered Democrat in PA and I was on the fence between Sanders and Clinton, but now I'm leaning towards Clinton more because I think she has more experience and her promises are more achievable.I like Sander's message, but I think he has managed to bring Clinton to the left on a lot more issues which is enough to satisfy my personal appetite for more leftist thinking. I absolutely think that no matter who wins this race that the two should work together to unify the party either as VPs or in each other's cabinet. I think usually these debates lead to a whole bunch of linking to opinion pieces and such that I've already read, talking points that I've already heard, and stump speeches that have already been given. To try something new, let's make this a personal discussion rather than a "show me the evidence" link fest. If you have to link anything, link Sanders or Clinton's website where they talk about their platform. To change my view, state your perosnal reasons for either not voting for Clinton or why you would vote for Sanders. There is 0% chance I will be voting for anyone on the Republican side in primary because it is closed, but I wouldn't vote for any of them in the general either. I will also be voting for whomever is the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. I will not vote for a third party candidate. _____ > *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 will be voting for Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania Primary. I am a registered Democrat in PA and I was on the fence between Sanders and Clinton, but now I'm leaning towards Clinton more because I think she has more experience and her promises are more achievable.I like Sander's message, but I think he has managed to bring Clinton to the left on a lot more issues which is enough to satisfy my personal appetite for more leftist thinking. I absolutely think that no matter who wins this race that the two should work together to unify the party either as VPs or in each other's cabinet. I think usually these debates lead to a whole bunch of linking to opinion pieces and such that I've already read, talking points that I've already heard, and stump speeches that have already been given. To try something new, let's make this a personal discussion rather than a "show me the evidence" link fest. If you have to link anything, link Sanders or Clinton's website where they talk about their platform. To change my view, state your perosnal reasons for either not voting for Clinton or why you would vote for Sanders. There is 0% chance I will be voting for anyone on the Republican side in primary because it is closed, but I wouldn't vote for any of them in the general either. I will also be voting for whomever is the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. I will not vote for a third party candidate.

t3_1kf10t

Anyone caught stealing over a million dollars should be put to death or sentenced to life in prison. CMV

I read, day after day, about politicians embezzling from the people, or people at the top-end of construction companies stealing that contract money. While most generalizations are unfounded and flawed, I find myself finding it hard to believe that anyone stealing more than a million dollars is doing so to feed his or her starving family. How will it stop? They have lawyers aplenty with the money they stole, and who are they to care if they get found guilty and spend a few months in house arrest when they have a house in the Bahamas? They should be killed or given life in prison if found guilty. Obligatory sentence. I live in Canada, if that matters. (Obligatory sorry.)

Anyone caught stealing over a million dollars should be put to death or sentenced to life in prison. CMV. I read, day after day, about politicians embezzling from the people, or people at the top-end of construction companies stealing that contract money. While most generalizations are unfounded and flawed, I find myself finding it hard to believe that anyone stealing more than a million dollars is doing so to feed his or her starving family. How will it stop? They have lawyers aplenty with the money they stole, and who are they to care if they get found guilty and spend a few months in house arrest when they have a house in the Bahamas? They should be killed or given life in prison if found guilty. Obligatory sentence. I live in Canada, if that matters. (Obligatory sorry.)

t3_2pa148

CMV: I believe Transgendered people shouldn't be viewed differently than people with BIID or Body Integrity Identity Disorder.

The title says most of it, but from what I've read and seen, the conditions seem to be similar. I'm mostly curious as to why they're viewed as separate conditions, when one seems to be focused on a limb and the other on genitalia and other sex characteristics. Both have the feeling of their body being "wrong" in some way. However, one is treated with extensive therapy, and on the other, we have started a social movement. A link to BIID is below. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder_____ > *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 Transgendered people shouldn't be viewed differently than people with BIID or Body Integrity Identity Disorder. The title says most of it, but from what I've read and seen, the conditions seem to be similar. I'm mostly curious as to why they're viewed as separate conditions, when one seems to be focused on a limb and the other on genitalia and other sex characteristics. Both have the feeling of their body being "wrong" in some way. However, one is treated with extensive therapy, and on the other, we have started a social movement. A link to BIID is below. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder_____ > *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_4nb3la

CMV: A vegan diet is not healthier or more life-extending than a balanced meat-eating diet.

I have heard most of the usual quotes about chicken being acidic and of course there is the recent evidence regarding processed meats and cancer, but it seems to me that I would be healthier getting all the nutrients I need from a meat-eating diet. Nutrients which vegans have to supplement such as B12 can obviously be taken in a pill, but I just have a gut-feeling that a vegan diet is not more healthy and anecdotally, most vegans i know personally become paler and skinnier, although of course there are many examples of massive muscular people who are vegans.

CMV: A vegan diet is not healthier or more life-extending than a balanced meat-eating diet. I have heard most of the usual quotes about chicken being acidic and of course there is the recent evidence regarding processed meats and cancer, but it seems to me that I would be healthier getting all the nutrients I need from a meat-eating diet. Nutrients which vegans have to supplement such as B12 can obviously be taken in a pill, but I just have a gut-feeling that a vegan diet is not more healthy and anecdotally, most vegans i know personally become paler and skinnier, although of course there are many examples of massive muscular people who are vegans.

t3_3cmzzf

CMV: Life is meaningless. There is no point in doing anything beside trying to feel good.

When you think about it, there really is no point in doing anything besides having as much pleasure as possible in life. Probably you will die at 70 or 80 or even before. If you die before your spouse, you die knowing you are leaving them in grief and sadness with no way to console them. Even if you're lucky enough to live to 100, it's still such a brief period, and it goes faster the older you get. After you die, a few people will remember you. But they will die themselves soon enough, and the memory of your existence will pretty much be gone forever. It's not as if future people will ever be interested in your life. You and all record of you will just fade away. Even if you were famous somehow that only means your name might live on another decade or two. If you try very very hard, you just might be able to make an impact on your time or even the near future. But what's the point? That, too, will pass. It's not as if your body will lie peacefully in a green field next to your spouse eternally. Even if you made a giant impact, soon enough the world will be hit by an asteroid, or a plague, massive climate change, or some other great disaster. Even if we manage to avoid that, in a cosmic eyeblink, the Sun will die. Maybe we will have escaped the solar system by then, maybe not. It seems highly unlikely given the laws of this universe. But even if we escape to another solar system, eventually the universe itself will simply end. There will be nothing left, not even the information that we as a race ever even existed. Our whole spacetime will end, or at best, loop. And even if, by some amazing cross-dimensional magic, the "human race" (whatever it looks like by then) has survived and figures out how to teleport to another dimension, no one will have thought of you personally for a trillion years and never will again. Your pretty gravesite and your bones and spouse's bones will have been drifting stardust for aeons. I can see trying to have a good life, and enjoying your short time as much as possible, but it seems that trying to do anything really meaningful is just a waste of time. Nothing you can do will ever change the final result. Not only will we be annihilated, but the information that our entire universe ever existed at all will be gone. Why not just focus on making your own personal life as pleasant as possible, and not really worrying about other people? Things just are the way they are, and even if you temporarily improve the situation in some small way, it really has no effect in the long term. That's no excuse to do evil, and there's nothing wrong with being nice to others, but other than that you may as well move to a cabin in the woods and sit and watch the trees for the rest of your life, hopefully with a loving spouse. Edit: wow! Way more response than I ever anticipated! I will try to respond as I can, but this is a whole lot of very deep and complex responses. It will take a while.

CMV: Life is meaningless. There is no point in doing anything beside trying to feel good. When you think about it, there really is no point in doing anything besides having as much pleasure as possible in life. Probably you will die at 70 or 80 or even before. If you die before your spouse, you die knowing you are leaving them in grief and sadness with no way to console them. Even if you're lucky enough to live to 100, it's still such a brief period, and it goes faster the older you get. After you die, a few people will remember you. But they will die themselves soon enough, and the memory of your existence will pretty much be gone forever. It's not as if future people will ever be interested in your life. You and all record of you will just fade away. Even if you were famous somehow that only means your name might live on another decade or two. If you try very very hard, you just might be able to make an impact on your time or even the near future. But what's the point? That, too, will pass. It's not as if your body will lie peacefully in a green field next to your spouse eternally. Even if you made a giant impact, soon enough the world will be hit by an asteroid, or a plague, massive climate change, or some other great disaster. Even if we manage to avoid that, in a cosmic eyeblink, the Sun will die. Maybe we will have escaped the solar system by then, maybe not. It seems highly unlikely given the laws of this universe. But even if we escape to another solar system, eventually the universe itself will simply end. There will be nothing left, not even the information that we as a race ever even existed. Our whole spacetime will end, or at best, loop. And even if, by some amazing cross-dimensional magic, the "human race" (whatever it looks like by then) has survived and figures out how to teleport to another dimension, no one will have thought of you personally for a trillion years and never will again. Your pretty gravesite and your bones and spouse's bones will have been drifting stardust for aeons. I can see trying to have a good life, and enjoying your short time as much as possible, but it seems that trying to do anything really meaningful is just a waste of time. Nothing you can do will ever change the final result. Not only will we be annihilated, but the information that our entire universe ever existed at all will be gone. Why not just focus on making your own personal life as pleasant as possible, and not really worrying about other people? Things just are the way they are, and even if you temporarily improve the situation in some small way, it really has no effect in the long term. That's no excuse to do evil, and there's nothing wrong with being nice to others, but other than that you may as well move to a cabin in the woods and sit and watch the trees for the rest of your life, hopefully with a loving spouse. Edit: wow! Way more response than I ever anticipated! I will try to respond as I can, but this is a whole lot of very deep and complex responses. It will take a while.

t3_351lfm

[Mod Post] We have new CSS!

Hello, We thought it was time CMV had a makeover. The CSS we've had so far has been a messy mixture of code borrowed from many different places, and it showed. Now, thanks to /u/qtx, we have our own unique subreddit theme! Please check it out and let us know what you think, or if you notice any bugs etc. **Edit**: If you have noticed any problems, it would be great if you could provide a screenshot and the browser/OS type. Thanks! **Edit 2**: I just cancelled the vote on the fixed header for now as I think people were rightly concerned it was too early. Let's allow it to settle for a little while and we'll ask again.

[Mod Post] We have new CSS!. Hello, We thought it was time CMV had a makeover. The CSS we've had so far has been a messy mixture of code borrowed from many different places, and it showed. Now, thanks to /u/qtx, we have our own unique subreddit theme! Please check it out and let us know what you think, or if you notice any bugs etc. **Edit**: If you have noticed any problems, it would be great if you could provide a screenshot and the browser/OS type. Thanks! **Edit 2**: I just cancelled the vote on the fixed header for now as I think people were rightly concerned it was too early. Let's allow it to settle for a little while and we'll ask again.

t3_1ejsc2

I think that most things made by Nintendo (3DS, WiiU, Super Mario Bros/Smash, etc.) are only played by nostalgic gamers and they will soon run out of business. CMV

It's just that the only people I see that still play nintendo are gamers that played it on the old nintendo consoles way back when. Once the newer generations grow up, no one will want to play Nintendo, because their childhood would have consisted of big games like COD or Battlefield.

I think that most things made by Nintendo (3DS, WiiU, Super Mario Bros/Smash, etc.) are only played by nostalgic gamers and they will soon run out of business. CMV. It's just that the only people I see that still play nintendo are gamers that played it on the old nintendo consoles way back when. Once the newer generations grow up, no one will want to play Nintendo, because their childhood would have consisted of big games like COD or Battlefield.

t3_3g0yd5

CMV: Statutory Rape/Standard Rape laws are sexist and should be completely redone to make the trial more equal. And statutory rape should be abolished all together.

A topic that I have been aware of for a long time has been brought up to my attention again. [This](http://www.wnem.com/story/29722286/young-man-fooled-by-girl-on-hookup-app-wants-off-sex-offender-list#ixzz3i1vo9lzT) appeared on my news feed today and the main key that made me upset was this part of the article was this "The 14-year-old girl in the case has admitted she lied about her age on the hookup app and said the encounter was consensual, but that's not a valid defense under current laws." There is no reason why that shouldn't be a viable defense, I mean, that sentence alone should make any person automatically innocent and the only punishment that should be dealt, if any, should be against the person who lied about their age. I bring up that rape laws should also be redone. One example was that a youtuber I watch (He wouldn't lie about said things because his whole channel is about social issues and such, and hasn't lied about anything yet. MrRepzion is that guy). He was in a bad relationship and decided to end it. Now the girl was very upset, so upset that she decided to create a fake rape claim, and the only reason Repzion was found guilty, was that his ex mistakenly decided to tell him over text that she claimed a false one, so he had evidence that it was false. Another one was an old friend of mine (17) was dating a 15 year old from my school. He broke up with her, and then filed a false statutory rape case against him, with parental help. Which he plead guilty. ~~I also bring up abolishing statutory rape laws because I see no use for them. If the sex is consensual, then there shouldn't be any punishment, because both parties wanted it, and with how they are set up, I guarantee that the guy will almost always be the one being punished, with the girl off scotch free. And if the sex wasn't consensual, then it should be considered just rape, rendering the statutory rape law useless.~~ Realized this would never be okay. Please refer to only the other parts of the post _____ > *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: Statutory Rape/Standard Rape laws are sexist and should be completely redone to make the trial more equal. And statutory rape should be abolished all together. A topic that I have been aware of for a long time has been brought up to my attention again. [This](http://www.wnem.com/story/29722286/young-man-fooled-by-girl-on-hookup-app-wants-off-sex-offender-list#ixzz3i1vo9lzT) appeared on my news feed today and the main key that made me upset was this part of the article was this "The 14-year-old girl in the case has admitted she lied about her age on the hookup app and said the encounter was consensual, but that's not a valid defense under current laws." There is no reason why that shouldn't be a viable defense, I mean, that sentence alone should make any person automatically innocent and the only punishment that should be dealt, if any, should be against the person who lied about their age. I bring up that rape laws should also be redone. One example was that a youtuber I watch (He wouldn't lie about said things because his whole channel is about social issues and such, and hasn't lied about anything yet. MrRepzion is that guy). He was in a bad relationship and decided to end it. Now the girl was very upset, so upset that she decided to create a fake rape claim, and the only reason Repzion was found guilty, was that his ex mistakenly decided to tell him over text that she claimed a false one, so he had evidence that it was false. Another one was an old friend of mine (17) was dating a 15 year old from my school. He broke up with her, and then filed a false statutory rape case against him, with parental help. Which he plead guilty. ~~I also bring up abolishing statutory rape laws because I see no use for them. If the sex is consensual, then there shouldn't be any punishment, because both parties wanted it, and with how they are set up, I guarantee that the guy will almost always be the one being punished, with the girl off scotch free. And if the sex wasn't consensual, then it should be considered just rape, rendering the statutory rape law useless.~~ Realized this would never be okay. Please refer to only the other parts of the post

t3_1f5la9

The terms "introvert" and "extrovert" are meaningless and misguided. CMV.

I believe that definitions of introversion and extroversion are detached from reality, such as "introverts gain energy from being alone, and lose energy from being around people and socializing; and vice versa for extroverts". It's a [Barnum statement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect), written from the lens of a self-proclaimed introvert. In reality, even the most outgoing and sociable people I know need time for themselves. I've seen archetypically extroverted people classify themselves as introverts and ambiverts after having heard definitions like these. People who would rather spend every waking moment around other people are most certainly a miniscule minority. I believe that the concept of introversion of extroversion tries to reduce a wild amalgamation of quaquaversal traits to a single nonexistent entity. For example, I prefer casually spending time at the computer over casually hanging with friends. Not because I'm an introvert, or because I prefer the *aloneness*, but simply because my wide array of interests on the computer is more enjoyable than aimlessly spending time with my friends; someone else will do the opposite due to the same factor, and get branded an *extrovert*. And both of us will go out on Saturday and want to spend time alone on Sunday. I believe that the extraversion–introversion trait is a mere [prototype](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory), an [essentially contested concept](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept). Ergo, you don't qualify as an extrovert because you fulfill criteria *1*, *2* and *n*; you qualify *more* as an extrovert because you're *closer* to the average view of an extrovert. Subsequent attempts to put clear-cut definitions for the traits are just arbitrary explanations of prior gut feelings. Now of course, I understand that the concept is intended to be more of a convenient description than an infallible, innate spectrum, but as long as subordinate factors and traits can fall into both opposite sides of the spectrum, it's effectively useless, while the definitions themselves are poor representations of reality. CMV.

The terms "introvert" and "extrovert" are meaningless and misguided. CMV. I believe that definitions of introversion and extroversion are detached from reality, such as "introverts gain energy from being alone, and lose energy from being around people and socializing; and vice versa for extroverts". It's a [Barnum statement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect), written from the lens of a self-proclaimed introvert. In reality, even the most outgoing and sociable people I know need time for themselves. I've seen archetypically extroverted people classify themselves as introverts and ambiverts after having heard definitions like these. People who would rather spend every waking moment around other people are most certainly a miniscule minority. I believe that the concept of introversion of extroversion tries to reduce a wild amalgamation of quaquaversal traits to a single nonexistent entity. For example, I prefer casually spending time at the computer over casually hanging with friends. Not because I'm an introvert, or because I prefer the *aloneness*, but simply because my wide array of interests on the computer is more enjoyable than aimlessly spending time with my friends; someone else will do the opposite due to the same factor, and get branded an *extrovert*. And both of us will go out on Saturday and want to spend time alone on Sunday. I believe that the extraversion–introversion trait is a mere [prototype](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_theory), an [essentially contested concept](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentially_contested_concept). Ergo, you don't qualify as an extrovert because you fulfill criteria *1*, *2* and *n*; you qualify *more* as an extrovert because you're *closer* to the average view of an extrovert. Subsequent attempts to put clear-cut definitions for the traits are just arbitrary explanations of prior gut feelings. Now of course, I understand that the concept is intended to be more of a convenient description than an infallible, innate spectrum, but as long as subordinate factors and traits can fall into both opposite sides of the spectrum, it's effectively useless, while the definitions themselves are poor representations of reality. CMV.

t3_18ouan

I don't believe in any 'God' or life after death. CMV.

I was born and raised as a full blood Jewish child... I went through a Bar Mitzvah, I went to Sunday school every week, I went to the synagogue every week. Shortly after my Bar Mitzvah, I'd say within about 6 months. I really fell off and started questioning the belief system. Now I believe with certainty there is no 'God' from any religion I don't know how it was created in the first place. We are simply self aware sentient beings.

I don't believe in any 'God' or life after death. CMV. I was born and raised as a full blood Jewish child... I went through a Bar Mitzvah, I went to Sunday school every week, I went to the synagogue every week. Shortly after my Bar Mitzvah, I'd say within about 6 months. I really fell off and started questioning the belief system. Now I believe with certainty there is no 'God' from any religion I don't know how it was created in the first place. We are simply self aware sentient beings.

t3_2e8yse

CMV: To conservatives, abortion is not a women's issue.

When I hear arguments against pro-life ones, I notice that they often center around a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. I don't think it's entirely fair to argue that, because, to those who are pro-life, opposing abortion has nothing to do with women. It has to do with the fetus. To these people, a fetus is a person and has the right to life like anyone else. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that idea, but when one side of the abortion debate is arguing about women's rights and the other is arguing about the personhood of thefetus, I don't think the debate can be very productive. _____ > *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: To conservatives, abortion is not a women's issue. When I hear arguments against pro-life ones, I notice that they often center around a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. I don't think it's entirely fair to argue that, because, to those who are pro-life, opposing abortion has nothing to do with women. It has to do with the fetus. To these people, a fetus is a person and has the right to life like anyone else. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that idea, but when one side of the abortion debate is arguing about women's rights and the other is arguing about the personhood of thefetus, I don't think the debate can be very productive.

t3_4pvcw4

CMV: A failure to opt-out is not an opt-in.

To decline to opt-out is not the same as opting-in to something. If I say to you "I'm going to take the items in your home, and sell them all, unless you tell me not to", and you just give me the finger, or laugh, or do anything other than saying "I don't gave you permission", I don't suddenly have your permission, and if I take your items, it's as much theft as it would have been if I'd taken them without saying anything to you. Not opting out is not a form of opting in, and is not a form of permission. Change my view.

CMV: A failure to opt-out is not an opt-in. To decline to opt-out is not the same as opting-in to something. If I say to you "I'm going to take the items in your home, and sell them all, unless you tell me not to", and you just give me the finger, or laugh, or do anything other than saying "I don't gave you permission", I don't suddenly have your permission, and if I take your items, it's as much theft as it would have been if I'd taken them without saying anything to you. Not opting out is not a form of opting in, and is not a form of permission. Change my view.

t3_1mnnml

I do not believe that body wash is much different than shampoo. CMV

I don't think that substituting body wash for shampoo (or vice versa) will have negative effects on hygiene or hair quality. Other than scent compounds, I think they're basically the same thing--they remove dissolvable organic compounds from the skin/hair. To that note, I think bar soap is similar as well, though I'm less sure on that point. Sources: first, anecdotally, I've used bar soap, body wash, and shampoo on my hair. All (with a good conditioning after) left my hair feeling silky and smooth. Second, if you're removing organic compounds, then you're removing organic compounds. Is there really that much of a difference to the individual chemicals used? I can also see selenium sulfide shampoo as being something different altogether--I've used it as a rub for a fungal infection. Note that I'm not including conditioner or shampoo plus conditioner. Those clearly have a point--they reapply the slick oil coating to hair after the shampoo washes it off.

I do not believe that body wash is much different than shampoo. CMV. I don't think that substituting body wash for shampoo (or vice versa) will have negative effects on hygiene or hair quality. Other than scent compounds, I think they're basically the same thing--they remove dissolvable organic compounds from the skin/hair. To that note, I think bar soap is similar as well, though I'm less sure on that point. Sources: first, anecdotally, I've used bar soap, body wash, and shampoo on my hair. All (with a good conditioning after) left my hair feeling silky and smooth. Second, if you're removing organic compounds, then you're removing organic compounds. Is there really that much of a difference to the individual chemicals used? I can also see selenium sulfide shampoo as being something different altogether--I've used it as a rub for a fungal infection. Note that I'm not including conditioner or shampoo plus conditioner. Those clearly have a point--they reapply the slick oil coating to hair after the shampoo washes it off.

t3_1cxfep

I believe 10 gorillas would beat 100 humans in a cagefight. CMV

Assuming no weapons, food or water, and let's say a 100x100m caged off area in order to make a strategy of divide and conquer very difficult. The humans can be whoever you want, and the victors are the species with the last remaining member alive. I believe the gorillas sufficiently impregnable, and so easily capable of killing humans with just a swing of the fist, that there is no question of them winning.

I believe 10 gorillas would beat 100 humans in a cagefight. CMV. Assuming no weapons, food or water, and let's say a 100x100m caged off area in order to make a strategy of divide and conquer very difficult. The humans can be whoever you want, and the victors are the species with the last remaining member alive. I believe the gorillas sufficiently impregnable, and so easily capable of killing humans with just a swing of the fist, that there is no question of them winning.

t3_72gvjx

CMV:It is counterproductive to protest during a sporting event

CMV: protesting in sports is counterproductive 1. You disrespect millions of Americans/Fans, fans of which pay the salary of all the players. People who fought for your freedom to kneel you are spitting in their face and placing blame on them. 2. People watching sports don’t want to think about or be reminded of politics. Sports are Fans escape from Politics and the real world. Fans are feeling Alienated and punished for a problem they did not cause, support or believe in. 3. If you want to do something good go to the politician’s house’s the mayors houses, police stations make their lives uncomfortable, make them do what we voted for them to do. Can you only protest when you are getting paid? Is it too much trouble to do it on your own time?

CMV:It is counterproductive to protest during a sporting event. CMV: protesting in sports is counterproductive 1. You disrespect millions of Americans/Fans, fans of which pay the salary of all the players. People who fought for your freedom to kneel you are spitting in their face and placing blame on them. 2. People watching sports don’t want to think about or be reminded of politics. Sports are Fans escape from Politics and the real world. Fans are feeling Alienated and punished for a problem they did not cause, support or believe in. 3. If you want to do something good go to the politician’s house’s the mayors houses, police stations make their lives uncomfortable, make them do what we voted for them to do. Can you only protest when you are getting paid? Is it too much trouble to do it on your own time?

t3_26lcfp

CMV: Paying attention to people's intelligence is not necessarily any less shallow than paying attention to their looks.

Much like attractiveness, intelligence also lies on a spectrum. When "intelligence" is marketed as something to aspire for - I wonder if it is necessarily any different than "attractiveness" as a quality. If I choose to associate myself with people I judge more intelligent than me, am I not being "shallow" in a sense. This is most definitely a problem, and one need only look to very academic cultures like India and China to see what a premium intelligence has. When such is the case - is it necessarily fair to those who don't want to take the effort to appear more intelligent, or are simply content with being "pretty" or "handsome"? How is dismissing someone who "isn't intelligent" any better than dismissing someone who is "not attractive"? Clearly these are both things that matter to people, and they do have impacts on how people live their lives. I don't know what would be a good way of judging people, and perhaps it is all "shallow", or there really isn't a good way to judge people. One could argue that people can learn more, and get smarter - but one can also get more attractive my dressing better, having better social graces, exercising and styling. It "feels" like somehow intelligence is "better", but I can't justify why. Perhaps one can argue that intelligence makes the world "better", but so do more attractive people. And even if this were the case - should there be a negative weight attached to people not actively making the world better - irrespective of their intelligence? Thanks and 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: Paying attention to people's intelligence is not necessarily any less shallow than paying attention to their looks. Much like attractiveness, intelligence also lies on a spectrum. When "intelligence" is marketed as something to aspire for - I wonder if it is necessarily any different than "attractiveness" as a quality. If I choose to associate myself with people I judge more intelligent than me, am I not being "shallow" in a sense. This is most definitely a problem, and one need only look to very academic cultures like India and China to see what a premium intelligence has. When such is the case - is it necessarily fair to those who don't want to take the effort to appear more intelligent, or are simply content with being "pretty" or "handsome"? How is dismissing someone who "isn't intelligent" any better than dismissing someone who is "not attractive"? Clearly these are both things that matter to people, and they do have impacts on how people live their lives. I don't know what would be a good way of judging people, and perhaps it is all "shallow", or there really isn't a good way to judge people. One could argue that people can learn more, and get smarter - but one can also get more attractive my dressing better, having better social graces, exercising and styling. It "feels" like somehow intelligence is "better", but I can't justify why. Perhaps one can argue that intelligence makes the world "better", but so do more attractive people. And even if this were the case - should there be a negative weight attached to people not actively making the world better - irrespective of their intelligence? Thanks and CMV

t3_4tc6m5

CMV:While I'm not a vegan/vegetarian I think that is the correct thing to be. CMV

I'm sure this has been done hundreds of times but I would like to bring it up again. I feel like most people at some point in their life tries to be vegan/vegetarian. I was a few years ago and I just couldn't continue doing it due to health reasons. I get that we are smarter than other animals and according to some people that means we can control them, but we don't really do the same thing to the mentally retarded. I know that if everyone were to go vegan then there would be too many animals and they would suffer more due to over population, but realistically that won't happen. If it does happen it'll be slowly over long periods of time. Every couple of months this idea crosses my mind and I would like to have a large group of people discuss it with me, and allow me to view this for future reference. EDIT: As of right now, no one has managed to change my view, I will continue to reply to this tomorrow, but right now, I'm going to try and sleep.

CMV:While I'm not a vegan/vegetarian I think that is the correct thing to be. CMV. I'm sure this has been done hundreds of times but I would like to bring it up again. I feel like most people at some point in their life tries to be vegan/vegetarian. I was a few years ago and I just couldn't continue doing it due to health reasons. I get that we are smarter than other animals and according to some people that means we can control them, but we don't really do the same thing to the mentally retarded. I know that if everyone were to go vegan then there would be too many animals and they would suffer more due to over population, but realistically that won't happen. If it does happen it'll be slowly over long periods of time. Every couple of months this idea crosses my mind and I would like to have a large group of people discuss it with me, and allow me to view this for future reference. EDIT: As of right now, no one has managed to change my view, I will continue to reply to this tomorrow, but right now, I'm going to try and sleep.

t3_4bb1z1

CMV: Radiohead is completely overrated.

A lot of people whose music tastes overlap with mine quite a bit are huge fans of Radiohead, and I gotta say I really don't get it. I've been told that the best way to introduce myself to them is to listen to Ok Computer, which I have done, and I just.... don't get it. Now, this isn't to say that Radiohead is *bad*-- they sound perfectly fine to me, I just don't see why they are considered extremely good by so many people. I've talked to a few friends who are big Radiohead fans about this, and I gotta say the responses have been pretty underwhelming. In most cases, I've either been told that I don't appreciate good music, or else just that "Radiohead is just *soooo objectively good!*" Nobody has ever been able to tell me *what* they like about Radiohead/what I might be missing that I should be listening for-- so I guess that's a major part of my question: what is it about them that is so good? I get that artistic taste is really subjective and sometimes hard to put your finger on, but something a bit more specific than "they are good" would be great. At this point, my best theory is that Radiohead is often one of the first bands people around my age (I'm 20) got into when they started exploring their musical tastes that wasn't specifically targeted toward angsty teenagers, so people are just irrationally loyal to a fairly middle-of-the-road band. Then again, I could be wrong, so CMV! :) EDIT: Also, while responding with specific songs to listen to totally makes sense, if there are more than 3 or so songs in your comment please give me some specific quality I should be listening to in the songs-- just saying "listen to *this* song, you'll get it" probably won't CMV, as I've done that before.

CMV: Radiohead is completely overrated. A lot of people whose music tastes overlap with mine quite a bit are huge fans of Radiohead, and I gotta say I really don't get it. I've been told that the best way to introduce myself to them is to listen to Ok Computer, which I have done, and I just.... don't get it. Now, this isn't to say that Radiohead is *bad*-- they sound perfectly fine to me, I just don't see why they are considered extremely good by so many people. I've talked to a few friends who are big Radiohead fans about this, and I gotta say the responses have been pretty underwhelming. In most cases, I've either been told that I don't appreciate good music, or else just that "Radiohead is just *soooo objectively good!*" Nobody has ever been able to tell me *what* they like about Radiohead/what I might be missing that I should be listening for-- so I guess that's a major part of my question: what is it about them that is so good? I get that artistic taste is really subjective and sometimes hard to put your finger on, but something a bit more specific than "they are good" would be great. At this point, my best theory is that Radiohead is often one of the first bands people around my age (I'm 20) got into when they started exploring their musical tastes that wasn't specifically targeted toward angsty teenagers, so people are just irrationally loyal to a fairly middle-of-the-road band. Then again, I could be wrong, so CMV! :) EDIT: Also, while responding with specific songs to listen to totally makes sense, if there are more than 3 or so songs in your comment please give me some specific quality I should be listening to in the songs-- just saying "listen to *this* song, you'll get it" probably won't CMV, as I've done that before.

t3_26hua6

CMV: Being rich does not obligate you to donate all of your wealth to charity.

I see people all the time talking about scumbag celebrities who don't give away to charities. Pretty much every single celebrity donates a lot of their wealth to charities, etc. I don't think that having money obligates you to give it away. If you want to enjoy your wealth, that's your very rightful opinion. It's what I'd do if I were rich. If you build wealth you deserve to enjoy it. I'd like to see what arguments the people who support this idea have. Do you think that no one deserves to experience superwealth? Do you think that charity work is of more import than I do (I don't think it's all that important at all). _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Being rich does not obligate you to donate all of your wealth to charity. I see people all the time talking about scumbag celebrities who don't give away to charities. Pretty much every single celebrity donates a lot of their wealth to charities, etc. I don't think that having money obligates you to give it away. If you want to enjoy your wealth, that's your very rightful opinion. It's what I'd do if I were rich. If you build wealth you deserve to enjoy it. I'd like to see what arguments the people who support this idea have. Do you think that no one deserves to experience superwealth? Do you think that charity work is of more import than I do (I don't think it's all that important at all).

t3_235kp4

CMV: GMO food is very important to sustain the human population on the planet and banning these plants would cause world hunger.

There is a lot of controversy that has arisen about GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms). These are essentially plants like corn and cotton that have their DNA changed to be inherently pest and disease resistant but also increase yield of such crop. Modifying these foods increases the amount of people you can feed per square foot of farm space and is they most efficient way to feed our country today. Please change my view on this subject, before you try to tell me they are unhealthy and cause cancer, please back your statement up with authoritative sources because everything I have found online has been speculation. _____ > *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: GMO food is very important to sustain the human population on the planet and banning these plants would cause world hunger. There is a lot of controversy that has arisen about GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms). These are essentially plants like corn and cotton that have their DNA changed to be inherently pest and disease resistant but also increase yield of such crop. Modifying these foods increases the amount of people you can feed per square foot of farm space and is they most efficient way to feed our country today. Please change my view on this subject, before you try to tell me they are unhealthy and cause cancer, please back your statement up with authoritative sources because everything I have found online has been speculation.

t3_38fgjf

CMV:Americans and other Westerners should be allowed to go join ISIS

Why is it in the interest of the United States to keep young Muslims who are feeling like they want to kill people in America? Wouldn't it be better to get these people out of the country and let them go to a place we bombing everyday? One day someone for whom we have made it too hard to go and join the terrorist group, will simple decide he is going to commit a violent act here or other places in the west. Wouldn't it be nice if every western being radicalized right now suddenly left the country? ISIS is getting people to come in from other parts of the world and dozens of westerns have been killed I say make this process easier. _____ > *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:Americans and other Westerners should be allowed to go join ISIS. Why is it in the interest of the United States to keep young Muslims who are feeling like they want to kill people in America? Wouldn't it be better to get these people out of the country and let them go to a place we bombing everyday? One day someone for whom we have made it too hard to go and join the terrorist group, will simple decide he is going to commit a violent act here or other places in the west. Wouldn't it be nice if every western being radicalized right now suddenly left the country? ISIS is getting people to come in from other parts of the world and dozens of westerns have been killed I say make this process easier.

t3_357gjf

CMV:Private car ownership in cities should be discouraged; instead, car share programs should be more commonplace.

Cars are pretty much a necessity in a lot of modern life. They're how you get large numbers of people or goods from point A to point B. However, most people don't need a car most of the time. What cars also are is pretty dang sub optimal for most usage most of the time. They take up far more road space per person transported on average than bicycles or public transportation, and even the most efficient ones are pretty crappy in terms of person-miles per gallon and emissions. But, people still will have commutes that are too long for bicycling, and might not be served by public transportation. The intelligent solution seems to be car share programs like zipcar or city car share. In these programs, people pay a membership fee per month and can reserve a car. The program owning the car covers repairs and insurance. This would enable societies to maintain at least some of the benefits of private car ownership, while removing a lot of the problems, especially those of road-space usage. I am aware that there would still be peak vs off-peak car demand, but still believe that car sharing would be a net positive. There are, basically, two views contained here, and I welcome challenges to either of them: A) private car ownership in cities (the in cities bit is key here, rural areas have a much greater need for long-distance transportation) should be discouraged. B) car share programs should be seen as a replacement for private car ownership. _____ > *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:Private car ownership in cities should be discouraged; instead, car share programs should be more commonplace. Cars are pretty much a necessity in a lot of modern life. They're how you get large numbers of people or goods from point A to point B. However, most people don't need a car most of the time. What cars also are is pretty dang sub optimal for most usage most of the time. They take up far more road space per person transported on average than bicycles or public transportation, and even the most efficient ones are pretty crappy in terms of person-miles per gallon and emissions. But, people still will have commutes that are too long for bicycling, and might not be served by public transportation. The intelligent solution seems to be car share programs like zipcar or city car share. In these programs, people pay a membership fee per month and can reserve a car. The program owning the car covers repairs and insurance. This would enable societies to maintain at least some of the benefits of private car ownership, while removing a lot of the problems, especially those of road-space usage. I am aware that there would still be peak vs off-peak car demand, but still believe that car sharing would be a net positive. There are, basically, two views contained here, and I welcome challenges to either of them: A) private car ownership in cities (the in cities bit is key here, rural areas have a much greater need for long-distance transportation) should be discouraged. B) car share programs should be seen as a replacement for private car ownership.

t3_18e7ff

I believe the US Constitution should be amended to prevent corporate influence over elections. CMV

This [proposed amendment](https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment) has been [introduced](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/rick-nolan-citizens-united_n_2663128.html) in the House of Representatives. I support this because I believe corporations and SuperPACs are not people and shouldn't be afforded all the rights of people; and I believe that permitting corporations and anonymous donors to fund campaigns subverts our democratic system. CMV?

I believe the US Constitution should be amended to prevent corporate influence over elections. CMV. This [proposed amendment](https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment) has been [introduced](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/rick-nolan-citizens-united_n_2663128.html) in the House of Representatives. I support this because I believe corporations and SuperPACs are not people and shouldn't be afforded all the rights of people; and I believe that permitting corporations and anonymous donors to fund campaigns subverts our democratic system. CMV?

t3_27tp58

CMV: Claiming that isolate incidents of racism or sexism indicates a broader "American" problem is imperfectly analogous to someone saying that a problem in France illustrates a problem with the entire European Union.

Basically...I think a lot of people just need to calm down and relax. If we think of our more-than-300 million people in the United States, much more than the European Union, then why do we allow people to get away with claiming that Trayvon Martin, Donald Sterling, or whatever the "social-justice" activists come up with indicates a 'national problem.' Also, this whole racial or economic inequality thing is nothing but applesauce. If you sleep somewhere other than the street and have a smartphone you are more fortunate than billions of people across the world. America is doing just fine, but people just want to post things on their websites so they can get more advertising money. Think about it, how much of this web-talk would there be on sites like CNN, NYT, even National Review, if they weren't getting paid by clicks? _____ > *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: Claiming that isolate incidents of racism or sexism indicates a broader "American" problem is imperfectly analogous to someone saying that a problem in France illustrates a problem with the entire European Union. Basically...I think a lot of people just need to calm down and relax. If we think of our more-than-300 million people in the United States, much more than the European Union, then why do we allow people to get away with claiming that Trayvon Martin, Donald Sterling, or whatever the "social-justice" activists come up with indicates a 'national problem.' Also, this whole racial or economic inequality thing is nothing but applesauce. If you sleep somewhere other than the street and have a smartphone you are more fortunate than billions of people across the world. America is doing just fine, but people just want to post things on their websites so they can get more advertising money. Think about it, how much of this web-talk would there be on sites like CNN, NYT, even National Review, if they weren't getting paid by clicks?

t3_6x14sv

CMV: Severely mentally handicapped people are a waste to keep alive

Rather insensitive, I know. But keeping severely mentally retarded people alive is a waste of time and effort. 1. They will never contribute to the world. People are valued when they contribute something good to the world. People at that level of retardation cannot contribute to a society in any way. 2. They use valuable resources for nothing. Thousands of dollars of equipment and countless hours people spend for the sole purpose of keeping them alive. The only reason being we feel bad if they die. 3. They are a complete physical and emotional burden to anyone involved. Caring for them causes incredible stress for the family who brought them into the world. Parents often grow to resent their own kid because they're now locked with a very expensive and emotionally draining child until the day either the parent or the handicapped person dies. 4. There is no payoff. There is no good that comes out of it. Parents never watch them grow into normal adulthood, they never create meaningful relationships with other human beings, they live their life in solitude and die leaving nothing of value behind. I would like to have a different view on this subject. Edit: forgot to mention by "severely mentally retarded" I meant unresponsive and in a vegetable state.

CMV: Severely mentally handicapped people are a waste to keep alive. Rather insensitive, I know. But keeping severely mentally retarded people alive is a waste of time and effort. 1. They will never contribute to the world. People are valued when they contribute something good to the world. People at that level of retardation cannot contribute to a society in any way. 2. They use valuable resources for nothing. Thousands of dollars of equipment and countless hours people spend for the sole purpose of keeping them alive. The only reason being we feel bad if they die. 3. They are a complete physical and emotional burden to anyone involved. Caring for them causes incredible stress for the family who brought them into the world. Parents often grow to resent their own kid because they're now locked with a very expensive and emotionally draining child until the day either the parent or the handicapped person dies. 4. There is no payoff. There is no good that comes out of it. Parents never watch them grow into normal adulthood, they never create meaningful relationships with other human beings, they live their life in solitude and die leaving nothing of value behind. I would like to have a different view on this subject. Edit: forgot to mention by "severely mentally retarded" I meant unresponsive and in a vegetable state.

t3_1pzmty

We spend all our time focused blaming teen mothers, but never talk about the fathers. Aren't fathers equally, if not more, responsible? CMV

Our national dialogue when it comes to teen pregnancy and abortion is always focused on the mother. I have never in my life heard a real, substantive, worthwhile discussion on the use of condoms in our society. It seems to me it's much easier for a guy to put on a condom right before sex, than for a girl to take a pill every single day of the month, making sure she refills it on time so it doesn't disrupt her cycle. I realize both consenting adults are responsible for the results of their actions, but I don't see why females contraception is the focus of every news report surrounding teen pregnancy, but fathers get a free pass.

We spend all our time focused blaming teen mothers, but never talk about the fathers. Aren't fathers equally, if not more, responsible? CMV. Our national dialogue when it comes to teen pregnancy and abortion is always focused on the mother. I have never in my life heard a real, substantive, worthwhile discussion on the use of condoms in our society. It seems to me it's much easier for a guy to put on a condom right before sex, than for a girl to take a pill every single day of the month, making sure she refills it on time so it doesn't disrupt her cycle. I realize both consenting adults are responsible for the results of their actions, but I don't see why females contraception is the focus of every news report surrounding teen pregnancy, but fathers get a free pass.

t3_6n64uz

CMV: Porcelain Sitting Toilets are inferior to the Chinese "hole in the floor" method

I've recently moved to China and will be staying here for a few months. One thing I was reluctant to attempt was pooping in the hole in the floor of my bathroom (not sure if there's a name for it? I'll just call it squat toilet from now on) Keep in mind, the ones I mentioned are equipped with plumbing/flushing capabilities, they're not just a hole by themselves (which would be pretty gross) [pic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Typical_toilet_in_urban_Syria-_flush_toilet_squatting_pan_%283232388550%29.jpg/240px-Typical_toilet_in_urban_Syria-_flush_toilet_squatting_pan_%283232388550%29.jpg) But after trying it, I gotta say, I feel like the experience is much better, on the whole (no pun intended) My reasons are: 1. Humans were meant to be in the squatting position when they defecate. [We've all seen that diagram of the human's intestine being pinched when they sit on a toilet](http://www.naturesplatform.com/images/sitting%20vs%20squatting.gif), therefore they have to push even harder to get out the feces. But when humans sit in a squat position, there is never a pinch and it is smooth release. I feel like this could have implications in helping with constipation and preventing hemorrhoids/burst blood vessels. Your poops will also take way less time. 2. It is much easier/more convenient to clean the hole. You can just mop the porcelain parts when you're mopping the bathroom floor. 3. More sanitary. Your butt is never making physical contact with anything, so there's no transference of germs. 4. It forces you to be flexible enough to maintain a squat position for a few minutes, which is always a good thing. So with these points made, I think when I move back to the US, I will consider not having a porcelain sitting toilet and will instead opt to install a squat-hole toilet. Thoughts? CMV! _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Porcelain Sitting Toilets are inferior to the Chinese "hole in the floor" method. I've recently moved to China and will be staying here for a few months. One thing I was reluctant to attempt was pooping in the hole in the floor of my bathroom (not sure if there's a name for it? I'll just call it squat toilet from now on) Keep in mind, the ones I mentioned are equipped with plumbing/flushing capabilities, they're not just a hole by themselves (which would be pretty gross) [pic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Typical_toilet_in_urban_Syria-_flush_toilet_squatting_pan_%283232388550%29.jpg/240px-Typical_toilet_in_urban_Syria-_flush_toilet_squatting_pan_%283232388550%29.jpg) But after trying it, I gotta say, I feel like the experience is much better, on the whole (no pun intended) My reasons are: 1. Humans were meant to be in the squatting position when they defecate. [We've all seen that diagram of the human's intestine being pinched when they sit on a toilet](http://www.naturesplatform.com/images/sitting%20vs%20squatting.gif), therefore they have to push even harder to get out the feces. But when humans sit in a squat position, there is never a pinch and it is smooth release. I feel like this could have implications in helping with constipation and preventing hemorrhoids/burst blood vessels. Your poops will also take way less time. 2. It is much easier/more convenient to clean the hole. You can just mop the porcelain parts when you're mopping the bathroom floor. 3. More sanitary. Your butt is never making physical contact with anything, so there's no transference of germs. 4. It forces you to be flexible enough to maintain a squat position for a few minutes, which is always a good thing. So with these points made, I think when I move back to the US, I will consider not having a porcelain sitting toilet and will instead opt to install a squat-hole toilet. Thoughts? CMV!

t3_25s3gn

CMV: Ignoring the userbase (hivemind, powertripping mods, etc) Reddit is the best designed forum on the web.

I think reddit is the best designed forum on the entire internet. 1) You don't have to register to view the vast majority of the material. As long as a sub isn't private and you know the name, you can access it. 2) If you want to register, registering is easy and doesn't even require an email address. 3) Having replies pop up in your inbox is pretty convenient. I've never had a super popular 1000+ reply post so I'll concede that can be a pain in the ass. But you can turn that off if you want. 4) The branched system of replies makes it easy to have different conversations in the same thread. 5) The ability to hide all child comments of a post is great if you find the chain of comments are nothing you care about. I don't care for memes and jokes, but enough people do. As long as I can hide all posts going down that way I'm not going to complain about them. 6) Thousands of different subs makes it easy to contain information in one location. Instead of having a big 'Off Topic' forum, there's a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want. 7) I can subscribe and unsubscribe to whatever public subs I want. I tailor what I see to fit what I care about. If I want more subs I can find them and add them when I feel like it. 8) The new multi sub feature is awesome. Sometimes I just want to read about video games, sometimes I just want to read about China. I can do that with a single click after a little bit of set up. 9) Downvoting, and to a lesser extent upvoting works. Look at the lowest rated comments of most threads. Lots of the comments are just really crappy. I'm glad they're not near the top as I'm scroll through. All the crummy things about reddit come from the users. The bad subs, the bad jokes, stupid memes everyone whines about, downvoting because you don't agree with the politics etc. I've never seen a forum with as many features that I would actually use on a daily basis.

CMV: Ignoring the userbase (hivemind, powertripping mods, etc) Reddit is the best designed forum on the web. I think reddit is the best designed forum on the entire internet. 1) You don't have to register to view the vast majority of the material. As long as a sub isn't private and you know the name, you can access it. 2) If you want to register, registering is easy and doesn't even require an email address. 3) Having replies pop up in your inbox is pretty convenient. I've never had a super popular 1000+ reply post so I'll concede that can be a pain in the ass. But you can turn that off if you want. 4) The branched system of replies makes it easy to have different conversations in the same thread. 5) The ability to hide all child comments of a post is great if you find the chain of comments are nothing you care about. I don't care for memes and jokes, but enough people do. As long as I can hide all posts going down that way I'm not going to complain about them. 6) Thousands of different subs makes it easy to contain information in one location. Instead of having a big 'Off Topic' forum, there's a sub for technology, books, games, gopro, surfing, almost whatever you want. 7) I can subscribe and unsubscribe to whatever public subs I want. I tailor what I see to fit what I care about. If I want more subs I can find them and add them when I feel like it. 8) The new multi sub feature is awesome. Sometimes I just want to read about video games, sometimes I just want to read about China. I can do that with a single click after a little bit of set up. 9) Downvoting, and to a lesser extent upvoting works. Look at the lowest rated comments of most threads. Lots of the comments are just really crappy. I'm glad they're not near the top as I'm scroll through. All the crummy things about reddit come from the users. The bad subs, the bad jokes, stupid memes everyone whines about, downvoting because you don't agree with the politics etc. I've never seen a forum with as many features that I would actually use on a daily basis.

t3_1ecefa

As a (former?) Christian, I am beginning to believe that there is no "God". CMV

Raised from a Christian family, I used to believe that there was an almighty creator who had an ultimate plan for every being he ever created. However, I am now aware of multiple flaws in these beliefs. First, if God is such a kind and forgiving person, why are there billions of impoverished-from-birth adults who live every day in constant starvation and agony? I mean, some may argue that everybody can find happiness in some way or another, and in that sense, every life has a meaning, but I am sure that there are countless beings, perhaps enslaved or addicted to drugs, who have found and will never find any satisfaction or content in their miserable lives. I find myself extremely fortunate to be raised in a wealthy, loving family, and I go to a respectable school with many friends. I am content with my life, and typically i would be thankful to my God for "blessing" me, but what about everybody else in the world? Why does this apparently "all-caring" God seem to neglect a huge fraction of this world? And the fact that I am beginning to fear punishment by my "God" for my doubt of his existence only further propagates my point. Isn't forgiveness one of biggest motifs in the Christian faith? And if so, why should God punish those who doubt him, as it states in the Bible? There is a reason that there are doubtful Christians and Atheists, and that reason is simply because apparently God hasn't shown himself to those people. I have yet to have an answered prayer, or a witness a sign of His existence. Isn't that God's fault for not being there for me as he promised he would? So why should I be punished for doubting Him, when it was Him who neglected me in the first place? In my opinion, I have every right to doubt him, for it is his fault for not making his existence prevalent in my life. I recently found out about a message carved in a former Jewish concentration camp by a suffering inmate. It said "If there really is a god, he will have to beg my forgiveness." The point shown here is hugely significant. Why would this all-loving creator put such agony on someone, simply for being Jewish? Some may say that maybe God is punishing him for a past deed, but surely no one has done something that awful to deserve such a punishment. And besides, shouldn't God forgive him, as the Bible preaches to Christians? These are only a few of the points that have caused me to doubt my Christian faith, and my overall belief that there is a god in the first place. Reddit, either help me understand why my new beliefs are wrong, or bolster my viewpoint so I can continue my quest away from Christianity.

As a (former?) Christian, I am beginning to believe that there is no "God". CMV. Raised from a Christian family, I used to believe that there was an almighty creator who had an ultimate plan for every being he ever created. However, I am now aware of multiple flaws in these beliefs. First, if God is such a kind and forgiving person, why are there billions of impoverished-from-birth adults who live every day in constant starvation and agony? I mean, some may argue that everybody can find happiness in some way or another, and in that sense, every life has a meaning, but I am sure that there are countless beings, perhaps enslaved or addicted to drugs, who have found and will never find any satisfaction or content in their miserable lives. I find myself extremely fortunate to be raised in a wealthy, loving family, and I go to a respectable school with many friends. I am content with my life, and typically i would be thankful to my God for "blessing" me, but what about everybody else in the world? Why does this apparently "all-caring" God seem to neglect a huge fraction of this world? And the fact that I am beginning to fear punishment by my "God" for my doubt of his existence only further propagates my point. Isn't forgiveness one of biggest motifs in the Christian faith? And if so, why should God punish those who doubt him, as it states in the Bible? There is a reason that there are doubtful Christians and Atheists, and that reason is simply because apparently God hasn't shown himself to those people. I have yet to have an answered prayer, or a witness a sign of His existence. Isn't that God's fault for not being there for me as he promised he would? So why should I be punished for doubting Him, when it was Him who neglected me in the first place? In my opinion, I have every right to doubt him, for it is his fault for not making his existence prevalent in my life. I recently found out about a message carved in a former Jewish concentration camp by a suffering inmate. It said "If there really is a god, he will have to beg my forgiveness." The point shown here is hugely significant. Why would this all-loving creator put such agony on someone, simply for being Jewish? Some may say that maybe God is punishing him for a past deed, but surely no one has done something that awful to deserve such a punishment. And besides, shouldn't God forgive him, as the Bible preaches to Christians? These are only a few of the points that have caused me to doubt my Christian faith, and my overall belief that there is a god in the first place. Reddit, either help me understand why my new beliefs are wrong, or bolster my viewpoint so I can continue my quest away from Christianity.

t3_2k8dej

CMV: If we're going to let everyone have guns, gun safety should be a required course in grade schools

Just read about [another school shooting](http://www.salon.com/2014/10/24/report_shooting_at_high_school_north_of_seattle/) in the states and got to thinking. [The NRA](http://www.nra.org) is staunchly against gun control and are a powerful lobby. They want guns everywhere -- churches, bars, bordellos, shooting ranges, homes, workplaces (though, interestingly enough, [not Congress](http://americablog.com/2012/12/why-cant-we-bring-guns-on-planes-or-into-congress.html)). So, how about we seek a different solution? Mandatory gun classes in grade school. === EDIT === Apparently, the submission was killed by the moderators because my reasoning wasn't clear. I don't believe in guns, never owned them, never shot one, never bought one, never sold one, nor has anyone on my behalf. However, I do live in America, where gun ownership is rather common, compared to what I'd like it to be. Also, Americans in general love their guns. So, I don't think my (sincerely held) view will come to pass. The note was presented as a compromise and I'd like pushback on it.

CMV: If we're going to let everyone have guns, gun safety should be a required course in grade schools. Just read about [another school shooting](http://www.salon.com/2014/10/24/report_shooting_at_high_school_north_of_seattle/) in the states and got to thinking. [The NRA](http://www.nra.org) is staunchly against gun control and are a powerful lobby. They want guns everywhere -- churches, bars, bordellos, shooting ranges, homes, workplaces (though, interestingly enough, [not Congress](http://americablog.com/2012/12/why-cant-we-bring-guns-on-planes-or-into-congress.html)). So, how about we seek a different solution? Mandatory gun classes in grade school. === EDIT === Apparently, the submission was killed by the moderators because my reasoning wasn't clear. I don't believe in guns, never owned them, never shot one, never bought one, never sold one, nor has anyone on my behalf. However, I do live in America, where gun ownership is rather common, compared to what I'd like it to be. Also, Americans in general love their guns. So, I don't think my (sincerely held) view will come to pass. The note was presented as a compromise and I'd like pushback on it.

t3_382olr

CMV: Preventing sexually promiscuous adolescent children from engaging in sexual behaviour with other children (or adults, if they choose) is a violation of a child's rights to bodily integrity.

My view is based on the acceptance that a free expression of bodily integrity includes the ability to chose not only what is done to a persons body, but also, what to do with it. Before commenting, please understand this isn't an argument for allowing children to have sex with adults. It may simply be the case that society accepts that infringing upon a child's right to bodily integrity is a reasonable thing to do, since it is generally considered unacceptable for children to be engaging in sexual behaviour. Also, just to point out that when I talk about children engaging in sexual behaviour with adults, I am saying this knowing fully well that children cannot **legally** consent to sex. That isn't to say that children cannot consent, just that the consent isn't considered to be consent in law. A child can consent to anything with regards to their bodily integrity but there is quite rightly a standard in law which protects children against certain things. Furthermore, in a situation where a child instigates or freely consents to sexual activity instigated by another person it can be said that a child's bodily integrity is violated by any law which prevents them from engaging in that behaviour. In a situation where the behaviour in question is instigated by another person and the child does not freely consent then it would obviously be a violation of their bodily integrity TO engage in the behaviour in question, so by virtue of the nature of bodily integrity, this situation only applies when the child really is willing. Edit: added definition of bodily integrity _____ > *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: Preventing sexually promiscuous adolescent children from engaging in sexual behaviour with other children (or adults, if they choose) is a violation of a child's rights to bodily integrity. My view is based on the acceptance that a free expression of bodily integrity includes the ability to chose not only what is done to a persons body, but also, what to do with it. Before commenting, please understand this isn't an argument for allowing children to have sex with adults. It may simply be the case that society accepts that infringing upon a child's right to bodily integrity is a reasonable thing to do, since it is generally considered unacceptable for children to be engaging in sexual behaviour. Also, just to point out that when I talk about children engaging in sexual behaviour with adults, I am saying this knowing fully well that children cannot **legally** consent to sex. That isn't to say that children cannot consent, just that the consent isn't considered to be consent in law. A child can consent to anything with regards to their bodily integrity but there is quite rightly a standard in law which protects children against certain things. Furthermore, in a situation where a child instigates or freely consents to sexual activity instigated by another person it can be said that a child's bodily integrity is violated by any law which prevents them from engaging in that behaviour. In a situation where the behaviour in question is instigated by another person and the child does not freely consent then it would obviously be a violation of their bodily integrity TO engage in the behaviour in question, so by virtue of the nature of bodily integrity, this situation only applies when the child really is willing. Edit: added definition of bodily integrity

t3_6f9qfi

CMV: 2016 was not the worst year in some time

Over the internet the general consensus is that 2016 was one of the worst years in recent times, if not in human history, and that makes no sense to me. Much of the issues of 2016 have been issues for many other years. Terrorism, mass shootings, racism, police brutality, war in the middle east and disease outbreaks have all been major problems in the years before this and have not been significantly worse in this decade. There have been unique bad events in 2016 (Trump's election, Turkish Coup, you could say Brexit but it's not happening till 2019 if not later) but all years have had political turmoil/social unrest, and that is nothing new. Plus, celebrity deaths are relatively minor things which don't have impact on the overall quality of life like say, the economy or war. Same as if you didn't like the movies or music you saw, no year is a "bad year" for music or movies or whatever since taste is subjective and the sheer quanitity of movies and music being produced means you can't judge, and plus bad movies or music have no impact on the quality of society in the grand picture. Finally, statistically we're a lot better than before. World hunger, racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, crime, etc have all fallen while tech, healthcare, literacy, education, etc have all gotten better. I admit my opinion might be flawed since I am very young (15) and do not have a global perspective. _____ > *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: 2016 was not the worst year in some time. Over the internet the general consensus is that 2016 was one of the worst years in recent times, if not in human history, and that makes no sense to me. Much of the issues of 2016 have been issues for many other years. Terrorism, mass shootings, racism, police brutality, war in the middle east and disease outbreaks have all been major problems in the years before this and have not been significantly worse in this decade. There have been unique bad events in 2016 (Trump's election, Turkish Coup, you could say Brexit but it's not happening till 2019 if not later) but all years have had political turmoil/social unrest, and that is nothing new. Plus, celebrity deaths are relatively minor things which don't have impact on the overall quality of life like say, the economy or war. Same as if you didn't like the movies or music you saw, no year is a "bad year" for music or movies or whatever since taste is subjective and the sheer quanitity of movies and music being produced means you can't judge, and plus bad movies or music have no impact on the quality of society in the grand picture. Finally, statistically we're a lot better than before. World hunger, racism, sexism, homophobia, poverty, crime, etc have all fallen while tech, healthcare, literacy, education, etc have all gotten better. I admit my opinion might be flawed since I am very young (15) and do not have a global perspective.

t3_1mvh8z

I believe Iran is attempting to achieve nuclear weapons capability - CMV

I believe Iran is attempting to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Countries, probably the US and Israel, spent years developing viruses like Stuxnet to sabotage the Iranian nuclear facilities. Why bother with all that work and funding if their intelligence revealed Iran's nuclear research to be peaceful? Likely the US and Israel have intelligence that we aren't privy to that is causing concern. One possibility is that they are seriously concerned about Iran arming a proxy, affiliate, or third party like Hezbollah with nuclear weapons capabilities. The IAEA in the past has accused Iran of researching the development of nuclear weapons. Iran has a lot of enemies and nuclear weapons capability would give Iran large defensive and offensive military advantages.

I believe Iran is attempting to achieve nuclear weapons capability - CMV. I believe Iran is attempting to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Countries, probably the US and Israel, spent years developing viruses like Stuxnet to sabotage the Iranian nuclear facilities. Why bother with all that work and funding if their intelligence revealed Iran's nuclear research to be peaceful? Likely the US and Israel have intelligence that we aren't privy to that is causing concern. One possibility is that they are seriously concerned about Iran arming a proxy, affiliate, or third party like Hezbollah with nuclear weapons capabilities. The IAEA in the past has accused Iran of researching the development of nuclear weapons. Iran has a lot of enemies and nuclear weapons capability would give Iran large defensive and offensive military advantages.

t3_59nyj2

CMV: The electoral College should be abolished

I was having a discussion with a coworker who was a fan of the electoral college. His argument was that it gives the smaller states, such as Rhode Island, a voice in who becomes the next President. Why can we not switch to the popular vote? The reason of my frustration is because my home of record is Washington State (although I live in Italy so I have to vote absentee which is a whole other frustrating issue). In Washington State I can vote Republican or Democrat, but it doesn't matter because the state will always be blue. I know there have only been a handful of times when the President won without the popular vote, but why should only a handful of states (Ohio, Florida, etc..) pick the President? Any explanation would be amazing. **Edit:** After reading through and responding to comments on this post, my eyes have been opened to the EC voting system. When I started this thread I thought that the EC was an outdated system that needed to change to the popular vote, but this is not the case. I still firmly believe that a popular vote would be better overall, I can see the advantages of the EC voting system. Thanks to /u/Tapeleg91 /u/anonoman925 and /u/MuaddibMcFly for the great explanatory information.

CMV: The electoral College should be abolished. I was having a discussion with a coworker who was a fan of the electoral college. His argument was that it gives the smaller states, such as Rhode Island, a voice in who becomes the next President. Why can we not switch to the popular vote? The reason of my frustration is because my home of record is Washington State (although I live in Italy so I have to vote absentee which is a whole other frustrating issue). In Washington State I can vote Republican or Democrat, but it doesn't matter because the state will always be blue. I know there have only been a handful of times when the President won without the popular vote, but why should only a handful of states (Ohio, Florida, etc..) pick the President? Any explanation would be amazing. **Edit:** After reading through and responding to comments on this post, my eyes have been opened to the EC voting system. When I started this thread I thought that the EC was an outdated system that needed to change to the popular vote, but this is not the case. I still firmly believe that a popular vote would be better overall, I can see the advantages of the EC voting system. Thanks to /u/Tapeleg91 /u/anonoman925 and /u/MuaddibMcFly for the great explanatory information.

t3_1zo4ax

I'm pro-choice, but I think late stage abortions that aren't medically necessary are infanticide. CMV

I've got no problem with early stage abortions. Late stage abortions can be performed up to 20-24 weeks. That thing resembles a human. It has a beating heart and forming brain. It's no longer a cluster of cells (technically it is, but you see my point). "Her body, her choice" I agree. To the extent that there is no unique beating heart inside her. Obviously if medically necessary to save the mother's life, then late stage is ok. Edit for clarity: 8 weeks is my limit. Edit 2: you all make really good points. I'm reading them all, sorry if I don't reply. CMV

I'm pro-choice, but I think late stage abortions that aren't medically necessary are infanticide. CMV. I've got no problem with early stage abortions. Late stage abortions can be performed up to 20-24 weeks. That thing resembles a human. It has a beating heart and forming brain. It's no longer a cluster of cells (technically it is, but you see my point). "Her body, her choice" I agree. To the extent that there is no unique beating heart inside her. Obviously if medically necessary to save the mother's life, then late stage is ok. Edit for clarity: 8 weeks is my limit. Edit 2: you all make really good points. I'm reading them all, sorry if I don't reply. CMV

t3_1ti7qz

I believe that being "fashionably late" by more than an hour is rude CMV

I can definitely appreciate that the host may not be ready if you show up early, so it's better to be a bit late than early, but I think that if a host specifies that a party starts at a certain time, you should aim to at least show up within 15~30 minutes of that time, unless you have a good reason to be late (ex. work, prior commitment etc.) and inform the host of this. Often though nowadays, people will show up an hour or more late, without any reason other than to be "fashionable." I don't see any way in which this is not rude. It expresses that "I have better places to be" even when that is not true. This seems, to me, to be an expression of disrespect toward one's host CMV.

I believe that being "fashionably late" by more than an hour is rude CMV. I can definitely appreciate that the host may not be ready if you show up early, so it's better to be a bit late than early, but I think that if a host specifies that a party starts at a certain time, you should aim to at least show up within 15~30 minutes of that time, unless you have a good reason to be late (ex. work, prior commitment etc.) and inform the host of this. Often though nowadays, people will show up an hour or more late, without any reason other than to be "fashionable." I don't see any way in which this is not rude. It expresses that "I have better places to be" even when that is not true. This seems, to me, to be an expression of disrespect toward one's host CMV.

t3_6iv2ug

CMV: Daniel Holtzclaw is innocent, and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

I can't for a second believe this guy is guilty. I started by watching the "JusticeServed" video a while back. It felt good, at first. A few comments suggested he was innocent. I spent the rest of that day reading a lot of the information available. In my opinion, this guy is completely innocent. The first thing I did was watch his police interview. The full two hours here: https://youtu.be/TAS02xk_eXY First of all as a cop working for the law, if he was guilty he wouldn't sign away his right to silence. Even if this made him look more guilty, he'd immediately request a lawyer and try and damage control. Throughout the entire interview he's calm, keeps a straight face, he doesn't look particularly nervous. Even when they leave him alone for several minutes, he sits there comfortably and confidently. This initial victim made a complaint hours after. No forensic evidence found. The victim even stated that he forced her to put her hands on the hood of the car. CSI found no finger prints or any evidence of this. One of the main reasons I believe he is truly innocent is due to his story. It remains the same throughout. Nothing is changed and they ask him to repeat the story from start to finish. People who are guilty panic, they stutter and they try and tell the first believable story and alter it as the evidence proves them wrong. He gives permission for all searches, dna, allows them to phone his girlfriend. In fact at the end of the video he does call his girlfriend. Look how calm and jovial he is about it, but yet understands how serious these claims are. If he were guilty he'd know there's a high chance forensics are going to find some evidence and he'd be absolutely bricking it. He'd at least be showing some signs of nervousness. Another reason is there's no forensic evidence with any other victims, not a single witness no CCTV. They're all low class, drug users, ex-prositutes. A lot of these additional victims didn't come forward until the case hit the news. Even the police admitted this happens frequently, the police receive false claims during a trial hoping to cash in on compensation. The victim described him as 35-45, he's 27. 5ft 7 - 5ft 9, he's 6ft 2. She said he was a thick build and thick build. He's very muscular with clear skin. She described him as blond hair - it's dark! Also claimed he forced her to perform oral sex at a busy intersection, in view of CCTV! I truly believe he is not guilty and the sad realisation is a 27 year old is looking at spending the rest of his life in prison. I want him to be guilty, because if he's not, it's incredibly cruel.

CMV: Daniel Holtzclaw is innocent, and will spend the rest of his life in prison. I can't for a second believe this guy is guilty. I started by watching the "JusticeServed" video a while back. It felt good, at first. A few comments suggested he was innocent. I spent the rest of that day reading a lot of the information available. In my opinion, this guy is completely innocent. The first thing I did was watch his police interview. The full two hours here: https://youtu.be/TAS02xk_eXY First of all as a cop working for the law, if he was guilty he wouldn't sign away his right to silence. Even if this made him look more guilty, he'd immediately request a lawyer and try and damage control. Throughout the entire interview he's calm, keeps a straight face, he doesn't look particularly nervous. Even when they leave him alone for several minutes, he sits there comfortably and confidently. This initial victim made a complaint hours after. No forensic evidence found. The victim even stated that he forced her to put her hands on the hood of the car. CSI found no finger prints or any evidence of this. One of the main reasons I believe he is truly innocent is due to his story. It remains the same throughout. Nothing is changed and they ask him to repeat the story from start to finish. People who are guilty panic, they stutter and they try and tell the first believable story and alter it as the evidence proves them wrong. He gives permission for all searches, dna, allows them to phone his girlfriend. In fact at the end of the video he does call his girlfriend. Look how calm and jovial he is about it, but yet understands how serious these claims are. If he were guilty he'd know there's a high chance forensics are going to find some evidence and he'd be absolutely bricking it. He'd at least be showing some signs of nervousness. Another reason is there's no forensic evidence with any other victims, not a single witness no CCTV. They're all low class, drug users, ex-prositutes. A lot of these additional victims didn't come forward until the case hit the news. Even the police admitted this happens frequently, the police receive false claims during a trial hoping to cash in on compensation. The victim described him as 35-45, he's 27. 5ft 7 - 5ft 9, he's 6ft 2. She said he was a thick build and thick build. He's very muscular with clear skin. She described him as blond hair - it's dark! Also claimed he forced her to perform oral sex at a busy intersection, in view of CCTV! I truly believe he is not guilty and the sad realisation is a 27 year old is looking at spending the rest of his life in prison. I want him to be guilty, because if he's not, it's incredibly cruel.

t3_21rkq6

CMV: I believe that, to an extent, the 'R-word' should be allowed

Beforehand, let me say: **please read this description!**. Also: I don't believe the word retard should ever be used to insult someone who has an obvious disability. That being said, I would like to share my view on this situation. Okay, so I believe in today's society, people are starting to transform the word 'retard' into a curse word. So let's set up a few scenarios... >**friend:** "Is two plus two five?" **me:** "Umm, haha are you retarded?" **teacher:** "What?! How dare you say that! Detention! Now march yourself down to the dean of student's office!" ___________________________________________________ I see situations like this all the time. I feel like as the years progress, people are becoming more and more intolerable to the use of this word. Now let me share another situation in which the word retarded is used "correctly". >**teacher:** "That boy over there needs to learn his boundaries! He's out of control!" **me:** "Yeah I think he might be mentally retarded. I don't think it's his fault. He has a disability." **teacher:** "Mentally *retarded*?! Don't ever use that word again! Call him 'mentally challenged'. The word retarded should never be used!" ______________________________________________________ This is my point. I'm not allowed to call my friends retarded, and I'm not allowed to call mentally challenged people retarded. It's as if this word is being masked by today's society. In my opinion, we should be able to use this word (to an extent). Okay Reddit. Change my view.

CMV: I believe that, to an extent, the 'R-word' should be allowed. Beforehand, let me say: **please read this description!**. Also: I don't believe the word retard should ever be used to insult someone who has an obvious disability. That being said, I would like to share my view on this situation. Okay, so I believe in today's society, people are starting to transform the word 'retard' into a curse word. So let's set up a few scenarios... >**friend:** "Is two plus two five?" **me:** "Umm, haha are you retarded?" **teacher:** "What?! How dare you say that! Detention! Now march yourself down to the dean of student's office!" ___________________________________________________ I see situations like this all the time. I feel like as the years progress, people are becoming more and more intolerable to the use of this word. Now let me share another situation in which the word retarded is used "correctly". >**teacher:** "That boy over there needs to learn his boundaries! He's out of control!" **me:** "Yeah I think he might be mentally retarded. I don't think it's his fault. He has a disability." **teacher:** "Mentally *retarded*?! Don't ever use that word again! Call him 'mentally challenged'. The word retarded should never be used!" ______________________________________________________ This is my point. I'm not allowed to call my friends retarded, and I'm not allowed to call mentally challenged people retarded. It's as if this word is being masked by today's society. In my opinion, we should be able to use this word (to an extent). Okay Reddit. Change my view.

t3_21j797

CMV: There must be some conspiracy or governmental cover-up regarding this missing plane.

There is no way a plane can go missing in the year 2014 without any official having any clue what happened to it. The globe is surveilled every second. I read my license plate from a Google maps view of my house. The NSA has the power to read every piece of digital communication we send... and yet a plane full of people with phones went missing. That cannot be. I just don't understand how a plane can go missing. If they get any information at all from the black box, won't that lead them right to it? If the NSA can read my texts and track my phone, can't someone track the phones of the people on the plane? There is 1000 ways for my government to spy on me. When the boston bomber went missing the swat team used heat seeking technology to find him hiding in a boat in someone's back yard. And somehow a $50 million plane disappeared into thin air. With no crash evidence... no nothing. Something is up. Not sure what, but somebody is up to something. 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!*

CMV: There must be some conspiracy or governmental cover-up regarding this missing plane. There is no way a plane can go missing in the year 2014 without any official having any clue what happened to it. The globe is surveilled every second. I read my license plate from a Google maps view of my house. The NSA has the power to read every piece of digital communication we send... and yet a plane full of people with phones went missing. That cannot be. I just don't understand how a plane can go missing. If they get any information at all from the black box, won't that lead them right to it? If the NSA can read my texts and track my phone, can't someone track the phones of the people on the plane? There is 1000 ways for my government to spy on me. When the boston bomber went missing the swat team used heat seeking technology to find him hiding in a boat in someone's back yard. And somehow a $50 million plane disappeared into thin air. With no crash evidence... no nothing. Something is up. Not sure what, but somebody is up to something. CMV?

t3_6n1amv

The whole "Too Much Sodium in our Diet" thing is a myth

I will admit right up front that I have done nothing more than anecdotal research on this topic. News outlets are constantly telling their audience that there is too much sodium in our diet. People need to cut down on salt. But this is rarely, if ever, followed by any consequences for problem. I remember reading that people with high blood pressure can have that exacerbated by too much salt. However, the salt did not cause the condition. I do not believe that sodium levels for people without hypertension needs to be monitored. Without causality, isn't the hype on high sodium unwarranted or at lease over-inflated? Can anyone tell me a problem directly caused by higher than recommended sodium intake?

The whole "Too Much Sodium in our Diet" thing is a myth. I will admit right up front that I have done nothing more than anecdotal research on this topic. News outlets are constantly telling their audience that there is too much sodium in our diet. People need to cut down on salt. But this is rarely, if ever, followed by any consequences for problem. I remember reading that people with high blood pressure can have that exacerbated by too much salt. However, the salt did not cause the condition. I do not believe that sodium levels for people without hypertension needs to be monitored. Without causality, isn't the hype on high sodium unwarranted or at lease over-inflated? Can anyone tell me a problem directly caused by higher than recommended sodium intake?

t3_21mifz

CMV: the Sandy Hook shooting was a staged event.

The "official story" of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting seems so implausible to me that I've concluded that virtually none of its essential points are true. **The usual conspiracy discussion boards stink** and only talk about details that are unverifiable, are due to unreliable witnesses, or could be the results of shoddy computer records (e.g., a lot of homes of victims' families having weird prices/date in public property tax database or victim webpages having premature creation times). I consider these angles pretty much a distraction compared to the whole picture, which I have a hard time accepting at face value. Basic details that seem super sketchy to me: * Perpetrator is someone who's basically been seen by nobody for a few years and who has no real connection to the school (mother volunteered there ca. 1999, was not a teacher). * Shooter kills himself before being confronted by police, who entered the school 4-5 minutes thereafter. * 26 of 27 injured victims killed, which is an unheard of lethality ratio. * The only reported non-lethal injury was a foot/lower leg laceration potentially from a ricochet. * All but three victims declared "dead right there". * The three evacs didn't happen for more than half an hour, despite the firehouse ambulances being literally next door and two of the three ultimately dying. * None of the victims' families have sued the school, the local/state governments, or Lanza's very wealthy father (who was the one ultimately paying for all the guns, etc.) for the event or its subsequent handling. * Censorship by FBI classification/CT FOIA law change make it difficult to get any real info. Police, paramedics, doctors, medical examiners, and cleanup crew all apparently have gag orders. Even security cam footage of Lanza entering the building has been kept secret. I've been friends with enough medics and trauma E.R.s doctors/surgical nurses to doubt that every shot individual would be either so quickly, definitely dead or not rushed to the hospital much faster and visible to the media. People simply don't die so quickly (<10 min) *every* single time from gunshot wounds, even if they're kids, shot in the head, etc. Likewise, Americans simply don't *not* sue others when they've undergone any appreciable degree of loss or suffering. The major details seem so fishy to me that I don't see how at least some of it can't be a cover-up for government incompetence or worse. Frankly, it should be trivial to prove that this was a real shooting. Even if the coroner reports are never released, the victims' families should be known collectively by many thousands of other individuals. That said, I've never seen extended friends and family in the media or even talking on Reddit, just the same few people who've been on the news since day 1. Surely somebody can find long-established neighbors, etc., who knew some of those families for years and continue to do so? Prove to me that the Sandy Hook victims were real individuals and 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!*

CMV: the Sandy Hook shooting was a staged event. The "official story" of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting seems so implausible to me that I've concluded that virtually none of its essential points are true. **The usual conspiracy discussion boards stink** and only talk about details that are unverifiable, are due to unreliable witnesses, or could be the results of shoddy computer records (e.g., a lot of homes of victims' families having weird prices/date in public property tax database or victim webpages having premature creation times). I consider these angles pretty much a distraction compared to the whole picture, which I have a hard time accepting at face value. Basic details that seem super sketchy to me: * Perpetrator is someone who's basically been seen by nobody for a few years and who has no real connection to the school (mother volunteered there ca. 1999, was not a teacher). * Shooter kills himself before being confronted by police, who entered the school 4-5 minutes thereafter. * 26 of 27 injured victims killed, which is an unheard of lethality ratio. * The only reported non-lethal injury was a foot/lower leg laceration potentially from a ricochet. * All but three victims declared "dead right there". * The three evacs didn't happen for more than half an hour, despite the firehouse ambulances being literally next door and two of the three ultimately dying. * None of the victims' families have sued the school, the local/state governments, or Lanza's very wealthy father (who was the one ultimately paying for all the guns, etc.) for the event or its subsequent handling. * Censorship by FBI classification/CT FOIA law change make it difficult to get any real info. Police, paramedics, doctors, medical examiners, and cleanup crew all apparently have gag orders. Even security cam footage of Lanza entering the building has been kept secret. I've been friends with enough medics and trauma E.R.s doctors/surgical nurses to doubt that every shot individual would be either so quickly, definitely dead or not rushed to the hospital much faster and visible to the media. People simply don't die so quickly (<10 min) *every* single time from gunshot wounds, even if they're kids, shot in the head, etc. Likewise, Americans simply don't *not* sue others when they've undergone any appreciable degree of loss or suffering. The major details seem so fishy to me that I don't see how at least some of it can't be a cover-up for government incompetence or worse. Frankly, it should be trivial to prove that this was a real shooting. Even if the coroner reports are never released, the victims' families should be known collectively by many thousands of other individuals. That said, I've never seen extended friends and family in the media or even talking on Reddit, just the same few people who've been on the news since day 1. Surely somebody can find long-established neighbors, etc., who knew some of those families for years and continue to do so? Prove to me that the Sandy Hook victims were real individuals and CMV.

t3_4b92t9

CMV: You can rely on your senses for truth

I personally believe that your senses, can provide you with truth and are reliable to do so. For example, i am currently sitting on a computer typing this up. How do i know this? I can see it happening, i can hear my computer running and the clicking of the keyboard and if i wanted to i could lick the computer and taste it. My philosophy professor however, disagrees with this. He says the senses are never to be trusted, yet his only argument is that "Decartes said.." Just because a famous philosopher said something does not make it true. So again, change my view so i can relate to my prof. You can rely on your senses _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: You can rely on your senses for truth. I personally believe that your senses, can provide you with truth and are reliable to do so. For example, i am currently sitting on a computer typing this up. How do i know this? I can see it happening, i can hear my computer running and the clicking of the keyboard and if i wanted to i could lick the computer and taste it. My philosophy professor however, disagrees with this. He says the senses are never to be trusted, yet his only argument is that "Decartes said.." Just because a famous philosopher said something does not make it true. So again, change my view so i can relate to my prof. You can rely on your senses

t3_1yy5ue

I think that Wikipedia has a problem with whitewashing and gender inequality. CMV!

Even though it's a public "opensource" wiki that provides a wealth of information on people, events, etc: I've been finding that lots of POC (People of Color) or Women who I consider notable in their fields, that should have more consolidated information about them on Wikipedia don't have pages. Several times when I've tried to create stubs or update pages with for some of these individuals they've been speedydeleted or had their pages deleted for not being "notable". (ie authors of color, musicians of color, political activists and politicians of color). Not Notable by whom? Some wikipedia editor who's a white male.

I think that Wikipedia has a problem with whitewashing and gender inequality. CMV!. Even though it's a public "opensource" wiki that provides a wealth of information on people, events, etc: I've been finding that lots of POC (People of Color) or Women who I consider notable in their fields, that should have more consolidated information about them on Wikipedia don't have pages. Several times when I've tried to create stubs or update pages with for some of these individuals they've been speedydeleted or had their pages deleted for not being "notable". (ie authors of color, musicians of color, political activists and politicians of color). Not Notable by whom? Some wikipedia editor who's a white male.

t3_1m915d

Culture in America is Mono-Racialised. CMV

Culture in America is mono-racialised. Each "race" is assumed to have a shared culture and identified members of that racial group presumed to be a part of that culture. Ethnicity, the grouping of peoples by shared characteristics such as language and culture, is largely ignored. Asians are Asians, not Chinese and certainly not Han or Hmong. The disbelief over the term "white hispanic" during the Trayvon Martin shooting case is an example of how American society at large disregards ethnicity in favour of a one race, one culture narrative. People who do not fit the racial description their culture is assigned are left in a cultural limbo, looked down upon by "purer" members of that culture and erased from the societal narrative. In this way, the mono-racialisation of culture in America promotes a form of anti-racial mixing, by removing the overlap between different groups. CMV, please.

Culture in America is Mono-Racialised. CMV. Culture in America is mono-racialised. Each "race" is assumed to have a shared culture and identified members of that racial group presumed to be a part of that culture. Ethnicity, the grouping of peoples by shared characteristics such as language and culture, is largely ignored. Asians are Asians, not Chinese and certainly not Han or Hmong. The disbelief over the term "white hispanic" during the Trayvon Martin shooting case is an example of how American society at large disregards ethnicity in favour of a one race, one culture narrative. People who do not fit the racial description their culture is assigned are left in a cultural limbo, looked down upon by "purer" members of that culture and erased from the societal narrative. In this way, the mono-racialisation of culture in America promotes a form of anti-racial mixing, by removing the overlap between different groups. CMV, please.

t3_1mdvjz

I believe that, were it to be scientifically possible, everyone should be steralized at birth, and you would have to pass a maturity test to be allowed to be "unsteralized". -CMV

Making a baby is one of the easiest things to do in the world, but raising a child is one of the hardest. Too many unwanted children are born and abandonned, or raised by parents who don't give a shit or simply can't provide an adequete childhood. If science developed a method to steralize everyone in a completely reversible method, then I think that people should be steralized at birth and be required to prove they are capable before being allowed to have children. The test would not include any questions about religion. Anyone of any religion is equally able to raise a child. The test would involve a psychiatric evaluation, in which a panel would decide if someone was mature enough to raise a child, as well as lifestyle evaluation, to determine if someone could provide for a child. You wouldn't have to be rich by any means, but have enough money to ensure that the child won't go hungry. This would keep drug users from having children they don't give a shit about, keep prostitutes from getting pregnant, keep high school students from making mistakes and bringing yet another unwanted baby into the world. The test would be designed to make it easy to have children. The requirements would be set only high enough to make sure that only people who wanted children, had the means to provide only the most basic needs to them, and had the maturity to put their children first, would be able to have offspring.

I believe that, were it to be scientifically possible, everyone should be steralized at birth, and you would have to pass a maturity test to be allowed to be "unsteralized". -CMV. Making a baby is one of the easiest things to do in the world, but raising a child is one of the hardest. Too many unwanted children are born and abandonned, or raised by parents who don't give a shit or simply can't provide an adequete childhood. If science developed a method to steralize everyone in a completely reversible method, then I think that people should be steralized at birth and be required to prove they are capable before being allowed to have children. The test would not include any questions about religion. Anyone of any religion is equally able to raise a child. The test would involve a psychiatric evaluation, in which a panel would decide if someone was mature enough to raise a child, as well as lifestyle evaluation, to determine if someone could provide for a child. You wouldn't have to be rich by any means, but have enough money to ensure that the child won't go hungry. This would keep drug users from having children they don't give a shit about, keep prostitutes from getting pregnant, keep high school students from making mistakes and bringing yet another unwanted baby into the world. The test would be designed to make it easy to have children. The requirements would be set only high enough to make sure that only people who wanted children, had the means to provide only the most basic needs to them, and had the maturity to put their children first, would be able to have offspring.

t3_2c31a7

CMV: I honestly believe that ALL illegal drugs should stay illegal, including weed.

Before i begin, i'd like to state that i'm not some old man brainwashed by the media. I'm a 17 year old boy who has seen what "harmless" drugs like weed can do to people. I've grown up in an area of the UK where drugs are a very big problem even for people of a young age, even as young as 11. It's a horrible thing to see people you've grown up with since you were kids, steer off in the wrong direction the moment they befriend the wrong people in comprehensive (high school) and start taking drugs. Some of these people have had good futures ahead of them, did well in school, had lots of friends but as soon as they tried weed for the first time they formed a mental addiction and would smoke it every single day. Eventually, they realized they couldn't get the high they originally were getting and moved onto harder drugs to stimulate themselves and would eventually drop out of school and start stealing to fund their habit. This also isn't a one off case, this is 80% of the people i know who just started doing small time drugs like weed who swore to me that they would never touch anything else. The police don't seem to do much about it and its such a common thing here that the teachers don't even report it when its done in school. To legalize or even decriminalize weed would just convince all the other people who were on the edge of doing it in the first place because of the law an extra push. I can't stress enough how well the stereotype of a future criminal drug addict fits to anyone who smokes weed around this area. All over Reddit is people who argue to legalize weed and some even harder drugs, any other opinion is down-voted because it doesn't agree with the majority of people who try to justify what they do as right. Or at least that's what i think. Millions of people can't be wrong about why a substance does more good than bad and I like to keep an open mind so go ahead, change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I honestly believe that ALL illegal drugs should stay illegal, including weed. Before i begin, i'd like to state that i'm not some old man brainwashed by the media. I'm a 17 year old boy who has seen what "harmless" drugs like weed can do to people. I've grown up in an area of the UK where drugs are a very big problem even for people of a young age, even as young as 11. It's a horrible thing to see people you've grown up with since you were kids, steer off in the wrong direction the moment they befriend the wrong people in comprehensive (high school) and start taking drugs. Some of these people have had good futures ahead of them, did well in school, had lots of friends but as soon as they tried weed for the first time they formed a mental addiction and would smoke it every single day. Eventually, they realized they couldn't get the high they originally were getting and moved onto harder drugs to stimulate themselves and would eventually drop out of school and start stealing to fund their habit. This also isn't a one off case, this is 80% of the people i know who just started doing small time drugs like weed who swore to me that they would never touch anything else. The police don't seem to do much about it and its such a common thing here that the teachers don't even report it when its done in school. To legalize or even decriminalize weed would just convince all the other people who were on the edge of doing it in the first place because of the law an extra push. I can't stress enough how well the stereotype of a future criminal drug addict fits to anyone who smokes weed around this area. All over Reddit is people who argue to legalize weed and some even harder drugs, any other opinion is down-voted because it doesn't agree with the majority of people who try to justify what they do as right. Or at least that's what i think. Millions of people can't be wrong about why a substance does more good than bad and I like to keep an open mind so go ahead, change my view.

t3_247lyv

CMV: There is no clear-cut solution to the problems American schools are facing.

We all say we know "THE SOLUTION" , but in fact we're all truly clueless. U.S. schools are full of problems and there's lots of problems affecting the American youth but I'll be the first to say that there is no one clear cut solution. Lots of people say they want more funding / less funding / funding spent differently / privitization / less standardized tests / more standardized tests, etc. I think the problem is simply the fact that **(a) people are deeply flawed, (b) life is tough; it gets in the way of doing everything we want to and (c) money doesn't grow on trees** Parents need to still values into their kids, but many have to work long hours or have deep issues and therefore ignore their kid. Teachers often don't motivate and inspire students enough, but it's really hard to do so when bad parents are involved. Government officials, bureaucrats and politicians are blamed for the problems. They are often short-sighted, corrupt and negligent. Yet we as people elect them. We want more money to be pumped into schools and get really angry when budget cuts are made, but as soon as a tax is levied, we complain that the taxes are too high. I think overall slow changes like economic growth, technology, reducing crime rates and all of that will help, but it will take time and it's not any sort of bill you can legislate. It's a complex system of interwebbing problems that no one initiative can fix. I have no idea how to fix it. But at least I am honest about 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 clear-cut solution to the problems American schools are facing. We all say we know "THE SOLUTION" , but in fact we're all truly clueless. U.S. schools are full of problems and there's lots of problems affecting the American youth but I'll be the first to say that there is no one clear cut solution. Lots of people say they want more funding / less funding / funding spent differently / privitization / less standardized tests / more standardized tests, etc. I think the problem is simply the fact that **(a) people are deeply flawed, (b) life is tough; it gets in the way of doing everything we want to and (c) money doesn't grow on trees** Parents need to still values into their kids, but many have to work long hours or have deep issues and therefore ignore their kid. Teachers often don't motivate and inspire students enough, but it's really hard to do so when bad parents are involved. Government officials, bureaucrats and politicians are blamed for the problems. They are often short-sighted, corrupt and negligent. Yet we as people elect them. We want more money to be pumped into schools and get really angry when budget cuts are made, but as soon as a tax is levied, we complain that the taxes are too high. I think overall slow changes like economic growth, technology, reducing crime rates and all of that will help, but it will take time and it's not any sort of bill you can legislate. It's a complex system of interwebbing problems that no one initiative can fix. I have no idea how to fix it. But at least I am honest about it.

t3_6ppeq4

CMV: Banks should be prohibited from lending money.

Banks should be prohibited from lending money. First and foremost, they're not lending their own money. We deposit money in an account and they lend that out to other people for their own benefit with basically no real benefit for us. Checking and savings accounts build a completely negligible amount of interest that is far offset from the amount of inflation banks create by taking our money, lending it out, and forcing us to pay higher prices for things. Prices, especially home prices, would come to a stand still if banks were prohibited from lending money. CMV **EDIT** It's clear that I did a poor job in making my argument. I'm a homeowner and understand what the average house goes for. I also own a car and know what they go for. I have a job and know what people make on average. But all of these costs are affected by banks forcing us to bid against one another for these things. And it's not JUST those specific items either. The building materials, etc. for all of those things are all inflated by banks lending money. The average American NEEDS to make $50,000/year because the average American home goes for $250,000. I'm aware of this. But the only reason the average American home goes for $250,000 is because banks inflate the price by flooding the market with money that has to be paid back. The cost of EVERYTHING would be cheaper without banks lending money. I get that the average house costs $250,000 TODAY but if banks didn't exist than the average house WOULDN'T cost $250,000. The average car WOULDN'T cost whatever the average car costs. Food prices WOULDN'T cost whatever the average cost is. And so on. All of these things would go down to more affordable levels and EVERYONE, particularly poor people, would benefit. Everyone keeps posting what their houses cost and that's fine but that wouldn't be the cost without the bank. ALSO instead of telling me what your home cost to buy, why don't some of you take a look at your mortgage and figure out what you're going to **PAY**. When you finish paying your mortgage you're going to pay very good deal more than your house actually cost and all of that is because the bank lent YOUR OWN MONEY TO YOU. And that's how it works for everything. _____ > *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: Banks should be prohibited from lending money. Banks should be prohibited from lending money. First and foremost, they're not lending their own money. We deposit money in an account and they lend that out to other people for their own benefit with basically no real benefit for us. Checking and savings accounts build a completely negligible amount of interest that is far offset from the amount of inflation banks create by taking our money, lending it out, and forcing us to pay higher prices for things. Prices, especially home prices, would come to a stand still if banks were prohibited from lending money. CMV **EDIT** It's clear that I did a poor job in making my argument. I'm a homeowner and understand what the average house goes for. I also own a car and know what they go for. I have a job and know what people make on average. But all of these costs are affected by banks forcing us to bid against one another for these things. And it's not JUST those specific items either. The building materials, etc. for all of those things are all inflated by banks lending money. The average American NEEDS to make $50,000/year because the average American home goes for $250,000. I'm aware of this. But the only reason the average American home goes for $250,000 is because banks inflate the price by flooding the market with money that has to be paid back. The cost of EVERYTHING would be cheaper without banks lending money. I get that the average house costs $250,000 TODAY but if banks didn't exist than the average house WOULDN'T cost $250,000. The average car WOULDN'T cost whatever the average car costs. Food prices WOULDN'T cost whatever the average cost is. And so on. All of these things would go down to more affordable levels and EVERYONE, particularly poor people, would benefit. Everyone keeps posting what their houses cost and that's fine but that wouldn't be the cost without the bank. ALSO instead of telling me what your home cost to buy, why don't some of you take a look at your mortgage and figure out what you're going to **PAY**. When you finish paying your mortgage you're going to pay very good deal more than your house actually cost and all of that is because the bank lent YOUR OWN MONEY TO YOU. And that's how it works for everything.

t3_4t5rgz

CMV: Public advertisements should be banned

Beyond the obvious fact that advertisements are a distraction, especially when driving; beyond the sexualized nature of 70% of ads, which our children witness; beyond the fact that advertisements are horrible wastes of public space, creating uglier and uglier sceneries to witness; what really aggravates me about public advertisements is their breach of human freewill! The human mind absorbs everything in its environment, consciously and unconsciously. Everything we witness affects our future thoughts and emotions. Advertisements are explicitly designed to create emotional reactions in people, to get them to think positively about their product. A process known as emotional marketing. Consider apple, or coca-cola who uses props like Polar Bears in beautiful scenes to get people to emotionally connect with their products. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought freedom was a part of the constitution, and that our forefathers even warned us about banks and corporations taking over. I get that advertisements are the life-blood of capitalism, but human beings are not capitalist citizens, we are spiritual animals. We are being manipulated like cattle on the subtlest of ways to buy products we 1. Dont need 2. Are overpriced, and 3. Are not beneficial to our expansion as a collective. Many people do not see things as extreme as I do when it comes to advertisements and their breach of our freewill, but if we examine closely what freedom entails (I.e. the ability to think, feel and act without outside influence), advertisements restrict our freedom. They affect our thoughts, our emotions and our actions. Of course not every ad has the same impact on us, but when you are literally bombarded with over 100 a day, some do impact us. If ads were not effective, they would not be used. CMV: Advertisements breach our freewill, and should be banned from public spaces EDIT: It blows my mind how many of you defend the capitalist system we have in place and the advertisements used to perpetuate profits. You all deserve Hilary Clinton. Enjoy your days.

CMV: Public advertisements should be banned. Beyond the obvious fact that advertisements are a distraction, especially when driving; beyond the sexualized nature of 70% of ads, which our children witness; beyond the fact that advertisements are horrible wastes of public space, creating uglier and uglier sceneries to witness; what really aggravates me about public advertisements is their breach of human freewill! The human mind absorbs everything in its environment, consciously and unconsciously. Everything we witness affects our future thoughts and emotions. Advertisements are explicitly designed to create emotional reactions in people, to get them to think positively about their product. A process known as emotional marketing. Consider apple, or coca-cola who uses props like Polar Bears in beautiful scenes to get people to emotionally connect with their products. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought freedom was a part of the constitution, and that our forefathers even warned us about banks and corporations taking over. I get that advertisements are the life-blood of capitalism, but human beings are not capitalist citizens, we are spiritual animals. We are being manipulated like cattle on the subtlest of ways to buy products we 1. Dont need 2. Are overpriced, and 3. Are not beneficial to our expansion as a collective. Many people do not see things as extreme as I do when it comes to advertisements and their breach of our freewill, but if we examine closely what freedom entails (I.e. the ability to think, feel and act without outside influence), advertisements restrict our freedom. They affect our thoughts, our emotions and our actions. Of course not every ad has the same impact on us, but when you are literally bombarded with over 100 a day, some do impact us. If ads were not effective, they would not be used. CMV: Advertisements breach our freewill, and should be banned from public spaces EDIT: It blows my mind how many of you defend the capitalist system we have in place and the advertisements used to perpetuate profits. You all deserve Hilary Clinton. Enjoy your days.

t3_1zj73e

I don't believe being a new mom is as hard as people make it out to be. CMV.

A woman in my office went on mat leave a few months ago. During that time, she started a "mom blog," as well as a Pinterest, Instagram and various other social media accounts to go with it. On the blog she details all the craft project she makes for the new baby, as well as what she and the baby are wearing each day, with styled photos of the clothes. In one of her posts, she writes about how the baby sleeps most of the time, and how she was bored and needed a hobby, which is why she took up blogging. Not to mention she has time to make all these fabulous craft projects. I love to craft, but can never seem to find the time between working and volunteer work on the weekends. She also comes in to the office a few days a week now even though her mat leave isn't over, I guess because she has the time and needs something to do. So I guess my point is: Don't give me this shit about how motherhood is "the hardest job in the world." Maybe it's harder when the kids get older, but mat leave sounds like a paid vacation to me. Okay, c my v.

I don't believe being a new mom is as hard as people make it out to be. CMV. A woman in my office went on mat leave a few months ago. During that time, she started a "mom blog," as well as a Pinterest, Instagram and various other social media accounts to go with it. On the blog she details all the craft project she makes for the new baby, as well as what she and the baby are wearing each day, with styled photos of the clothes. In one of her posts, she writes about how the baby sleeps most of the time, and how she was bored and needed a hobby, which is why she took up blogging. Not to mention she has time to make all these fabulous craft projects. I love to craft, but can never seem to find the time between working and volunteer work on the weekends. She also comes in to the office a few days a week now even though her mat leave isn't over, I guess because she has the time and needs something to do. So I guess my point is: Don't give me this shit about how motherhood is "the hardest job in the world." Maybe it's harder when the kids get older, but mat leave sounds like a paid vacation to me. Okay, c my v.

t3_441tgk

CMV: Laws with religious justification are functionally equivalent to forcing others to follow your religion

I have noted that society (as a general rule; this may not apply to you specifically) often accepts religious justifications for proposed laws, which strikes me as completely anathema to the separation of church and state. To explain what I mean, consider the example of abortion: many people explicitly cite religious language to justify an anti-abortion stance (e.g. stating that the soul is created at inception, or simply citing their biblical values to explain their stance). I find this galling, because it seems tantamount, to me, to state endorsed religion. As an example that is less immediate to our culture, imagine if you lived in a society that said "Oh, you don't have to be a Muslim! Of course not, we're not a theocracy. However, you do have to bow to Mecca 5 times a day, you cannot eat pork, your wife must wear a hijab, and so forth." I think my point can really be distilled in to this question: what is the functional difference between forcing someone to follow a religion and forcing someone to engage in the beliefs and customs of a particular religion? On a legislative level, why do we not immediately reject any position for which the argumentative foundation is a religious belief? Edit: Thanks for all replies! Will try to comment now. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Laws with religious justification are functionally equivalent to forcing others to follow your religion. I have noted that society (as a general rule; this may not apply to you specifically) often accepts religious justifications for proposed laws, which strikes me as completely anathema to the separation of church and state. To explain what I mean, consider the example of abortion: many people explicitly cite religious language to justify an anti-abortion stance (e.g. stating that the soul is created at inception, or simply citing their biblical values to explain their stance). I find this galling, because it seems tantamount, to me, to state endorsed religion. As an example that is less immediate to our culture, imagine if you lived in a society that said "Oh, you don't have to be a Muslim! Of course not, we're not a theocracy. However, you do have to bow to Mecca 5 times a day, you cannot eat pork, your wife must wear a hijab, and so forth." I think my point can really be distilled in to this question: what is the functional difference between forcing someone to follow a religion and forcing someone to engage in the beliefs and customs of a particular religion? On a legislative level, why do we not immediately reject any position for which the argumentative foundation is a religious belief? Edit: Thanks for all replies! Will try to comment now.

t3_2ayuey

CMV: We have libertarian free will.

Libertarian free will is the ability to choose the causes of our actions. For example, if a dieter is deliberating about whether to eat ice cream or a salad, they can choose for their actions to be caused by their desire to eat something tasty (and eat the ice cream) or by their desire to lose weight (and eat the salad). There is no evidence that anything determines the choice that the dieter makes except his or her own free will. We choose between alternatives by a process of deliberation, and the components of the process of deliberation that are under our control include how much focus we bring to our deliberation and what we focus on. For example, if it occurs to me that I need to study for a test next week, I can choose to focus on that fact and work out what I need to study and when in detail, or I can choose not to think about it and let myself drift. In addition to focus and drift, there is a third possibility called evasion, which involves directing active effort into not thinking about a given topic (as opposed to drift, where one merely does not direct effort toward thinking about the topic). I take it to be fairly obvious from introspection that we have free will, so described. I am not arguing in a circle, as I would be if I appealed to intuition or the fact that we just *have to* have free will to be morally responsible for our actions; I am pointing to something that you can observe yourself any time you want, in as much detail as you want. The most common argument against the existence of free will is that free will is incompatible with the scientific picture of the world. Science allegedly reveals a world that operates strictly according to the laws of physics and chemistry, which are deterministic. Therefore, free will must be an illusion which will ultimately reduce to deterministic processes. But if you look at the foundations of science, at what makes its experiments valid, you will see that it depends on the validity of direct observation, i.e., on the assumption that what we observe is not an illusion. Scientific principles do not come out of nowhere by divine revelation, they are simply the result of a number of observations, and none of its results can be more valid than observation is in the first place. We observe that we have the ability to choose between focus and drift, so that has to be integrated into any rational picture of the world. I do not claim to know how free will works with respect to physics and chemistry, but we have to be able to trust our senses at this basic level in order to arrive at any of the highly advanced scientific conclusions that the determinist claims undermine free will. In order to change my view about this, you will have to either provide a good reason to think that the observations of myself and others that support my belief in libertarian free will do not really support that belief or provide a compelling independent argument for determinism. Edit: Please note that the position called libertarianism in metaphysics has nothing to do with the position called libertarianism in political philosophy, although they share the same name. I am simply following the established usage in philosophy. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: We have libertarian free will. Libertarian free will is the ability to choose the causes of our actions. For example, if a dieter is deliberating about whether to eat ice cream or a salad, they can choose for their actions to be caused by their desire to eat something tasty (and eat the ice cream) or by their desire to lose weight (and eat the salad). There is no evidence that anything determines the choice that the dieter makes except his or her own free will. We choose between alternatives by a process of deliberation, and the components of the process of deliberation that are under our control include how much focus we bring to our deliberation and what we focus on. For example, if it occurs to me that I need to study for a test next week, I can choose to focus on that fact and work out what I need to study and when in detail, or I can choose not to think about it and let myself drift. In addition to focus and drift, there is a third possibility called evasion, which involves directing active effort into not thinking about a given topic (as opposed to drift, where one merely does not direct effort toward thinking about the topic). I take it to be fairly obvious from introspection that we have free will, so described. I am not arguing in a circle, as I would be if I appealed to intuition or the fact that we just *have to* have free will to be morally responsible for our actions; I am pointing to something that you can observe yourself any time you want, in as much detail as you want. The most common argument against the existence of free will is that free will is incompatible with the scientific picture of the world. Science allegedly reveals a world that operates strictly according to the laws of physics and chemistry, which are deterministic. Therefore, free will must be an illusion which will ultimately reduce to deterministic processes. But if you look at the foundations of science, at what makes its experiments valid, you will see that it depends on the validity of direct observation, i.e., on the assumption that what we observe is not an illusion. Scientific principles do not come out of nowhere by divine revelation, they are simply the result of a number of observations, and none of its results can be more valid than observation is in the first place. We observe that we have the ability to choose between focus and drift, so that has to be integrated into any rational picture of the world. I do not claim to know how free will works with respect to physics and chemistry, but we have to be able to trust our senses at this basic level in order to arrive at any of the highly advanced scientific conclusions that the determinist claims undermine free will. In order to change my view about this, you will have to either provide a good reason to think that the observations of myself and others that support my belief in libertarian free will do not really support that belief or provide a compelling independent argument for determinism. Edit: Please note that the position called libertarianism in metaphysics has nothing to do with the position called libertarianism in political philosophy, although they share the same name. I am simply following the established usage in philosophy.

t3_2x5d9x

CMV: If the government can mandate health care for everyone, it has a responsibility to protect the secure information of the entities it endorses.

I'm citing this particular incident: http://www.wmur.com/news/anthem-more-than-600k-in-nh-affected-by-hack/31450416 Anthem Blue Cross is approved under Obamacare. I have no doubt that this attack is a direct result of the lack of foresight on passing the legislature. This particular indecent shows that Obamacare has provided a tool to organized crime in the form of Identity theft opportunities. Every major part of the industry that has backing from Obamacare is at higher risk to attack than before, because now there's likely to be a much larger incentive to cyber attack medical institutions. The long and short of my reasoning is that because everyone must now have health insurance, the coverage that provides the path of least resistance now has a massive boost in personal documentation. Essentially the government is funneling private information through healthcare services that likely don't have the best security credentials on the market. If people are required to submit their personal information as a consequence of being required to have health care, then the government should also have to ensure that, that information is as protected as any government institution is from hacking attempts, since the general public does not have a say in the matter. 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: If the government can mandate health care for everyone, it has a responsibility to protect the secure information of the entities it endorses. I'm citing this particular incident: http://www.wmur.com/news/anthem-more-than-600k-in-nh-affected-by-hack/31450416 Anthem Blue Cross is approved under Obamacare. I have no doubt that this attack is a direct result of the lack of foresight on passing the legislature. This particular indecent shows that Obamacare has provided a tool to organized crime in the form of Identity theft opportunities. Every major part of the industry that has backing from Obamacare is at higher risk to attack than before, because now there's likely to be a much larger incentive to cyber attack medical institutions. The long and short of my reasoning is that because everyone must now have health insurance, the coverage that provides the path of least resistance now has a massive boost in personal documentation. Essentially the government is funneling private information through healthcare services that likely don't have the best security credentials on the market. If people are required to submit their personal information as a consequence of being required to have health care, then the government should also have to ensure that, that information is as protected as any government institution is from hacking attempts, since the general public does not have a say in the matter. CMV.

t3_1dy82j

Videogames are a big waste of time - CMV

You've gained a new level and now you're level 99, or you beat the game on hard difficulty. You feel like you've been rewarded. Game are dangerous, because they will make you feel like you're achieving something when you really aren't. To learn to draw, learn a new language, or succeed at a real hobby is to achieve, and videogames are just a big distraction away from that.

Videogames are a big waste of time - CMV. You've gained a new level and now you're level 99, or you beat the game on hard difficulty. You feel like you've been rewarded. Game are dangerous, because they will make you feel like you're achieving something when you really aren't. To learn to draw, learn a new language, or succeed at a real hobby is to achieve, and videogames are just a big distraction away from that.

t3_2moevc

CMV: There will be war.

Hello. I actually don't know how to write this, since I am really scared. I am 23 years old, studying IT in Germany. I've never looked much TV, sometimes Sci-Fi, sometimes documentations and so on, but I didn't watch news regularly when I was like 10-18 years old. Only occasionally, like on 9/11. I stopped watching TV completely (besides online streaming of series, movies that I like etc.) and didn't watch any news anymore and just read what was in my Facebook news feed and what my friends told me. There were longer periods where I only experienced the world close to me - my school, friends, video games, music concerts, lately my work and so on. I didn't actually know what happened in the world for months sometimes. But then, I am visiting my parents or grandparents where news are like 12 hours a day. Experiencing that did something to me. It scares the shit out of me. People around me, family, friends, don't react the way I'd usually expect them to. It's like they are used to a loop of death over and over again. There is murder in neighborhood, suicide bombs in Gaza, rapes in India, and all that like 20 times a day. I cannot imagine that a normal human being would not either break or become very distant emotionally? But that were all still bearable... Ever since 9/11 and Iraq, and even more so since ISIS and the Ukraine crisis something changed. The news are way more about displays of strength, politicians promising safety, military power on borders, about how evil "everyone else" (Putin and co.) are, how "we should be solidary in times of great uncertainty" and what not. For all I know, seemingly all governments act like Hitler in 1936; if you remember he talked about peace in public and in the back rooms he discussed rebuilding the army. Nearly every citizen is now a potential terrorist - that's just like all those years ago. I cannot imagine that Americans, Islamists, Russians, Europeans, Chinese or anyone else could want a new war, not even governments, not even weapon manufacturers, but the situation seems so strained that something as small as shooting a prince in 1914 could again be the last straw. I am observing that people like my grandparents, who are exposed to news like all time, didn't feel a change - I guess it's like a frog in cold and hot water. I am jumping into hot water, while their water was heating over time. I could envision some small accident in Ukraine, a few precision bombs fall and it won't get reported, nobody but the highest officials and some well-informed troops will know about it, but Putin takes it seriously and sends scout units. Those are getting captured by NATO troops and whoops, both sides already did an "act of hostility" with war declaration impending. It could happen tomorrow. Then what was thought to be prevented by "stopping" the Cold War could become reality: Nukes. And probably biological and chemical weapons too. Or maybe some economic crash and then the states close their borders, which worses things even more? Mass hunger which leads to real terrorist groups? I don't know, but I'd really like some words of hope from you. There never was a single generation not living in war or in fear of war their whole life span, in all human history. Sincerely. _____ > *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 will be war. Hello. I actually don't know how to write this, since I am really scared. I am 23 years old, studying IT in Germany. I've never looked much TV, sometimes Sci-Fi, sometimes documentations and so on, but I didn't watch news regularly when I was like 10-18 years old. Only occasionally, like on 9/11. I stopped watching TV completely (besides online streaming of series, movies that I like etc.) and didn't watch any news anymore and just read what was in my Facebook news feed and what my friends told me. There were longer periods where I only experienced the world close to me - my school, friends, video games, music concerts, lately my work and so on. I didn't actually know what happened in the world for months sometimes. But then, I am visiting my parents or grandparents where news are like 12 hours a day. Experiencing that did something to me. It scares the shit out of me. People around me, family, friends, don't react the way I'd usually expect them to. It's like they are used to a loop of death over and over again. There is murder in neighborhood, suicide bombs in Gaza, rapes in India, and all that like 20 times a day. I cannot imagine that a normal human being would not either break or become very distant emotionally? But that were all still bearable... Ever since 9/11 and Iraq, and even more so since ISIS and the Ukraine crisis something changed. The news are way more about displays of strength, politicians promising safety, military power on borders, about how evil "everyone else" (Putin and co.) are, how "we should be solidary in times of great uncertainty" and what not. For all I know, seemingly all governments act like Hitler in 1936; if you remember he talked about peace in public and in the back rooms he discussed rebuilding the army. Nearly every citizen is now a potential terrorist - that's just like all those years ago. I cannot imagine that Americans, Islamists, Russians, Europeans, Chinese or anyone else could want a new war, not even governments, not even weapon manufacturers, but the situation seems so strained that something as small as shooting a prince in 1914 could again be the last straw. I am observing that people like my grandparents, who are exposed to news like all time, didn't feel a change - I guess it's like a frog in cold and hot water. I am jumping into hot water, while their water was heating over time. I could envision some small accident in Ukraine, a few precision bombs fall and it won't get reported, nobody but the highest officials and some well-informed troops will know about it, but Putin takes it seriously and sends scout units. Those are getting captured by NATO troops and whoops, both sides already did an "act of hostility" with war declaration impending. It could happen tomorrow. Then what was thought to be prevented by "stopping" the Cold War could become reality: Nukes. And probably biological and chemical weapons too. Or maybe some economic crash and then the states close their borders, which worses things even more? Mass hunger which leads to real terrorist groups? I don't know, but I'd really like some words of hope from you. There never was a single generation not living in war or in fear of war their whole life span, in all human history. Sincerely.

t3_6s4iex

CMV: Veganism and vegetarianism are not ethically superior to standard omnivorous diet

There is no point in becoming vegan or vegetarian in effort to save animals lives. Suffering or even death of a farm animal are no different to those of a tomato, even if it is harder to emotionally compassionate to the latter, as it is easier for us to relate to animal feelings. You can not exist without ending other creatures life for food, and animal lives are not more important than plants or fungi in that regard. Please note that does not account for switching diet for own health reasons. *EDIT: Yes, in my view I consider that plants can suffer even if they don't have the same mechanisms of perception animals do. Jellyfishes don't have a nervous system anywhere close to ours, yet it would still be unethical to cut one in pieces for amusement. Jellyfish would still perceive injury and its normal biological cycles would be hindered. Same goes for plants* _____ > *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: Veganism and vegetarianism are not ethically superior to standard omnivorous diet. There is no point in becoming vegan or vegetarian in effort to save animals lives. Suffering or even death of a farm animal are no different to those of a tomato, even if it is harder to emotionally compassionate to the latter, as it is easier for us to relate to animal feelings. You can not exist without ending other creatures life for food, and animal lives are not more important than plants or fungi in that regard. Please note that does not account for switching diet for own health reasons. *EDIT: Yes, in my view I consider that plants can suffer even if they don't have the same mechanisms of perception animals do. Jellyfishes don't have a nervous system anywhere close to ours, yet it would still be unethical to cut one in pieces for amusement. Jellyfish would still perceive injury and its normal biological cycles would be hindered. Same goes for plants*

t3_1o88db

I believe that Pusha T's album My Name Is My Name is the best hip hop album released this year. CMV

Everything is Pusha T. He is at his best on My Name is My Name. The production was directed by Kanye West. Need I say more? Everyone was worried about the guest features plaguing the tracklist, but they complement Pusha's every noun and verb perfectly. There was NO filler. And Pusha wasn't afraid to tell all. Also, there was no straight up radio single. The Chris Brown guest spot looks like one but "Sweet Serenade" is far from what the title suggests. I can't stop listening to this album, while every other hip hop release I've listened to has lost my interest after a few spins or requires me to skip a song or two. Lyrically Push is in full beast mode. There's no pointless duds or forced catchphrases. There are some recurring themes, but every bar has its own context. This is organically the most complete album since Kendrick Lamar's major label debut "good kid, m.A.A.d city" and I don't think anything else coming this year will top it. This album touches every corner of hip hop without trying to sell you sex or catchy hooks, just straight dope bars. Change my view.

I believe that Pusha T's album My Name Is My Name is the best hip hop album released this year. CMV. Everything is Pusha T. He is at his best on My Name is My Name. The production was directed by Kanye West. Need I say more? Everyone was worried about the guest features plaguing the tracklist, but they complement Pusha's every noun and verb perfectly. There was NO filler. And Pusha wasn't afraid to tell all. Also, there was no straight up radio single. The Chris Brown guest spot looks like one but "Sweet Serenade" is far from what the title suggests. I can't stop listening to this album, while every other hip hop release I've listened to has lost my interest after a few spins or requires me to skip a song or two. Lyrically Push is in full beast mode. There's no pointless duds or forced catchphrases. There are some recurring themes, but every bar has its own context. This is organically the most complete album since Kendrick Lamar's major label debut "good kid, m.A.A.d city" and I don't think anything else coming this year will top it. This album touches every corner of hip hop without trying to sell you sex or catchy hooks, just straight dope bars. Change my view.

t3_1nl7pr

I believe Toronto's electric streetcars are an unjustifiable, inefficient nuisance and would best be replaced by busses. CMV

This is a Toronto-centric thread but really, the arguments apply to streetcars in any city. For decades Toronto public transit has relied on electric streetcars. These slow, inflexible vehicles cluster downtown streets, creating traffic jams in a city with horrendous traffic issues already. I used to believe that busses were inferior for environmental reasons but it turns out that Toronto busses run on locally-produced flax seed fuel, which does not create emissions. Here are the problems with streetcars: - Major thoroughfares such as Spadina or St. Clair which are large enough to support 3 lanes in both directions are dug up and redesigned to have one lane for cars, one for streetcars, with a cement divider between the two...and the streetcar lane is barely used. - Streetcars require rails in the streets which are a serious hazard for cyclists and can cause safety issues for other motorists. - Rails and overhanging wires are butt fucking ugly. - Streetcars cannot leave the centre lane, which means whenever they stop to let people off the entire flow of traffic is halted as pedestrians cross the outer lanes to board the streetcar in the centre lane. It is illegal to try to pass a streetcar during the boarding process. - Streetcars can be as long as two busses, making the slow, frequently halting vehicles difficult to pass in downtown streets with minimal space. - Streetcar drivers must park the vehicle in the middle of the road during their breaks. Many give little care as to where they park, often blocking traffic. - Streetcars take a very long time to turn, usually taking longer time than a green light allows, halting an entire intersection during the process. During the turn they often lose contact with the overhanging wire and must be reset manually by the driver leaving the vehicle, procuring a reaching tool and repositioning the contact, further delaying traffic a minute or so. What could possibly justify this extraordinary inefficiency? Why aren't busses preferable?

I believe Toronto's electric streetcars are an unjustifiable, inefficient nuisance and would best be replaced by busses. CMV. This is a Toronto-centric thread but really, the arguments apply to streetcars in any city. For decades Toronto public transit has relied on electric streetcars. These slow, inflexible vehicles cluster downtown streets, creating traffic jams in a city with horrendous traffic issues already. I used to believe that busses were inferior for environmental reasons but it turns out that Toronto busses run on locally-produced flax seed fuel, which does not create emissions. Here are the problems with streetcars: - Major thoroughfares such as Spadina or St. Clair which are large enough to support 3 lanes in both directions are dug up and redesigned to have one lane for cars, one for streetcars, with a cement divider between the two...and the streetcar lane is barely used. - Streetcars require rails in the streets which are a serious hazard for cyclists and can cause safety issues for other motorists. - Rails and overhanging wires are butt fucking ugly. - Streetcars cannot leave the centre lane, which means whenever they stop to let people off the entire flow of traffic is halted as pedestrians cross the outer lanes to board the streetcar in the centre lane. It is illegal to try to pass a streetcar during the boarding process. - Streetcars can be as long as two busses, making the slow, frequently halting vehicles difficult to pass in downtown streets with minimal space. - Streetcar drivers must park the vehicle in the middle of the road during their breaks. Many give little care as to where they park, often blocking traffic. - Streetcars take a very long time to turn, usually taking longer time than a green light allows, halting an entire intersection during the process. During the turn they often lose contact with the overhanging wire and must be reset manually by the driver leaving the vehicle, procuring a reaching tool and repositioning the contact, further delaying traffic a minute or so. What could possibly justify this extraordinary inefficiency? Why aren't busses preferable?

t3_4lspjj

CMV: Complaining about minorities being "forced" onto media is in itself discrimination

A lot of people seem to be upset about minorities (e.g. black, women, LGBT) being portrayed in the media for no other reason than to "seem progressive." However, I believe that this complaint is in itself discriminatory. The gist of my argument is this: The fact that white, male, heterosexual characters have been dominating the media for generations without complaint, but the portrayal of a minority immediately draws criticism, is the very definition of discrimination. As support, I will reference commonly cited reasons for why people complain about "forced" minorities in media, and show why I believe those reasons are based in discrimination. *DISCLAIMER* I am not arguing about whether minorities should or should not be portrayed in media. I am not arguing about how representative media portrayal of minorities is. I am only arguing that the act of complaining about minorities being "forced" onto media is based in discrimination. The only view to be changed here is whether complaining about minorities in media constitutes discrimination. One popular justification for complaining about minorities in media is that the characters do not contribute to the plot and are placed there simply to seem progressive. The most recent example of this is the controversy surrounding the Finding Dory trailer, which seemingly features a lesbian couple. However, every movie and TV show features background characters or "extras" that do not significantly contribute to the plot. The fact that we only complain about them when it is suggested that they are non-traditional in some way, is itself discrimination. If you ask "but why does it HAVE to be a lesbian couple?" then you are homophobic. Because there is no reason for it not to be, considering straight couples have been portrayed for generations without complaint. Another complaint is that the actors are bad, but are nonetheless cast for the sake of including a minority. But very similar to the previous case, plenty of traditional (e.g. white, male, straight) actors are terrible. Of course, even a white male actor cannot escape criticism if he acts poorly. However, if the actor in question is a minority, oftentimes the result of the criticism is to conclude that the role should have been played by a traditional actor instead, as if the actor's ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation had anything to do with their acting skills. A prominent example of this is Daisy Ridley's role as Rey in the newest Star Wars movie. Many people used Ridley's acting skills as a justification for claiming that the protagonist should have been male. There is a logical disconnect between the argument that an actor is bad, and the conclusion that an actor of a different gender should have played the role. The reasoning that bridges that gap is discrimination. A third reason for rejecting the portrayal of minorities is that the original characters were not minorities. However, source material often does not specify details about a character, such as their race or sexual orientation. The fact that we assume they are white and straight, and complain when they are portrayed otherwise, is itself discrimination. Those are my reasons for believing that complaining about minorities in media is a form of discrimination. If you can specifically counter any of the 3 points above, or offer a separate reason against including minorities in media that you believe is not discriminatory, my view can be 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: Complaining about minorities being "forced" onto media is in itself discrimination. A lot of people seem to be upset about minorities (e.g. black, women, LGBT) being portrayed in the media for no other reason than to "seem progressive." However, I believe that this complaint is in itself discriminatory. The gist of my argument is this: The fact that white, male, heterosexual characters have been dominating the media for generations without complaint, but the portrayal of a minority immediately draws criticism, is the very definition of discrimination. As support, I will reference commonly cited reasons for why people complain about "forced" minorities in media, and show why I believe those reasons are based in discrimination. *DISCLAIMER* I am not arguing about whether minorities should or should not be portrayed in media. I am not arguing about how representative media portrayal of minorities is. I am only arguing that the act of complaining about minorities being "forced" onto media is based in discrimination. The only view to be changed here is whether complaining about minorities in media constitutes discrimination. One popular justification for complaining about minorities in media is that the characters do not contribute to the plot and are placed there simply to seem progressive. The most recent example of this is the controversy surrounding the Finding Dory trailer, which seemingly features a lesbian couple. However, every movie and TV show features background characters or "extras" that do not significantly contribute to the plot. The fact that we only complain about them when it is suggested that they are non-traditional in some way, is itself discrimination. If you ask "but why does it HAVE to be a lesbian couple?" then you are homophobic. Because there is no reason for it not to be, considering straight couples have been portrayed for generations without complaint. Another complaint is that the actors are bad, but are nonetheless cast for the sake of including a minority. But very similar to the previous case, plenty of traditional (e.g. white, male, straight) actors are terrible. Of course, even a white male actor cannot escape criticism if he acts poorly. However, if the actor in question is a minority, oftentimes the result of the criticism is to conclude that the role should have been played by a traditional actor instead, as if the actor's ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation had anything to do with their acting skills. A prominent example of this is Daisy Ridley's role as Rey in the newest Star Wars movie. Many people used Ridley's acting skills as a justification for claiming that the protagonist should have been male. There is a logical disconnect between the argument that an actor is bad, and the conclusion that an actor of a different gender should have played the role. The reasoning that bridges that gap is discrimination. A third reason for rejecting the portrayal of minorities is that the original characters were not minorities. However, source material often does not specify details about a character, such as their race or sexual orientation. The fact that we assume they are white and straight, and complain when they are portrayed otherwise, is itself discrimination. Those are my reasons for believing that complaining about minorities in media is a form of discrimination. If you can specifically counter any of the 3 points above, or offer a separate reason against including minorities in media that you believe is not discriminatory, my view can be changed.

t3_1okf22

I don't think North Korea is a significant threat to the world anymore. CMV.

I believe that if any country in the world should go to war with North Korea, of course that country will suffer some damage but ultimately North Korea is bound to lose in the end. They are underpopulated with malnourished soldiers, have poor equipment, and even if they have a nuclear missile I think they do not possess the infrastructure to correctly launch it. I am a South Korean and I am a trained soldier. We learned about the numbers (total army size, weapons infrastructure, etc) and they trained us to be wary of potential threat because North Korea is still a potent enemy. I really have a hard time believing that, and I want to know why I might want to reevaluate my view. Thanks!

I don't think North Korea is a significant threat to the world anymore. CMV. I believe that if any country in the world should go to war with North Korea, of course that country will suffer some damage but ultimately North Korea is bound to lose in the end. They are underpopulated with malnourished soldiers, have poor equipment, and even if they have a nuclear missile I think they do not possess the infrastructure to correctly launch it. I am a South Korean and I am a trained soldier. We learned about the numbers (total army size, weapons infrastructure, etc) and they trained us to be wary of potential threat because North Korea is still a potent enemy. I really have a hard time believing that, and I want to know why I might want to reevaluate my view. Thanks!

t3_5s53v0

CMV: Obama was correct in arguing that silencing political speech is wrong

In 2015, Barack Obama spoke at a town hall meeting in Des Moines, Iowa and said the following: "Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. **I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, 'You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say.'** That’s not the way we learn either." I believe that Obama's position here is absolutely correct, and that it stands starkly in contrast to the recent violence at Berkeley, and to the concept of "punching a nazi" or more generally to the initiation of political violence. I've bolded the parts of his quote that are most important to address for anyone trying to CMV! [**NOTE**: Without notice, moderators shadow-deleted a previous version of this submission. I have recreated it. If there's a problem here, please get in touch with me before deleting this post. *Thank you, humble servants of the users* of /r/changemyview!] _____ > *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: Obama was correct in arguing that silencing political speech is wrong. In 2015, Barack Obama spoke at a town hall meeting in Des Moines, Iowa and said the following: "Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. **I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, 'You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say.'** That’s not the way we learn either." I believe that Obama's position here is absolutely correct, and that it stands starkly in contrast to the recent violence at Berkeley, and to the concept of "punching a nazi" or more generally to the initiation of political violence. I've bolded the parts of his quote that are most important to address for anyone trying to CMV! [**NOTE**: Without notice, moderators shadow-deleted a previous version of this submission. I have recreated it. If there's a problem here, please get in touch with me before deleting this post. *Thank you, humble servants of the users* of /r/changemyview!]

t3_1ehd92

I think that George Zimmerman is almost certainly innocent of murder, and probably acted in self-defence. CMV.

When I initially heard about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, I was pretty disgusted that the police had let Zimmerman off so easily. However, whilst Martin's killing was a tragedy, since the story has developed, I have come to feel that there is no where near enough evidence to try Zimmerman for murder, and that what evidence there is points towards self defence. I think that the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries on the night ([front](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/George_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpg), [back](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02199/ABC-Zimmerman_2199556b.jpg)), and the general theme of the eye witnesses' accounts, make it fairly clear that Zimmerman acted in self defense. I think the background voices in the 911 calls are not distinct enough to be useful. Furthermore, I think my initial reaction to the case was due the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by the media. I don't think Trayvon Martin was a bad person, or a criminal: I think more than anything he was unlucky. For reference, I am European.

I think that George Zimmerman is almost certainly innocent of murder, and probably acted in self-defence. CMV. When I initially heard about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, I was pretty disgusted that the police had let Zimmerman off so easily. However, whilst Martin's killing was a tragedy, since the story has developed, I have come to feel that there is no where near enough evidence to try Zimmerman for murder, and that what evidence there is points towards self defence. I think that the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries on the night ([front](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/George_Zimmerman_front_of_head.jpg), [back](http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02199/ABC-Zimmerman_2199556b.jpg)), and the general theme of the eye witnesses' accounts, make it fairly clear that Zimmerman acted in self defense. I think the background voices in the 911 calls are not distinct enough to be useful. Furthermore, I think my initial reaction to the case was due the deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by the media. I don't think Trayvon Martin was a bad person, or a criminal: I think more than anything he was unlucky. For reference, I am European.

t3_20ln0q

I believe that basic physical requirements should not surrendered in the pursuit of a more representative/diverse force in the field of firefighting- CMV

I understand lowering physical standards in regards to police work as a representative force can better serve a community. In many cases an understanding of culture/gender can outweigh the ability to compete physically in this field. Contrastingly, in an incredibly physically demanding arena such as firefighting I feel that such policies are misguided and detrimental. What does a community gain by having less physically capable members? Personally, if I were stuck in a burning building I would want the most qualified team responding!

I believe that basic physical requirements should not surrendered in the pursuit of a more representative/diverse force in the field of firefighting- CMV. I understand lowering physical standards in regards to police work as a representative force can better serve a community. In many cases an understanding of culture/gender can outweigh the ability to compete physically in this field. Contrastingly, in an incredibly physically demanding arena such as firefighting I feel that such policies are misguided and detrimental. What does a community gain by having less physically capable members? Personally, if I were stuck in a burning building I would want the most qualified team responding!

t3_1luw3i

I think that Yoko Ono is one of the most untalented, uninspired, uninspiring, overrated "artists" of our and any generation. CMV

I've heard some of Yoko Ono's cover songs and contribution to songs and art and I believe her wharbling screams do nothing more than detract from something that was better before she ever touched it. examples of her music that i'm referring to: http://youtu.be/bfZvHuh7wKM?t=1m4s - singing 'we're all water' - one of the few songs she actually sings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68 - "singing" for an art piece. http://youtu.be/h9kgu71d81U?t=1m15s - contributing to 'memphis tennessee with Chuck Berry and John Lennon I believe she broke up the beatles and turned John Lennon into a boring hippie. change my view.

I think that Yoko Ono is one of the most untalented, uninspired, uninspiring, overrated "artists" of our and any generation. CMV. I've heard some of Yoko Ono's cover songs and contribution to songs and art and I believe her wharbling screams do nothing more than detract from something that was better before she ever touched it. examples of her music that i'm referring to: http://youtu.be/bfZvHuh7wKM?t=1m4s - singing 'we're all water' - one of the few songs she actually sings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZ9weP5i68 - "singing" for an art piece. http://youtu.be/h9kgu71d81U?t=1m15s - contributing to 'memphis tennessee with Chuck Berry and John Lennon I believe she broke up the beatles and turned John Lennon into a boring hippie. change my view.

t3_25n272

CMV: Scrooge McDuck is ruining Duckburg's and the world's economy.

Scrooge McDuck, popular wealthy tycoon of Duckburg is a plague to the economy of the Donald universe. First of all he hoards money in his money bin. The money he possesses, obtained from the profits of his many businesses is never re-invested. This is a huge blow to the economy, since by not being re-invested : - consumption is lowered and the money doesn't benefit companies and therefor the workers, who, by not getting paid higher, will spend less, thus creating even lower wages and unemployment. This vicious circle cripples the economy. - people and small businesses cannot loan it, this makes opening your own business very hard. And since Scrooge owns most of the businesses around, this could very much be an anti-competion technique. These shenanigans against entrepreneurship create unemployment and poverty. Secondly the amount of money he possesses in not clear. Amounts vary from *one multiplujillion, nine obsquatumatillion, six hundred twenty-three dollars and sixty-two cents* to *607 tillion 386 zillion 947 trillion 522 billion dollars and 36 cents* and sometimes *five multiplujillion, nine impossibidillion, seven fantasticatrillion dollars and sixteen cents* This makes it very hard to assess the value of the currency, which could also be very fluctuant, an obsquatumatillion could become as worthless as a fantasticatrillion very quickly. This is very bad for the stock-exange market. Also, people have calculated that based on it's size, his money bin could only contain $27 trillion. This could mean that he could be hiding the multiplujillions in overseas accounts, safe from the IRS. Also, since there is only $77 trillion worth of things in the world, this means that, if the calculations on the money bin are correct, Scrooge owns 35% of the world's money. And since the world's second richest is Flinthead Glomgold who owns about he same amont, that means the population of the donald universe owns less than 30% of the world's riches, the two richest owning about 70%. So in the duck universe, the richest 1% (or in this case 2,86x10^-8 % assuming there are 7 billion inhabitants in their world) swims around in their gold, rubbing it on their feathered skin whilst the rest of the population and the economy suffers. I believe Scrooge McDuck is a plague to the economy. CMV Edit : I would also like to point out his reckless behavior that comes from his lust for riches, he has several times risked to shatter the world's economy by discovering solid gold cities or temples filled with diamonds. Had he succeeded in his endeavors (who usually fail with an ironic twist of fate), he could have made gold and diamonds less valuable by bringing back too much of it. Edit 2 : A lot of very very good and entertaining comments, you guys are awesome ! Edit 3 : My first Gold ! holly shit ! Thank you whoever gave this to me ! I wish I could, like Scrooge, put my first gold at the end of a string and carry it around with 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: Scrooge McDuck is ruining Duckburg's and the world's economy. Scrooge McDuck, popular wealthy tycoon of Duckburg is a plague to the economy of the Donald universe. First of all he hoards money in his money bin. The money he possesses, obtained from the profits of his many businesses is never re-invested. This is a huge blow to the economy, since by not being re-invested : - consumption is lowered and the money doesn't benefit companies and therefor the workers, who, by not getting paid higher, will spend less, thus creating even lower wages and unemployment. This vicious circle cripples the economy. - people and small businesses cannot loan it, this makes opening your own business very hard. And since Scrooge owns most of the businesses around, this could very much be an anti-competion technique. These shenanigans against entrepreneurship create unemployment and poverty. Secondly the amount of money he possesses in not clear. Amounts vary from *one multiplujillion, nine obsquatumatillion, six hundred twenty-three dollars and sixty-two cents* to *607 tillion 386 zillion 947 trillion 522 billion dollars and 36 cents* and sometimes *five multiplujillion, nine impossibidillion, seven fantasticatrillion dollars and sixteen cents* This makes it very hard to assess the value of the currency, which could also be very fluctuant, an obsquatumatillion could become as worthless as a fantasticatrillion very quickly. This is very bad for the stock-exange market. Also, people have calculated that based on it's size, his money bin could only contain $27 trillion. This could mean that he could be hiding the multiplujillions in overseas accounts, safe from the IRS. Also, since there is only $77 trillion worth of things in the world, this means that, if the calculations on the money bin are correct, Scrooge owns 35% of the world's money. And since the world's second richest is Flinthead Glomgold who owns about he same amont, that means the population of the donald universe owns less than 30% of the world's riches, the two richest owning about 70%. So in the duck universe, the richest 1% (or in this case 2,86x10^-8 % assuming there are 7 billion inhabitants in their world) swims around in their gold, rubbing it on their feathered skin whilst the rest of the population and the economy suffers. I believe Scrooge McDuck is a plague to the economy. CMV Edit : I would also like to point out his reckless behavior that comes from his lust for riches, he has several times risked to shatter the world's economy by discovering solid gold cities or temples filled with diamonds. Had he succeeded in his endeavors (who usually fail with an ironic twist of fate), he could have made gold and diamonds less valuable by bringing back too much of it. Edit 2 : A lot of very very good and entertaining comments, you guys are awesome ! Edit 3 : My first Gold ! holly shit ! Thank you whoever gave this to me ! I wish I could, like Scrooge, put my first gold at the end of a string and carry it around with me :)

t3_28vnny

CMV: I believe that the reason electric cars are stil a niche thing has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with corporate ogliopolies and government corruption.

This is the year 2014 and we are still extremely dependent on fossil fuels for something as mundane as going to work or going out to eat. Electric cars, despite the technology being around almost as long as their gas and diesel powered counterparts, are still this very "niche" thing, with this vague "hope" that maybe one day sometime in the distant future, battery-electric cars may become the norm. But we're not there now because the technology for electric cars is "just not ready yet". Bull. Shit. It IS ready. Or it would be if it weren't for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly-impossible-to-reach levels. Tesla Motors only exists because a man wanted to get into the business of selling mass-produced electric vehicles to the public, and had the wealth and connections to make it happen. Which is extremely rare in this world for various very boringly complex reasons. Electric cars ARE practical. Just look at the Tesla Model S and realize that if GM, Ford, and Chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we'd probably be farther ahead today than the Tesla Model S is now. So what if it takes a night to recharge that battery? That should post no problems to your daily commute! Maybe travelling would be a bit slower. But that's really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere. If electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts. TL;DR Electric cars have been held back by extremely powerful corporate entities who want to sell you the same crappy gas-powered cars and trucks until the dinosaur juice runs out and/or the Earth just flat-out explodes, whichever comes first. It has very little to do with their practicality. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe that the reason electric cars are stil a niche thing has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with corporate ogliopolies and government corruption. This is the year 2014 and we are still extremely dependent on fossil fuels for something as mundane as going to work or going out to eat. Electric cars, despite the technology being around almost as long as their gas and diesel powered counterparts, are still this very "niche" thing, with this vague "hope" that maybe one day sometime in the distant future, battery-electric cars may become the norm. But we're not there now because the technology for electric cars is "just not ready yet". Bull. Shit. It IS ready. Or it would be if it weren't for coprorate interests collaborating with corrupt government to purposely raise the barrier of entry for start up car companies to nearly-impossible-to-reach levels. Tesla Motors only exists because a man wanted to get into the business of selling mass-produced electric vehicles to the public, and had the wealth and connections to make it happen. Which is extremely rare in this world for various very boringly complex reasons. Electric cars ARE practical. Just look at the Tesla Model S and realize that if GM, Ford, and Chrysler had put as much weight into research and development of electric cars as they had defending their business interest from having to actually have some fucking foresight, we'd probably be farther ahead today than the Tesla Model S is now. So what if it takes a night to recharge that battery? That should post no problems to your daily commute! Maybe travelling would be a bit slower. But that's really nothing which could not be planned around, especially if recharging stations were everywhere. If electric cars were commonplace, they would be significantly cheaper to purchase and maintain than their dinosaur fueled counterparts. TL;DR Electric cars have been held back by extremely powerful corporate entities who want to sell you the same crappy gas-powered cars and trucks until the dinosaur juice runs out and/or the Earth just flat-out explodes, whichever comes first. It has very little to do with their practicality.

t3_1y4ew3

[CMV] I think a lot of people don't understand how rights work.

The constitutionality of the NSAs surveillance is discussed all the time online. Specifically what the right to privacy is. A lot of people say that everything they buy should be private, specifically electronics. I look at it as you have the RIGHT to not own a telephone, computer, device with a camera, an internet connection ect. These are all things that the government can use however they please to see into your life. You still have the right to go off the grid completely, pay your taxes, and hide away from modern monitored civilization in private. You have that right, if you want privacy so bad then exercise it.

[CMV] I think a lot of people don't understand how rights work. The constitutionality of the NSAs surveillance is discussed all the time online. Specifically what the right to privacy is. A lot of people say that everything they buy should be private, specifically electronics. I look at it as you have the RIGHT to not own a telephone, computer, device with a camera, an internet connection ect. These are all things that the government can use however they please to see into your life. You still have the right to go off the grid completely, pay your taxes, and hide away from modern monitored civilization in private. You have that right, if you want privacy so bad then exercise it.