Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_6nr8ra

CMV: No rational person in the western world would choose to be an introvert

I think that no rational person in the western world would choose to be an introvert over an extravert. I am not saying that there are no advantages to being an introvert, there are several mostly related to skill building which may even result in a greater net benefit to society from an introvert through increased productivity but I doubt that it delivers substantial benefits to the introvert to counteract the negative effects. The negative effects are primarily social in nature and I believe that they are sufficiently negative to outweigh any economic benefits gained from introversion. _____ > *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: No rational person in the western world would choose to be an introvert. I think that no rational person in the western world would choose to be an introvert over an extravert. I am not saying that there are no advantages to being an introvert, there are several mostly related to skill building which may even result in a greater net benefit to society from an introvert through increased productivity but I doubt that it delivers substantial benefits to the introvert to counteract the negative effects. The negative effects are primarily social in nature and I believe that they are sufficiently negative to outweigh any economic benefits gained from introversion.

t3_1shwwd

I believe that Mother Teresa was a bad person and should not be positively recognized or remembered. CMV.

She accepted donations from cons and dictators. She then used that money to expand her church rather than invest in medical supplies to *really* help her patience. In fact, part of the reason for this was also because she had a twisted view on Christianity in that suffering brought you closer to Jesus. Without medicine, the suffering of her patients would be a given. Mother Teresa was also supportive of a militant, atheist, Albanian regime, which is certainly strange being a "peaceful catholic." Regardless of the charity she might have given, her intentions seemed well beyond that.

I believe that Mother Teresa was a bad person and should not be positively recognized or remembered. CMV. She accepted donations from cons and dictators. She then used that money to expand her church rather than invest in medical supplies to *really* help her patience. In fact, part of the reason for this was also because she had a twisted view on Christianity in that suffering brought you closer to Jesus. Without medicine, the suffering of her patients would be a given. Mother Teresa was also supportive of a militant, atheist, Albanian regime, which is certainly strange being a "peaceful catholic." Regardless of the charity she might have given, her intentions seemed well beyond that.

t3_4p9olz

CMV: I was socialised as a man so, even though I do not identify one, I lack the experiences required to identify as a woman.

So, I've been struggling with this for quite some time about the merits/validity of my identity seeing as how I was raise as male and socialised as a man. I keep seeing articles and stuff posted by terfs perpetuating the idea that, as a result, I am less woman. It's hard to push back against those notions since I don't know the flaws in that argument. I've read various things on everydayfeminism and feministing too I think, that go against that, but I can't put myself in the space where that is reasonable. So, basically, intellectually, I know it's wrong, but I can't get there mentally. When I was growing up, I definitely liked playing with barbies and games like pretty pretty princess, and wearing nail polish etc. Some of that could be because I have two older sisters, but I can't say for sure. I also remember being very uncomfortable with the way my genitals look(ed) but I never had the self-confidence to actually voice my concerns or accept them myself. I just stopped thinking about it. Eventually, I just started going along, and over time, it became easier and easier. Recently, however, I've been unpacking a lot of this, and realised that there definitely was a trend. Basically, I don't feel comfortable claiming the identity of "woman" because I was raised and treated as a man for so long, and I can't explain to myself how it isn't, in some way, a co-opting of women's struggles. There's also the argument that even though I was assigned male at birth, and present as masculine, I do not have male privilege. I feel like I do, at least the based on the respect that is granted me as a result, or the fact that no one has explicitly talked down to be because of my gender, regardless of how I identify inside. I don't know, please, help me reason through this please. _____ > *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 was socialised as a man so, even though I do not identify one, I lack the experiences required to identify as a woman. So, I've been struggling with this for quite some time about the merits/validity of my identity seeing as how I was raise as male and socialised as a man. I keep seeing articles and stuff posted by terfs perpetuating the idea that, as a result, I am less woman. It's hard to push back against those notions since I don't know the flaws in that argument. I've read various things on everydayfeminism and feministing too I think, that go against that, but I can't put myself in the space where that is reasonable. So, basically, intellectually, I know it's wrong, but I can't get there mentally. When I was growing up, I definitely liked playing with barbies and games like pretty pretty princess, and wearing nail polish etc. Some of that could be because I have two older sisters, but I can't say for sure. I also remember being very uncomfortable with the way my genitals look(ed) but I never had the self-confidence to actually voice my concerns or accept them myself. I just stopped thinking about it. Eventually, I just started going along, and over time, it became easier and easier. Recently, however, I've been unpacking a lot of this, and realised that there definitely was a trend. Basically, I don't feel comfortable claiming the identity of "woman" because I was raised and treated as a man for so long, and I can't explain to myself how it isn't, in some way, a co-opting of women's struggles. There's also the argument that even though I was assigned male at birth, and present as masculine, I do not have male privilege. I feel like I do, at least the based on the respect that is granted me as a result, or the fact that no one has explicitly talked down to be because of my gender, regardless of how I identify inside. I don't know, please, help me reason through this please.

t3_3f3d2n

CMV: A benefit of believing in subjective morality is that it forces you to really think about why something would be "good" or "bad".

My position is that if someone believes there are things that are objectively good or bad then they may fall into a mindset of simply accepting things as good or bad without much thought. This can lead them into blindly following their so called objective morals. On the other hand if they don't believe that there are things that are objectively good or bad, then they will more often try to think through why something could be "good" or "bad". This in turn can make the person more aware of little details and nuances that may cause a big change in their way of seeing a situation. This can allow a more flexible outlook of the world. This will prevent the blind acceptance of ideas of what is good and what is bad. Note: when I use good and bad in quotations it's because I understand that a component of subjective morality is that it takes the position that nothing is inherently good or bad, but I don't know what would be more appropriate words to use. Edit: My view has been changed by u/appropriate-username and u/bananaruth. Thanks for the discussion everyone and bye for 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: A benefit of believing in subjective morality is that it forces you to really think about why something would be "good" or "bad". My position is that if someone believes there are things that are objectively good or bad then they may fall into a mindset of simply accepting things as good or bad without much thought. This can lead them into blindly following their so called objective morals. On the other hand if they don't believe that there are things that are objectively good or bad, then they will more often try to think through why something could be "good" or "bad". This in turn can make the person more aware of little details and nuances that may cause a big change in their way of seeing a situation. This can allow a more flexible outlook of the world. This will prevent the blind acceptance of ideas of what is good and what is bad. Note: when I use good and bad in quotations it's because I understand that a component of subjective morality is that it takes the position that nothing is inherently good or bad, but I don't know what would be more appropriate words to use. Edit: My view has been changed by u/appropriate-username and u/bananaruth. Thanks for the discussion everyone and bye for now.

t3_5ibot8

CMV: Humans, as a species, would benefit more from oviparous (egg) birth than viviparous (live) birth

My science professor sent us all an article about the pros and cons of the two different birth types in animals, and it got me thinking about how the different types could affect human reproduction. After a little bit of extra studying (not much, mind), I see little reason why humans would want to stick with live birth as they currently are forced to. The main advantage given by egg birth is that the parent requires far less energy in order to sustain and grow the child as there is no stored embryo, and all the necessary energy is given in the initial burst to create a yolk, which is far less costly. This would remove the need for the mother to take time off work and what have you. She could continue to be a normally functioning member of society. One contradictory point I can see being brought up is how this energy efficiency is normally used to birth a large amount of eggs, and that this could worsen the overpopulation problem. However, the platypus and many bird species typically only lay one egg. My assertion that humans would benefit from oviparous birth assumes single egg birth, with possible double and triple egg instances occurring at the same rate that twins, triplets, etc are currently born. The primary defense of live birth in animals that I commonly see is that the parents are more able to protect their young, as eggs are susceptible to elements such as climate and predators. However, in our developed, technological era, I don't believe this would be a problem for humans.

CMV: Humans, as a species, would benefit more from oviparous (egg) birth than viviparous (live) birth. My science professor sent us all an article about the pros and cons of the two different birth types in animals, and it got me thinking about how the different types could affect human reproduction. After a little bit of extra studying (not much, mind), I see little reason why humans would want to stick with live birth as they currently are forced to. The main advantage given by egg birth is that the parent requires far less energy in order to sustain and grow the child as there is no stored embryo, and all the necessary energy is given in the initial burst to create a yolk, which is far less costly. This would remove the need for the mother to take time off work and what have you. She could continue to be a normally functioning member of society. One contradictory point I can see being brought up is how this energy efficiency is normally used to birth a large amount of eggs, and that this could worsen the overpopulation problem. However, the platypus and many bird species typically only lay one egg. My assertion that humans would benefit from oviparous birth assumes single egg birth, with possible double and triple egg instances occurring at the same rate that twins, triplets, etc are currently born. The primary defense of live birth in animals that I commonly see is that the parents are more able to protect their young, as eggs are susceptible to elements such as climate and predators. However, in our developed, technological era, I don't believe this would be a problem for humans.

t3_5pkhm4

CMV: If taxation is theft, being rich is murder.

If an ambulance drove past a man dying on the street, it would be murder. If you have the ability and resources to save someones life, and don't, then you are responsible. Likewise, we know that poverty kills. [The super rich could end poverty four times over.](http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-developing-countries-wealth/super-rich-could-end-poverty-four-times-over) I believe the same principle applies. When I hear right wing libertarian people talking about how taxation is theft it disgusts me. These people are not for liberty. Liberty is something that should be afforded to everyone. EDIT: A common argument so far has been that the middle and lower classes also live in excess. I agree, and believe that most people could do more than they do already. I do not think it is inconsistent to point the finger at the super rich, though. Again, as I stated: we could end poverty four times over. That means if every member of the 1% gave away 25% of their income they would still have loads of money!! Whereas, for the average person their contribution would still be a drop in the ocean. Remember, [8 people own half the worlds wealth.](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/21/new-report-determines-that-the-worlds-8-richest-people-have-as-much-wealth-as-half-the-human-race/). I honestly don't know how those people can sleep at night. _____ > *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: If taxation is theft, being rich is murder. If an ambulance drove past a man dying on the street, it would be murder. If you have the ability and resources to save someones life, and don't, then you are responsible. Likewise, we know that poverty kills. [The super rich could end poverty four times over.](http://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-developing-countries-wealth/super-rich-could-end-poverty-four-times-over) I believe the same principle applies. When I hear right wing libertarian people talking about how taxation is theft it disgusts me. These people are not for liberty. Liberty is something that should be afforded to everyone. EDIT: A common argument so far has been that the middle and lower classes also live in excess. I agree, and believe that most people could do more than they do already. I do not think it is inconsistent to point the finger at the super rich, though. Again, as I stated: we could end poverty four times over. That means if every member of the 1% gave away 25% of their income they would still have loads of money!! Whereas, for the average person their contribution would still be a drop in the ocean. Remember, [8 people own half the worlds wealth.](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/01/21/new-report-determines-that-the-worlds-8-richest-people-have-as-much-wealth-as-half-the-human-race/). I honestly don't know how those people can sleep at night.

t3_336qw2

CMV: Photography is not an art.

I mentionned this while walking trough a student's photo exhibition at school and my friends don't agree. I think that photography should not be considered an art. It's simply pointing a camera at something you find looks nice, and clicking a button. Everyone can do that. Well what about the artists working their pics in photoshop to make them more beautiful? That's cheating. They're modifying their "creation" like applying filters in order to make it look better. Is this photography or a photoshop contest? I put creation in " " because they haven't really created anything, they've just copy pasted some landscape and applied some filters to it. My 7 year old brother can do that. You know what he can't do? Something that requires talent, like painting something beautiful, creating a music partition, sculpting a figure. That's what art is. Photography is not an art. Does the artist needs to get the right proportions, lighting, all that bullshit. Well guess what, a painter has to do all that AND *actually* has to display a talent while creating his painting. So does a sculptor or a musician. The bullshit we actually qualify today as "modern art" which is just a paint bucket splashed on a white background is not art. And "it's not the picture but the message behind it"? Well what's the point of taking a picture then, just put up a wall of text and there's your message. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy looking at the 20 000 landscape wallpapers every day on my computer, but I do not consider them to be art. Society can define art as whatever garbage you can hang on a wall but for me, and I think for everyone else, art should not be used so loosely.

CMV: Photography is not an art. I mentionned this while walking trough a student's photo exhibition at school and my friends don't agree. I think that photography should not be considered an art. It's simply pointing a camera at something you find looks nice, and clicking a button. Everyone can do that. Well what about the artists working their pics in photoshop to make them more beautiful? That's cheating. They're modifying their "creation" like applying filters in order to make it look better. Is this photography or a photoshop contest? I put creation in " " because they haven't really created anything, they've just copy pasted some landscape and applied some filters to it. My 7 year old brother can do that. You know what he can't do? Something that requires talent, like painting something beautiful, creating a music partition, sculpting a figure. That's what art is. Photography is not an art. Does the artist needs to get the right proportions, lighting, all that bullshit. Well guess what, a painter has to do all that AND *actually* has to display a talent while creating his painting. So does a sculptor or a musician. The bullshit we actually qualify today as "modern art" which is just a paint bucket splashed on a white background is not art. And "it's not the picture but the message behind it"? Well what's the point of taking a picture then, just put up a wall of text and there's your message. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy looking at the 20 000 landscape wallpapers every day on my computer, but I do not consider them to be art. Society can define art as whatever garbage you can hang on a wall but for me, and I think for everyone else, art should not be used so loosely.

t3_3aiisy

CMV: I think being "transracial" is not a bad thing. And cultural appropriation isn't either.

Isn't being transracial bacically the same as let's say being a Turkish immigrant to Germany living there for 40 years and then calling himself German? Sure he is still a born Turk, has the physiological features of a Turk, but through living in Germany he's adapted the German culture, propably act more like a German than a Turk living his whole life in Turkey. He will dress like the Germans, eat like the Germans, speak German and so on. I just don't see a problem with it. Sure you might call this cultural appropriation, but i also never thought that was a bad thing either. Being a multicultural society just brings people with it who like different subcultures they were not necessarily born in and want to be part of it. Regarding immigration, i would even say that it would be the ideal, not keeping the cultures strictly separated, immigrants adopting the predominant culture of their immigration destination and at the same time bringing their culture with them for the people of the destination country to get to know and maybe adopt parts of it can only enrich culture as a whole. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think being "transracial" is not a bad thing. And cultural appropriation isn't either. Isn't being transracial bacically the same as let's say being a Turkish immigrant to Germany living there for 40 years and then calling himself German? Sure he is still a born Turk, has the physiological features of a Turk, but through living in Germany he's adapted the German culture, propably act more like a German than a Turk living his whole life in Turkey. He will dress like the Germans, eat like the Germans, speak German and so on. I just don't see a problem with it. Sure you might call this cultural appropriation, but i also never thought that was a bad thing either. Being a multicultural society just brings people with it who like different subcultures they were not necessarily born in and want to be part of it. Regarding immigration, i would even say that it would be the ideal, not keeping the cultures strictly separated, immigrants adopting the predominant culture of their immigration destination and at the same time bringing their culture with them for the people of the destination country to get to know and maybe adopt parts of it can only enrich culture as a whole.

t3_1f3h9j

There is not enough reasons that Scandinavia isn't a country instead of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

In scandinavia we speak more or less the same language. We have the same culture and the same history. One can travel in Norway, Sweden and Denmark as one like. We have the same type of government. Make more or less the same political decisions in foreign aswell as national politics. In fact we have been one country in the middle ages. We are already more or less the same country. I see only two non-nationalromantic reasons that scandinavia isn't a unified country. (by nationalromantic reasons i mean eg. that one can think: I feel like a dane, not like a scandinavian so we should not unify.) 1) Norway have a resource of oil that the others is without. Therefore could the norwegians think that they should stay by themselves. 2) Denmark and Sweden are a part of the european union and Norway isn't. Therefore norwegians could be afraid that there were forced into the european union. On the plus side: 1) Scandinavia will get a larger voice in international politics and economics. (UN, NATO etc) 2) Trade between countries will be easier and we will get more wealth from each other. The way I think i should work is that Denmark, Norway and Sweden should be regions in the same country like the states in the USA. Where the capital should be is for me irrelevant. The minor differences in language will be removed over time if necessary. I'm dane (and scandinavian ;) )by the way. Maybe you have some argument that i haven't thought of. Edit: A counterargument i didn't wrote in the first time: 3) There would be bureaucratic costs. If the population of scandinavia doesn't agree with me, which they don't at the moment, we would at least need more collaboration between the states. In fact there is already a functional counsil for the three countries called Nordisk Råd(Nordic Counsil).

There is not enough reasons that Scandinavia isn't a country instead of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In scandinavia we speak more or less the same language. We have the same culture and the same history. One can travel in Norway, Sweden and Denmark as one like. We have the same type of government. Make more or less the same political decisions in foreign aswell as national politics. In fact we have been one country in the middle ages. We are already more or less the same country. I see only two non-nationalromantic reasons that scandinavia isn't a unified country. (by nationalromantic reasons i mean eg. that one can think: I feel like a dane, not like a scandinavian so we should not unify.) 1) Norway have a resource of oil that the others is without. Therefore could the norwegians think that they should stay by themselves. 2) Denmark and Sweden are a part of the european union and Norway isn't. Therefore norwegians could be afraid that there were forced into the european union. On the plus side: 1) Scandinavia will get a larger voice in international politics and economics. (UN, NATO etc) 2) Trade between countries will be easier and we will get more wealth from each other. The way I think i should work is that Denmark, Norway and Sweden should be regions in the same country like the states in the USA. Where the capital should be is for me irrelevant. The minor differences in language will be removed over time if necessary. I'm dane (and scandinavian ;) )by the way. Maybe you have some argument that i haven't thought of. Edit: A counterargument i didn't wrote in the first time: 3) There would be bureaucratic costs. If the population of scandinavia doesn't agree with me, which they don't at the moment, we would at least need more collaboration between the states. In fact there is already a functional counsil for the three countries called Nordisk Råd(Nordic Counsil).

t3_1rdug4

As far as types of "privilege," the privilege from having money and being attractive do more to influence how people see you than any other kind. CMV

Privilege is the idea that certain facets about you will influence your life in a subtle and positive (for you) way if you have them, specifically with regards to how people treat you. Of all the things which can positively, and unfairly, influence how people perceive you, none are greater than having money and being attractive. And by "attractive" I mean both physically attractive and charming/charismatic. If you have these two things, no other social disadvantage will matter. If you take someone who is dirt poor and unattractive, but has every other kind of privilege (white, male, hetero, able-bodies, etc.) and compare them to someone who is wealthy and attractive, but has every other kind of disadvantage (trans, female, queer, person of color, disability, etc.) the other things wont even matter. The second person is unambiguously going to have an easier life in terms of how people treat them. When people talk about privilege and dissecting people's biases, they almost always ignore these two, 300-pound gorillas in the unfair treatment room, despite the fact that they are the most influential. Change My View.

As far as types of "privilege," the privilege from having money and being attractive do more to influence how people see you than any other kind. CMV. Privilege is the idea that certain facets about you will influence your life in a subtle and positive (for you) way if you have them, specifically with regards to how people treat you. Of all the things which can positively, and unfairly, influence how people perceive you, none are greater than having money and being attractive. And by "attractive" I mean both physically attractive and charming/charismatic. If you have these two things, no other social disadvantage will matter. If you take someone who is dirt poor and unattractive, but has every other kind of privilege (white, male, hetero, able-bodies, etc.) and compare them to someone who is wealthy and attractive, but has every other kind of disadvantage (trans, female, queer, person of color, disability, etc.) the other things wont even matter. The second person is unambiguously going to have an easier life in terms of how people treat them. When people talk about privilege and dissecting people's biases, they almost always ignore these two, 300-pound gorillas in the unfair treatment room, despite the fact that they are the most influential. Change My View.

t3_1hs2d0

I believe a politician who regularly told the truth would be unelectable. CMV

I've heard endless people bemoan "political-speak" and politicians who dodge questions. Some of those same people are the first to pounce on a semi-inconsistent or poorly-worded statement from politicians they disagree with. So I believe you can't be fully honest and forthcoming, and be an elected official. Some amount of self-censorship and filtering must be part of the job. And you may need to support views you don't fully hold, if they match the prevailing views of your target constituents. Otherwise you'd be vilified to the point of being unelectable. CMV

I believe a politician who regularly told the truth would be unelectable. CMV. I've heard endless people bemoan "political-speak" and politicians who dodge questions. Some of those same people are the first to pounce on a semi-inconsistent or poorly-worded statement from politicians they disagree with. So I believe you can't be fully honest and forthcoming, and be an elected official. Some amount of self-censorship and filtering must be part of the job. And you may need to support views you don't fully hold, if they match the prevailing views of your target constituents. Otherwise you'd be vilified to the point of being unelectable. CMV

t3_1j6f2m

I believe that the ability to downvote on reddit is useless, and an upvote only system would work better. CMV

So, right now, we have the ability to either modify the score of the post in question up one point, down one point or not at all. If we remove the option to downvote it, we have no real losses. If you don't like a post, you can ignore it, and it would hinder downvote whoring accounts at the same time. While some people may upvote them, it would still not be enough to warrant much attention, which is what they're seeking. Another point is that, while some subreddits try implementing inhibitions such as warnings of the supposed true use of the downvote button, they are largely unsuccessful. RES users can just hit 'z' when the subreddit coding doesn't allow it or the custom CSS styles could be disabled. People largely use it as an 'I don't like this opinion' button, and all that does is help the circlejerk ferment. CMV.

I believe that the ability to downvote on reddit is useless, and an upvote only system would work better. CMV. So, right now, we have the ability to either modify the score of the post in question up one point, down one point or not at all. If we remove the option to downvote it, we have no real losses. If you don't like a post, you can ignore it, and it would hinder downvote whoring accounts at the same time. While some people may upvote them, it would still not be enough to warrant much attention, which is what they're seeking. Another point is that, while some subreddits try implementing inhibitions such as warnings of the supposed true use of the downvote button, they are largely unsuccessful. RES users can just hit 'z' when the subreddit coding doesn't allow it or the custom CSS styles could be disabled. People largely use it as an 'I don't like this opinion' button, and all that does is help the circlejerk ferment. CMV.

t3_2htk52

CMV: I shouldn't stop my baby from eating dog food.

I have a dog who only eats when she's hungry, so leaving a bowl of food out is reasonable for her. The issue comes now that my baby can crawl around and find that food. His diet is primarily milk, but he does now eat a little solid food along with yogurt. He loves to follow my dog, and to explore her toys/bowls. At least once, I've caught him eating her food. So far, I've taken it away, but he seemed to enjoy it. So is there really something wrong with him eating that food? I kind of think I should let him eat it if he wants. It's made of safe ingredients, and it's not a major choking hazard because it quickly dissolves into mush in his mouth. If anything, it has a lot of protein. Now, I've been socialized to think that he shouldn't eat it, but is that enough? Is there really a good reason he should not be allowed dog food if he seeks it out?

CMV: I shouldn't stop my baby from eating dog food. I have a dog who only eats when she's hungry, so leaving a bowl of food out is reasonable for her. The issue comes now that my baby can crawl around and find that food. His diet is primarily milk, but he does now eat a little solid food along with yogurt. He loves to follow my dog, and to explore her toys/bowls. At least once, I've caught him eating her food. So far, I've taken it away, but he seemed to enjoy it. So is there really something wrong with him eating that food? I kind of think I should let him eat it if he wants. It's made of safe ingredients, and it's not a major choking hazard because it quickly dissolves into mush in his mouth. If anything, it has a lot of protein. Now, I've been socialized to think that he shouldn't eat it, but is that enough? Is there really a good reason he should not be allowed dog food if he seeks it out?

t3_2cu25n

CMV: Police dogs should not be considered anything more than chattel and hurting or killing one should be a civil suit at the most, and definitely not a crime

While police K-9 units are only honorary police officers, it is a felony in many states to injure or kill one. There are ever increasing reports of police officers shooting, maiming, stomping, and injuring the pets of families that they are conducting raids on. Almost without fail, the officers are cleared of any wrongdoing by their superiors. (Surprise) And the killings found to be justified. The families of the murdered animals often have no recourse to sue, yet even if they do, family animals are considered chattel and there is no worthwhile compensation given for the loss of what is basically a family member. So...If animals are considered chattel then ALL animals should be considered chattel. Including police dogs and horses. Why should a cop be given free reign to indiscriminately kill my German Sheppard but if I kill his German Sheppard, suddenly it's a felony? Police often order these large, high strung, attack trained animals to chase down, bite into, drag down, and maul on human beings. And that's just fine with the cops. But let YOUR dog on YOUR property bark at a cop, and that cop is free to empty a clip into it's head with absolutely no repercussions. I maintain that just because it is a police officer that cares for, maintains, feeds, and maybe even loves his animal, that does NOT suddenly mean that that animal is a police officer, human, or more valuable than any civilian's animal. [Texas Law Regarding Police Dogs](http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/38.151.00.html) Felony [Florida Law Regarding Police Dogs](http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/843.19.html) Felony [New York Law Regarding Police Dods](http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0195.06_195.06.html) Class A Misdemeanor _____ > *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: Police dogs should not be considered anything more than chattel and hurting or killing one should be a civil suit at the most, and definitely not a crime. While police K-9 units are only honorary police officers, it is a felony in many states to injure or kill one. There are ever increasing reports of police officers shooting, maiming, stomping, and injuring the pets of families that they are conducting raids on. Almost without fail, the officers are cleared of any wrongdoing by their superiors. (Surprise) And the killings found to be justified. The families of the murdered animals often have no recourse to sue, yet even if they do, family animals are considered chattel and there is no worthwhile compensation given for the loss of what is basically a family member. So...If animals are considered chattel then ALL animals should be considered chattel. Including police dogs and horses. Why should a cop be given free reign to indiscriminately kill my German Sheppard but if I kill his German Sheppard, suddenly it's a felony? Police often order these large, high strung, attack trained animals to chase down, bite into, drag down, and maul on human beings. And that's just fine with the cops. But let YOUR dog on YOUR property bark at a cop, and that cop is free to empty a clip into it's head with absolutely no repercussions. I maintain that just because it is a police officer that cares for, maintains, feeds, and maybe even loves his animal, that does NOT suddenly mean that that animal is a police officer, human, or more valuable than any civilian's animal. [Texas Law Regarding Police Dogs](http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/38.151.00.html) Felony [Florida Law Regarding Police Dogs](http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/843.19.html) Felony [New York Law Regarding Police Dods](http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0195.06_195.06.html) Class A Misdemeanor

t3_2h4s77

CMV: I believe the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was caused by the USA Government is bullshit.

I've seen a lot of documentaries about all the weird things that happened that day. All the anomalies that caused a public panic which lead to the invasion of the middle east to find Osama. What nobody is considering is that, what if all of it was Al Qaeda? What if the planned demolition of building 7, the lakes of molten iron on the undergrounds, and everything else was part of the plan, and the planes hitting the buildings was just the go for their sadistic show to begin? I can't take this idea out of my head. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was caused by the USA Government is bullshit. I've seen a lot of documentaries about all the weird things that happened that day. All the anomalies that caused a public panic which lead to the invasion of the middle east to find Osama. What nobody is considering is that, what if all of it was Al Qaeda? What if the planned demolition of building 7, the lakes of molten iron on the undergrounds, and everything else was part of the plan, and the planes hitting the buildings was just the go for their sadistic show to begin? I can't take this idea out of my head.

t3_1hj3f7

Something's fishy about the JFK shooting. CMV

I didn't believe in any of the theories but then I saw the movie JFK. LHO went to the SU and then back to the US? He was able to shoot 3 rounds in 6 seconds? There was a lone gunman says LBJ's personally appointed Warren Commission. House Select Committee on Assassinations disagrees. He was shot after the shooting by a man who would die from cancer a short while later? That's convenient. We all know Kennedy wanted to defund the CIA. There are just so many things in this assassination that seems a bit too convenient to be coincidence. This is the 60s, the CIA was doing all kinds of shady stuff. I don't know. Something seems off...

Something's fishy about the JFK shooting. CMV. I didn't believe in any of the theories but then I saw the movie JFK. LHO went to the SU and then back to the US? He was able to shoot 3 rounds in 6 seconds? There was a lone gunman says LBJ's personally appointed Warren Commission. House Select Committee on Assassinations disagrees. He was shot after the shooting by a man who would die from cancer a short while later? That's convenient. We all know Kennedy wanted to defund the CIA. There are just so many things in this assassination that seems a bit too convenient to be coincidence. This is the 60s, the CIA was doing all kinds of shady stuff. I don't know. Something seems off...

t3_1nfi8l

I think that Firefly is one of the most overrated pieces of shit of all time. CMV

Firefly's one and only season at this time is rated as a 9.1 on IMDB. It's Metacritc score is 63/100. For reference Breaking bad is a 9.5 on IMDB and more respectively 74 on Metacritc. You can argue all day about the validity of both voting systems. You can't say that one season of junk space ships, Christina Hendricks boobs equals 5 seasons of perfect story telling, acting, photography and score. Dexter is a better show. I think that Firefly's post success is nothing but pure fanboy bullshit. No photography, no acting, no music and Joss Whedon is a joke. If it debuted with a decent budget on a cable network, it would have still failed.

I think that Firefly is one of the most overrated pieces of shit of all time. CMV. Firefly's one and only season at this time is rated as a 9.1 on IMDB. It's Metacritc score is 63/100. For reference Breaking bad is a 9.5 on IMDB and more respectively 74 on Metacritc. You can argue all day about the validity of both voting systems. You can't say that one season of junk space ships, Christina Hendricks boobs equals 5 seasons of perfect story telling, acting, photography and score. Dexter is a better show. I think that Firefly's post success is nothing but pure fanboy bullshit. No photography, no acting, no music and Joss Whedon is a joke. If it debuted with a decent budget on a cable network, it would have still failed.

t3_233uef

CMV: If U.S. citizens shouldn't have to buy health insurance, then car owners shouldn't have to buy car insurance

The ACA has mandated that all Americans have some form of government approved health insurance or face a fine. The United States also requires anyone who owns a car to have insurance for their car, so that when accidents happen the person who isn't at fault doesn't have to foot the bill to fix their car if the other person doesn't have insurance and can't afford to pay for the repairs. There is an opposition to the idea that everyone should be required to purchase health insurance since people believe that you should be free to make this decision on your own. If someone doesn't have insurance and needs medical care, then they are able to receive emergency care. If they can't pay for this care on their own, then these costs get passed on to everyone else. To me, this is the same as requiring car-owners to have insurance. If someone gets in a car accident that is their fault and can't pay for the damages, these costs get passed on to the owner of the other car unfairly. Change my view. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: If U.S. citizens shouldn't have to buy health insurance, then car owners shouldn't have to buy car insurance. The ACA has mandated that all Americans have some form of government approved health insurance or face a fine. The United States also requires anyone who owns a car to have insurance for their car, so that when accidents happen the person who isn't at fault doesn't have to foot the bill to fix their car if the other person doesn't have insurance and can't afford to pay for the repairs. There is an opposition to the idea that everyone should be required to purchase health insurance since people believe that you should be free to make this decision on your own. If someone doesn't have insurance and needs medical care, then they are able to receive emergency care. If they can't pay for this care on their own, then these costs get passed on to everyone else. To me, this is the same as requiring car-owners to have insurance. If someone gets in a car accident that is their fault and can't pay for the damages, these costs get passed on to the owner of the other car unfairly. Change my view.

t3_3l0g7o

CMV: The use of the words "nigger", "fuck" and "faggot" and the like is not offensive as long as the goal is to simply discuss them.

**Short disclaimer** I am one of the most open, liberal people you'll meet. I am not only *for* gay marriage and anti-racism. I am actually involved in groups in the country I live in to try to prevent it. ----------- "The N-word", "F-word". When, on TV or other media, these words are discussed I find it stupid and frustrating that they actually don't say the words. I mean, if I were to **actually** try to insult a person and say "fucking nigger" that is **OBVIOUSLY** offensive and should well be that way, but when someone has said that it's discussed on the news or whatever they should say: "A man is being held for racist outburst on street while screaming 'fucking nigger' to a person. I feel the same way with the word "faggot", which is why I'm here. I was listening to the song "Same Love" by Macklemore and Mary Lambert. Short description: It is a song in which Macklemore attempts to rap his way to a better view on homosexuals and in this song he says that we shouldnt use gay as an insult, with this he says the sentence: "...culture founded from oppression, yeah we don't have acceptance forms, calling eachother faggots behind the keys of a messageboard...". That sentence is censored in the album version on Spotify, that was what got me off. **He is obviously trying to start discussion and thought around it. He is NOT using it as an insult**. That's my view on why it should not be censored. It's all in context. --------------- TL;DR Faggot, fuck, nigger are usable words as long as the context is "we're discussing the words and don't wanna look like idiots saying <insert letter>-word so we can get around it". EDIT: Moved the disclaimer to the top. _____ > *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 use of the words "nigger", "fuck" and "faggot" and the like is not offensive as long as the goal is to simply discuss them. **Short disclaimer** I am one of the most open, liberal people you'll meet. I am not only *for* gay marriage and anti-racism. I am actually involved in groups in the country I live in to try to prevent it. ----------- "The N-word", "F-word". When, on TV or other media, these words are discussed I find it stupid and frustrating that they actually don't say the words. I mean, if I were to **actually** try to insult a person and say "fucking nigger" that is **OBVIOUSLY** offensive and should well be that way, but when someone has said that it's discussed on the news or whatever they should say: "A man is being held for racist outburst on street while screaming 'fucking nigger' to a person. I feel the same way with the word "faggot", which is why I'm here. I was listening to the song "Same Love" by Macklemore and Mary Lambert. Short description: It is a song in which Macklemore attempts to rap his way to a better view on homosexuals and in this song he says that we shouldnt use gay as an insult, with this he says the sentence: "...culture founded from oppression, yeah we don't have acceptance forms, calling eachother faggots behind the keys of a messageboard...". That sentence is censored in the album version on Spotify, that was what got me off. **He is obviously trying to start discussion and thought around it. He is NOT using it as an insult**. That's my view on why it should not be censored. It's all in context. --------------- TL;DR Faggot, fuck, nigger are usable words as long as the context is "we're discussing the words and don't wanna look like idiots saying <insert letter>-word so we can get around it". EDIT: Moved the disclaimer to the top.

t3_1cq93z

Being a man means being able to make the most sadistic and sexual jokes

Being a man means making the most sadistic, sarcastic comment in men conversations. The more sadistic, the funnier. It doesn't matter if feelings are hurt. It is unmanly to appear upset at something. Also, you cannot expect sympathy from your fellow men in a group. Your occupation is your own even if you fail. If you succeed and do not address your fellow men, they will hate you. And as one gets more manly, he needs to become more controlling. You pick and choose your friends and even your spouse. A "gut feeilng" or "butterflies" only means that their personality must match yours and cannot be against your persona. Location and timing of what needs to be done is everything, there is no room for spontaneity. The more hits you can take from an insult, the more manlier you are. You CAN show emotions, but must do so under controlled circumstances. You can only become best friends with someone when you insult each other. I'm just a growing boy, age 22 with growing up issues. I know I just made multiple viewpoints. Feel free to refute any.

Being a man means being able to make the most sadistic and sexual jokes. Being a man means making the most sadistic, sarcastic comment in men conversations. The more sadistic, the funnier. It doesn't matter if feelings are hurt. It is unmanly to appear upset at something. Also, you cannot expect sympathy from your fellow men in a group. Your occupation is your own even if you fail. If you succeed and do not address your fellow men, they will hate you. And as one gets more manly, he needs to become more controlling. You pick and choose your friends and even your spouse. A "gut feeilng" or "butterflies" only means that their personality must match yours and cannot be against your persona. Location and timing of what needs to be done is everything, there is no room for spontaneity. The more hits you can take from an insult, the more manlier you are. You CAN show emotions, but must do so under controlled circumstances. You can only become best friends with someone when you insult each other. I'm just a growing boy, age 22 with growing up issues. I know I just made multiple viewpoints. Feel free to refute any.

t3_1sr2zv

I think the Men's Rights Movement is just an excuse to talk shit about feminists, and doesn't do anything to actually help men. CMV.

I'm a (moderate) feminist, and over the years I've been a little peeved by the Men's Rights Movement. I don't think that it actually promotes rape or misogyny, like some people say, but from my experiences men's rights activists are almost exclusively straight white dudes (who come from a usually privileged background) who just want to talk insult feminism. I've noticed that most MRAs don't really know much about feminism, and think that it actually is "women trying to become dominant over men". I feel like most MRAs don't really care much about helping men, and most of them believe that feminists somehow dominate politics, and that feminists are the ones responsible for unfair custody laws, the erasure of male rape, or the suspicions that men are all pedophiles. A minority of feminists do actually hate men, but given that feminism is just the belief that men and women should be equal, saying "men should not be allowed to teach preschool" is not feminism. I think that men's rights activists ignore that the cause of most men's issues arise from sexism. Women are seen as "better parents" mostly by men who believe that it's their place to raise children. Male victims of rape are mocked because rape is seen as shameful and unmanly. Many MRAs seem to hate that all men are expected to be wealthy, incredibly athletic, and outgoing, but so do most feminists! This belief, that men should behave in a certain way, is sexism. Most feminists care more about female victims of feminism because women are hurt more. It's awful that men usually lose custody suits, but the fact that women will have to pay for *rape insurance* in Michigan is far worse. Women's problems are a lot more numerous than men's issues. Also, because most feminists are women, they are more familiar and more knowledgeable about sexism against women than the effects of sexism on men. I rarely see MRAs acknowledge that their unfair expectations are societal. Instead, they just complain about feminists or leave anonymous comments telling activists that they should be raped. I think the Men's Rights Movement is just a way for (straight, white) men to talk shit about feminists, and doesn't do anything to actually help men. CMV.

I think the Men's Rights Movement is just an excuse to talk shit about feminists, and doesn't do anything to actually help men. CMV. I'm a (moderate) feminist, and over the years I've been a little peeved by the Men's Rights Movement. I don't think that it actually promotes rape or misogyny, like some people say, but from my experiences men's rights activists are almost exclusively straight white dudes (who come from a usually privileged background) who just want to talk insult feminism. I've noticed that most MRAs don't really know much about feminism, and think that it actually is "women trying to become dominant over men". I feel like most MRAs don't really care much about helping men, and most of them believe that feminists somehow dominate politics, and that feminists are the ones responsible for unfair custody laws, the erasure of male rape, or the suspicions that men are all pedophiles. A minority of feminists do actually hate men, but given that feminism is just the belief that men and women should be equal, saying "men should not be allowed to teach preschool" is not feminism. I think that men's rights activists ignore that the cause of most men's issues arise from sexism. Women are seen as "better parents" mostly by men who believe that it's their place to raise children. Male victims of rape are mocked because rape is seen as shameful and unmanly. Many MRAs seem to hate that all men are expected to be wealthy, incredibly athletic, and outgoing, but so do most feminists! This belief, that men should behave in a certain way, is sexism. Most feminists care more about female victims of feminism because women are hurt more. It's awful that men usually lose custody suits, but the fact that women will have to pay for *rape insurance* in Michigan is far worse. Women's problems are a lot more numerous than men's issues. Also, because most feminists are women, they are more familiar and more knowledgeable about sexism against women than the effects of sexism on men. I rarely see MRAs acknowledge that their unfair expectations are societal. Instead, they just complain about feminists or leave anonymous comments telling activists that they should be raped. I think the Men's Rights Movement is just a way for (straight, white) men to talk shit about feminists, and doesn't do anything to actually help men. CMV.

t3_4j03by

CMV: th outcry and psychological damage done by rape/pedophilia are primarily not about our natural reactions but about puritanical attitudes towards sex.

I know I'm going to sound like a victim blaming dick here, but bear with me. Imo, it seems like when survivors of rape/statutory rape talk about their experience, they talk about feeling violated, humiliated, etc. this seems like a result of how we consider sex to be such an intimate action that should only be done with those who you love, which stems from our evolutionary nature, especially of women, to breed with those that will give their babies the highest chance of survival. However, with the onset of contraceptives and the ease with which pregnancy is handled in the first world, these are dated, evolutionary, and fundamentally irrational attitudes to how sex is perceived, and a culture shift towards the devaluation of sex would fix issues regarding the severity of rape. _____ > *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: th outcry and psychological damage done by rape/pedophilia are primarily not about our natural reactions but about puritanical attitudes towards sex. I know I'm going to sound like a victim blaming dick here, but bear with me. Imo, it seems like when survivors of rape/statutory rape talk about their experience, they talk about feeling violated, humiliated, etc. this seems like a result of how we consider sex to be such an intimate action that should only be done with those who you love, which stems from our evolutionary nature, especially of women, to breed with those that will give their babies the highest chance of survival. However, with the onset of contraceptives and the ease with which pregnancy is handled in the first world, these are dated, evolutionary, and fundamentally irrational attitudes to how sex is perceived, and a culture shift towards the devaluation of sex would fix issues regarding the severity of rape.

t3_3tj5t0

CMV: Being a "fair weather" fan is a good thing.

Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! _____ Lately I've been getting criticized as a Titans fan for starting to follow the Dallas Cowboys more and more. My family has a history with the team (that shouldn't matter) but I'm still receiving criticism from my friends for not being "loyal" to my team. But my argument is that watching bad football is not fun to watch. Football is supposed to be fun to watch and make me have fun. Why would I watch it if all I have to look forward to is losing, being angry and frustrated while watching more disappointment like I saw tonight. This is not what football's about and I should be able to piggyback on other team's success just like fan's who have been there for years piggyback on their success too. Time of fandom shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. It's not like supporting the team realistically helped the team to accomplish anything. If anything they're hurting their chances in succeeding for rewarding their team (by viewing them) for shitty performances. I don't want to take away anyone's enjoyment when their team does well. Obviously being a fan for a long time will generally mean you care about winning more than the average fan but it still shouldn't mean that people aren't allowed to celebrate with you. Football is entertainment and if I continue to watch a team that's been consistently terrible I'm doing nothing but letting the owners keep doing the same shit they've been doing every year. It's only when I decide that the team is not worth watching is when they'll finally take notice and make some changes. If literally everyone stopped watching Browns games this would cause the owners to actually make substantial changes or the NFL might shut down the team completely. Which would hopefully cause developments into a decent team (assuming fair weather fans were mostly present.) I know this is easier said than done but I can't think of another way to fix consistently terrible teams so please help me 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: Being a "fair weather" fan is a good thing. Please leave the footnote below the following line, but remember to delete this sentence by replacing it with the body of your post. Thank you! I don't want to take away anyone's enjoyment when their team does well. Obviously being a fan for a long time will generally mean you care about winning more than the average fan but it still shouldn't mean that people aren't allowed to celebrate with you. Football is entertainment and if I continue to watch a team that's been consistently terrible I'm doing nothing but letting the owners keep doing the same shit they've been doing every year. It's only when I decide that the team is not worth watching is when they'll finally take notice and make some changes. If literally everyone stopped watching Browns games this would cause the owners to actually make substantial changes or the NFL might shut down the team completely. Which would hopefully cause developments into a decent team (assuming fair weather fans were mostly present.) I know this is easier said than done but I can't think of another way to fix consistently terrible teams so please help me 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!*

t3_3tdo7b

CMV: The "LifeProTips" subreddit should change its name.

The name of the subreddit turns me off of ever visiting it, despite the fact that I think it's quite good and has a lot to offer. I think that changing the name would be beneficial for the following reasons... 1) It makes me think that everyone who posts there is a self-help book author or frat bro which really makes me a lot less open to what they have to say, or willing to visit the subreddit in the first place. 2) I think calling it "LifeProTips" implies that there is such a thing as being a "Life Pro" which is ridiculous, and basically establishes a kind of inferiority amongst those who visit the subreddit looking for advice. 3) If the name was changed, people like myself would be a lot more open to it's ideas which from what I've seen are quite good! _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The "LifeProTips" subreddit should change its name. The name of the subreddit turns me off of ever visiting it, despite the fact that I think it's quite good and has a lot to offer. I think that changing the name would be beneficial for the following reasons... 1) It makes me think that everyone who posts there is a self-help book author or frat bro which really makes me a lot less open to what they have to say, or willing to visit the subreddit in the first place. 2) I think calling it "LifeProTips" implies that there is such a thing as being a "Life Pro" which is ridiculous, and basically establishes a kind of inferiority amongst those who visit the subreddit looking for advice. 3) If the name was changed, people like myself would be a lot more open to it's ideas which from what I've seen are quite good!

t3_34nt6w

CMV: Women who want a "Gay Best Friend" are no better than homophobes

So I am a gay guy in his 20s and since I came out I have on occasion been objectified by girls I know wanting a "Gay Best Friend" So in their world (thanks to crap on TV and popular culture) I am objectified as some trendy fashion accessory and not as a person. I mean for some girls I am just something to befriend because its "cool" to have a gay friend and not because of who I am or that they want to be around me, so in a way they are treating me different from their real friends as somewhat like a lesser human Alot of homophobes don't want stuff like Same Sex marriage as they think we are not worthy of marriage rights and again somewhat like a lesser human being. Before someone says it I am NOT saying all girls are like this, my best friend is a girl and she is my best friend because she likes hanging around me and well we look out for each other and share alot just like friends should be. Beside the point I don't even see myself as trendy, I wear skinny jeans, band t-shirts, converse, I have alot of wrist bands, I wear some makeup and all sorts (I guess I am pop-punk judging by my music taste..) _____ > *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: Women who want a "Gay Best Friend" are no better than homophobes. So I am a gay guy in his 20s and since I came out I have on occasion been objectified by girls I know wanting a "Gay Best Friend" So in their world (thanks to crap on TV and popular culture) I am objectified as some trendy fashion accessory and not as a person. I mean for some girls I am just something to befriend because its "cool" to have a gay friend and not because of who I am or that they want to be around me, so in a way they are treating me different from their real friends as somewhat like a lesser human Alot of homophobes don't want stuff like Same Sex marriage as they think we are not worthy of marriage rights and again somewhat like a lesser human being. Before someone says it I am NOT saying all girls are like this, my best friend is a girl and she is my best friend because she likes hanging around me and well we look out for each other and share alot just like friends should be. Beside the point I don't even see myself as trendy, I wear skinny jeans, band t-shirts, converse, I have alot of wrist bands, I wear some makeup and all sorts (I guess I am pop-punk judging by my music taste..)

t3_49ufcf

CMV: The U.S. Government should put tariffs on foreign oil to stimulate the economy, diminish OPEC's oligopoly on oil, and push the US to pursue alternative energies.

I believe that if the United States put tariffs on foreign oil we would see several benefits to the US economy. First and foremost taxing foreign oil will produce some much needed revenue for the government. Taxing foreign oil would increase the price of foreign oil causing a demand for domestic oil, with oil currently in such surplus and oil prices so low we have seen drastic impacts on oil production within the US. Domestic oil cannot compete with OPEC's low oil prices and this is causing oil production within the US to plummet and many recently created jobs are being lost. With oil prices at the low price they are now this would be a great time to implement tariffs. Raised oil prices would reinvigorate our pursuit of alternative energies as well stimulating the economy.

CMV: The U.S. Government should put tariffs on foreign oil to stimulate the economy, diminish OPEC's oligopoly on oil, and push the US to pursue alternative energies. I believe that if the United States put tariffs on foreign oil we would see several benefits to the US economy. First and foremost taxing foreign oil will produce some much needed revenue for the government. Taxing foreign oil would increase the price of foreign oil causing a demand for domestic oil, with oil currently in such surplus and oil prices so low we have seen drastic impacts on oil production within the US. Domestic oil cannot compete with OPEC's low oil prices and this is causing oil production within the US to plummet and many recently created jobs are being lost. With oil prices at the low price they are now this would be a great time to implement tariffs. Raised oil prices would reinvigorate our pursuit of alternative energies as well stimulating the economy.

t3_633p73

CMV: I don't think businesses should be forced to serve clients who are gay or are of certain races/ethnic groups.

I'd first like to say(mostly in regard to the gay client part) that I am not religious at all, and I'm all for gay rights. I just don't think that the government has the right to tell private business owners who they have to serve. Beyond that, since being intolerant/racist/homophobic/etc is so heavily stigmatized in our society, the businesses in question would basically be digging their own graves. Word would quickly get out that that business is discriminatory and their reputation would sustain a serious blow. So if a bakery doesn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple or a birthday cake for a black man, so be it. They are only hurting themselves by doing so. Forcing people to do things that go against their beliefs is wrong in my opinion anyway, and they are well within their rights to hold certain beliefs(however ill informed or bigoted they might be)and express them. Edit:My view has been changed, and I'd like to thank you all for your time and for being so courteous and respectful. Speaking from past experiences, that's hard to come by these days! !delta

CMV: I don't think businesses should be forced to serve clients who are gay or are of certain races/ethnic groups. I'd first like to say(mostly in regard to the gay client part) that I am not religious at all, and I'm all for gay rights. I just don't think that the government has the right to tell private business owners who they have to serve. Beyond that, since being intolerant/racist/homophobic/etc is so heavily stigmatized in our society, the businesses in question would basically be digging their own graves. Word would quickly get out that that business is discriminatory and their reputation would sustain a serious blow. So if a bakery doesn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple or a birthday cake for a black man, so be it. They are only hurting themselves by doing so. Forcing people to do things that go against their beliefs is wrong in my opinion anyway, and they are well within their rights to hold certain beliefs(however ill informed or bigoted they might be)and express them. Edit:My view has been changed, and I'd like to thank you all for your time and for being so courteous and respectful. Speaking from past experiences, that's hard to come by these days! !delta

t3_6zhnow

CMV: The majority of the things that we learn in the American schooling system will not apply to the real world.

One of the reasons why I don't like the American schooling system is because I believe that most of the rings we learn in American school will not apply to real life. I know that there are some things that will be needed for real life. For example, basic math skills will definitely be needed for jobs like an architect or engineer, that's for sure. What you learn in science class in high school will definitely be useful if you want to be a scientist. However, what I am concerned about are subjects taught in the American schooling system are subjects like reading, writing, and English. I honestly fail to see how English class will be useful in the real world. In my opinion, many jobs, even high paying ones, do not involve overanalyzing novels, like you do in English class. Even crappy jobs like being a McDonalds fry cooker does not involve overanalyzing American novels. Architects and engineers do not overanalyze American novels. This is why I feel like what you do in English class is pointless. I have yet to find a single career where all you do is overanalyze American novels and then write multiparagraph essays on them. With that being said, change my view! EDIT: Thank you for your answers. I now understand that schools teach children the basics, like reading comprehension, to prepare them for life. There are many careers that involve the skills learned in English class, like politicans, philosophers, and advertising. _____ > *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 majority of the things that we learn in the American schooling system will not apply to the real world. One of the reasons why I don't like the American schooling system is because I believe that most of the rings we learn in American school will not apply to real life. I know that there are some things that will be needed for real life. For example, basic math skills will definitely be needed for jobs like an architect or engineer, that's for sure. What you learn in science class in high school will definitely be useful if you want to be a scientist. However, what I am concerned about are subjects taught in the American schooling system are subjects like reading, writing, and English. I honestly fail to see how English class will be useful in the real world. In my opinion, many jobs, even high paying ones, do not involve overanalyzing novels, like you do in English class. Even crappy jobs like being a McDonalds fry cooker does not involve overanalyzing American novels. Architects and engineers do not overanalyze American novels. This is why I feel like what you do in English class is pointless. I have yet to find a single career where all you do is overanalyze American novels and then write multiparagraph essays on them. With that being said, change my view! EDIT: Thank you for your answers. I now understand that schools teach children the basics, like reading comprehension, to prepare them for life. There are many careers that involve the skills learned in English class, like politicans, philosophers, and advertising.

t3_1ihnzp

I believe Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty is the greatest Disney villain of all time. CMV.

Let's do a lighthearted CMV shall we? First, Maleficent has the coolest costume. She has like devilish horns on her head and a huge cape. Maleficent pretty much sentences a baby to death because she was not invited to a party. She can disappear in a cloud of green smoke. She has a really fucking cool staff. She kills beautiful flowers with her frost She has a pet Raven. She lives in, what looks like, the Goblin King's castle. Her minions are pretty ugly. She taunts the prince after she captures him. That is pretty fucked up. And lastly, She turns into a fucking Dragon! You can try to CMV, but the fact she turns into a Dragon kind of makes her unbeatable. However, I am curious, and think CMV can use a lighthearted post. **EDIT: So, yeah, this was a fun time. I am really happy with this thread, and am stoked everyone got into. It was nice having a fun argument on something everyone loves and knows amongst all this seriousness happening in this sub lately. Also, almost no one was an asshole, which is always refreshing. I think the best argument for best villain I heard against Maleficent was Scar. Maleficent is still my favorite, but everyone made great points, and I think we can all agree; Most Disney villains are FUCKING terrifying.**

I believe Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty is the greatest Disney villain of all time. CMV. Let's do a lighthearted CMV shall we? First, Maleficent has the coolest costume. She has like devilish horns on her head and a huge cape. Maleficent pretty much sentences a baby to death because she was not invited to a party. She can disappear in a cloud of green smoke. She has a really fucking cool staff. She kills beautiful flowers with her frost She has a pet Raven. She lives in, what looks like, the Goblin King's castle. Her minions are pretty ugly. She taunts the prince after she captures him. That is pretty fucked up. And lastly, She turns into a fucking Dragon! You can try to CMV, but the fact she turns into a Dragon kind of makes her unbeatable. However, I am curious, and think CMV can use a lighthearted post. **EDIT: So, yeah, this was a fun time. I am really happy with this thread, and am stoked everyone got into. It was nice having a fun argument on something everyone loves and knows amongst all this seriousness happening in this sub lately. Also, almost no one was an asshole, which is always refreshing. I think the best argument for best villain I heard against Maleficent was Scar. Maleficent is still my favorite, but everyone made great points, and I think we can all agree; Most Disney villains are FUCKING terrifying.**

t3_6lrrqv

CMV: New age rap/modern rappers suck

I love music. It's been my a huge part of my life since I was maybe 7 or 8 when I really started to care about it. I'm 17 now, and play drums, bass, guitar, vocals, and mallet percussion, (10, 5, 1, 4 years each). I'm just a dedicated musician. With all of that prefaced, I think I have a bit more say in what good music is vs. bad music. At the moment, I listen to mainly classic rock, with my primary band being Rush, with Dorje, Zepplin, and AC/DC closely following. My friends listen to this new age garbage, what I call "mumble rap". You literally cannot understand what the artists are saying, and every song sounds the same. When I say modern, I'm referring to the autotune, mumbling, drugged up 808 songs that you hear playing through people earbuds all the time. Meek Mill, Kendrick Lamar, Drake, 21 Savage, Future, Dae Dae, Loso Loaded, to name a few. This rap has zero musical value. Almost every song my friends have showed me are structured the same way, with a single loop played for the whole song, and maybe taking different parts out of it to make it sound different. And the worst part: Most of the instrumentals don't even use real instruments in the track. Everything is digital/synth. I write music. I proved to my friends I could write an entire backing track to a rap song that almost sounded professional (using garage band) in 1.5 hours. An entire instrumental should not take 1.5 hours to write. Regarding lyrics: the lyrics to these songs are extremely repetitive, and are similar across songs and artists. They all say "nigga" 40 times over, talk about the rappers struggles, talk about his "gang shit", or some frat party. If that is the standard, the genre sucks. My friend told me to listen to a J Cole album, and every song sounded very similar, including lyrics. This was a rapper that I have never heard of before. I went in with a very open mind, and gave my friend a very unbiased musical prospective I try to tell my friends that every modern rap artist they like is a sellout, that they only do what the music industry will make money on. The music industry literally throws a dart at a dartboard with a bunch of soundcloud rappers pinned up and what ever the dart hits and the person they promote. Why? Because they all sound the same. The new generation is almost brainwashed into thinking what they're listening to is good because there is just so much of it out there. Classic rock has gone out the window, and shiny shit has become the new standard. So please, lets discuss. If you want to send me a song, go for it. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: New age rap/modern rappers suck. I love music. It's been my a huge part of my life since I was maybe 7 or 8 when I really started to care about it. I'm 17 now, and play drums, bass, guitar, vocals, and mallet percussion, (10, 5, 1, 4 years each). I'm just a dedicated musician. With all of that prefaced, I think I have a bit more say in what good music is vs. bad music. At the moment, I listen to mainly classic rock, with my primary band being Rush, with Dorje, Zepplin, and AC/DC closely following. My friends listen to this new age garbage, what I call "mumble rap". You literally cannot understand what the artists are saying, and every song sounds the same. When I say modern, I'm referring to the autotune, mumbling, drugged up 808 songs that you hear playing through people earbuds all the time. Meek Mill, Kendrick Lamar, Drake, 21 Savage, Future, Dae Dae, Loso Loaded, to name a few. This rap has zero musical value. Almost every song my friends have showed me are structured the same way, with a single loop played for the whole song, and maybe taking different parts out of it to make it sound different. And the worst part: Most of the instrumentals don't even use real instruments in the track. Everything is digital/synth. I write music. I proved to my friends I could write an entire backing track to a rap song that almost sounded professional (using garage band) in 1.5 hours. An entire instrumental should not take 1.5 hours to write. Regarding lyrics: the lyrics to these songs are extremely repetitive, and are similar across songs and artists. They all say "nigga" 40 times over, talk about the rappers struggles, talk about his "gang shit", or some frat party. If that is the standard, the genre sucks. My friend told me to listen to a J Cole album, and every song sounded very similar, including lyrics. This was a rapper that I have never heard of before. I went in with a very open mind, and gave my friend a very unbiased musical prospective I try to tell my friends that every modern rap artist they like is a sellout, that they only do what the music industry will make money on. The music industry literally throws a dart at a dartboard with a bunch of soundcloud rappers pinned up and what ever the dart hits and the person they promote. Why? Because they all sound the same. The new generation is almost brainwashed into thinking what they're listening to is good because there is just so much of it out there. Classic rock has gone out the window, and shiny shit has become the new standard. So please, lets discuss. If you want to send me a song, go for it.

t3_6tb066

CMV: that the Republic of Korea should obtain its own nuclear weapons

It's clear that the DPRK will soon obtain nuclear weapons together with the ability to strike US cities on the west coast. Once that happens, this scenario becomes possible: 1. The DPRK attacks the ROK with nuclear weapons, perhaps smaller cities. 1. The ROK cannot itself respond. 1. The US dare not attack the DPRK, because the DPRK threatens Seattle, San Francisco and maybe Los Angeles. 1. The ROK surrenders to the DPRK. But if the ROK has nuclear weapons that are clearly under its own control, it has a much more credible deterrent against DPRK nuclear attack. After that, the ROK (and US) should offer to work towards a peace treaty without the precondition of nuclear disarmament of either side. _____ > *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: that the Republic of Korea should obtain its own nuclear weapons. It's clear that the DPRK will soon obtain nuclear weapons together with the ability to strike US cities on the west coast. Once that happens, this scenario becomes possible: 1. The DPRK attacks the ROK with nuclear weapons, perhaps smaller cities. 1. The ROK cannot itself respond. 1. The US dare not attack the DPRK, because the DPRK threatens Seattle, San Francisco and maybe Los Angeles. 1. The ROK surrenders to the DPRK. But if the ROK has nuclear weapons that are clearly under its own control, it has a much more credible deterrent against DPRK nuclear attack. After that, the ROK (and US) should offer to work towards a peace treaty without the precondition of nuclear disarmament of either side.

t3_3m0i6b

CMV: Gaming is a largely worthless hobby, the cons of which far outweigh the pros.

Don't get me wrong - I like playing videogames. Always have. My argument is that while enjoyable, games are in general a colossal waste of time and are responsible for much the lethargy and distraction observable in younger generations. They pacify the need to feel like one has accomplished something, but produce no real world results. Contrary to other hobbies like, say, woodworking, nothing is produced as a result of the time invested. Energy and time expended on gaming is almost entirely wasted. I believe a healthy view of games is that of an occasional treat, perhaps like fast food. One can allow small indulgences here and there for some occasional frivolous enjoyment, but any more is overwhelmingly detrimental.

CMV: Gaming is a largely worthless hobby, the cons of which far outweigh the pros. Don't get me wrong - I like playing videogames. Always have. My argument is that while enjoyable, games are in general a colossal waste of time and are responsible for much the lethargy and distraction observable in younger generations. They pacify the need to feel like one has accomplished something, but produce no real world results. Contrary to other hobbies like, say, woodworking, nothing is produced as a result of the time invested. Energy and time expended on gaming is almost entirely wasted. I believe a healthy view of games is that of an occasional treat, perhaps like fast food. One can allow small indulgences here and there for some occasional frivolous enjoyment, but any more is overwhelmingly detrimental.

t3_6wu69p

CMV: John Stewart should be the main protagonist in the upcoming Green Lantern movie.

Since his onscreen debut in the Justice League/Justice League Unlimited animated series, John Stewart has become one of the most prominent green lanterns for general audiences. His characterization in the series made him a fan favourite by delving into his character and letting him have his own story arcs. With this in mind, I believe that John Stewart should be the main protagonist of the upcoming Green Lantern movie. His debut in the animated series illustrates that John Stewart does not need to be defined by his relationship to Hal Jordan as is constantly depicted in his numerous appearances across the DC animated movies. With Geoff John's fondness of Hal Jordan, there is no doubt in my mind that John will be sidelined to make way for Hal as evidenced by his absence in the New 52 lineup. Another reason I believe John should be a main character is that Hal Jordan had his debut and failed. His movie is known as one of the worst comic book superhero movies of all time. He was also a key reasons that the DCEU reboot is taking place and is one of the most cited reasons the Green Lantern Corps movie has been pushed back; as a way to disassociate from its mess. Lastly, John is a better representative of what it means to be a Green Lantern. As a marine, he understands the responsibilities of the role and isn't afraid to take matters into his own hands which makes him a deviation from other superhero protagonists. It lets creators delve into different story arcs which will prevent the upcoming slated moves from becoming repetitive. _____ > *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: John Stewart should be the main protagonist in the upcoming Green Lantern movie. Since his onscreen debut in the Justice League/Justice League Unlimited animated series, John Stewart has become one of the most prominent green lanterns for general audiences. His characterization in the series made him a fan favourite by delving into his character and letting him have his own story arcs. With this in mind, I believe that John Stewart should be the main protagonist of the upcoming Green Lantern movie. His debut in the animated series illustrates that John Stewart does not need to be defined by his relationship to Hal Jordan as is constantly depicted in his numerous appearances across the DC animated movies. With Geoff John's fondness of Hal Jordan, there is no doubt in my mind that John will be sidelined to make way for Hal as evidenced by his absence in the New 52 lineup. Another reason I believe John should be a main character is that Hal Jordan had his debut and failed. His movie is known as one of the worst comic book superhero movies of all time. He was also a key reasons that the DCEU reboot is taking place and is one of the most cited reasons the Green Lantern Corps movie has been pushed back; as a way to disassociate from its mess. Lastly, John is a better representative of what it means to be a Green Lantern. As a marine, he understands the responsibilities of the role and isn't afraid to take matters into his own hands which makes him a deviation from other superhero protagonists. It lets creators delve into different story arcs which will prevent the upcoming slated moves from becoming repetitive. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

t3_5g9ved

[Podcast] Change My View Ep. 003 : Televangelism

**EDIT**: It seems we were overly-optimistic about returning to Tuesday releases straight away. Episode 4 has been recorded and we're looking at a Friday release. We still intend to get back on track, and stick to a recurring day of the week, hopefully from episode 5 onwards. --- Episode 3 is out now! Listen and subscribe via the following links: * [SoundCloud](https://soundcloud.com/changemyviewpodcast/televangelism) * [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVONsyq0wE) * [iTunes](https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/change-my-view/id1170964711?mt=2) * [PocketCasts](http://pca.st/l5N0) * [Stitcher](http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=123363&refid=stpr) * Podcast Addict (search the database) * You can also follow it on twitter [@theCMVpodcast](https://twitter.com/theCMVpodcast). --- The [Change My View Podcast](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/podcast), hosted by /u/mehatch, is a biweekly exploration of the themes surrounding /r/changemyview and how they apply to the world. Keep an eye out for new episodes every *second* Tuesday. In the first half of this episode, mehatch is joined by /u/JayNotAtAll, to talk about [his post on Televangelists](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5drih2/cmv_televangelists_are_mostly_con_artists_and/), and anything he may have learned from his experience in CMV. In the second half, mod /u/IIIBlackhartIII joins mehatch for a reaction of the interview and some CMV meta discussion. --- **Apologies for the delay** in releasing this episode, for reasons briefly explained in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5fjxs8/mod_post_quick_announcement_to_say_this_weeks/). Our host mehatch has acquired new equipment/software, and we're delighted to say we've been joined by audio engineer /u/BostonDrivingIsWorse for the mixing/mastering of our episodes. Getting used to this new process has held us back a few days, but we've learnt a lot to prevent this from happening again! We aim to our original plan of biweekly Tuesday episodes from here on out. --- Please feel free to leave us feedback in the comment section below, or join in with the planning of our podcast over at /r/CMVpodcast. Thanks!

[Podcast] Change My View Ep. 003 : Televangelism. **EDIT**: It seems we were overly-optimistic about returning to Tuesday releases straight away. Episode 4 has been recorded and we're looking at a Friday release. We still intend to get back on track, and stick to a recurring day of the week, hopefully from episode 5 onwards. --- Episode 3 is out now! Listen and subscribe via the following links: * [SoundCloud](https://soundcloud.com/changemyviewpodcast/televangelism) * [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVONsyq0wE) * [iTunes](https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/change-my-view/id1170964711?mt=2) * [PocketCasts](http://pca.st/l5N0) * [Stitcher](http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=123363&refid=stpr) * Podcast Addict (search the database) * You can also follow it on twitter [@theCMVpodcast](https://twitter.com/theCMVpodcast). --- The [Change My View Podcast](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/podcast), hosted by /u/mehatch, is a biweekly exploration of the themes surrounding /r/changemyview and how they apply to the world. Keep an eye out for new episodes every *second* Tuesday. In the first half of this episode, mehatch is joined by /u/JayNotAtAll, to talk about [his post on Televangelists](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5drih2/cmv_televangelists_are_mostly_con_artists_and/), and anything he may have learned from his experience in CMV. In the second half, mod /u/IIIBlackhartIII joins mehatch for a reaction of the interview and some CMV meta discussion. --- **Apologies for the delay** in releasing this episode, for reasons briefly explained in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5fjxs8/mod_post_quick_announcement_to_say_this_weeks/). Our host mehatch has acquired new equipment/software, and we're delighted to say we've been joined by audio engineer /u/BostonDrivingIsWorse for the mixing/mastering of our episodes. Getting used to this new process has held us back a few days, but we've learnt a lot to prevent this from happening again! We aim to our original plan of biweekly Tuesday episodes from here on out. --- Please feel free to leave us feedback in the comment section below, or join in with the planning of our podcast over at /r/CMVpodcast. Thanks!

t3_242m1q

CMV: Colleges should abolish most humanities as a degree option

I'm not saying that no one should ever study the humanities, I just think degrees in philosophy, art, English, foreign language, history, and other related subjects should not be offered. It would be far more useful to society if the education system focused its resources more towards STEM fields. Colleges shouldn't eradicate all courses, just significantly reduce them. It is the STEM subjects that propel humanity into the future. The vast majority of things we take for granted or can't live without, both literally and figuratively, come from STEM subjects. Why are such subjective subjects like art or literature important enough to dedicate one's life to, especially when you will earn so little *if* you are employed? Rather I think if someone wants to learn more about the humanities, it should be more as a hobby than a career. Some of you may argue that some people just aren't good enough in math and science to pursue a STEM field. I think the reason for that is a lack of emphasis placed in early childhood on the importance of these subjects. Again, if we turned down the focus on the humanities a bit throughout elementary school and get kids more excited about math and science, this wouldn't be too big of a problem. I should also mention that there are certain humanities degrees that shouldn't be abolished, like politics, which is vital for society to flourish. _____ > *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: Colleges should abolish most humanities as a degree option. I'm not saying that no one should ever study the humanities, I just think degrees in philosophy, art, English, foreign language, history, and other related subjects should not be offered. It would be far more useful to society if the education system focused its resources more towards STEM fields. Colleges shouldn't eradicate all courses, just significantly reduce them. It is the STEM subjects that propel humanity into the future. The vast majority of things we take for granted or can't live without, both literally and figuratively, come from STEM subjects. Why are such subjective subjects like art or literature important enough to dedicate one's life to, especially when you will earn so little *if* you are employed? Rather I think if someone wants to learn more about the humanities, it should be more as a hobby than a career. Some of you may argue that some people just aren't good enough in math and science to pursue a STEM field. I think the reason for that is a lack of emphasis placed in early childhood on the importance of these subjects. Again, if we turned down the focus on the humanities a bit throughout elementary school and get kids more excited about math and science, this wouldn't be too big of a problem. I should also mention that there are certain humanities degrees that shouldn't be abolished, like politics, which is vital for society to flourish.

t3_1y7drd

I only hear bad things about "settling down", marriage but mostly kids. I'm afraid I'll regret having kids after reading about others' experiences. CMV.

Basically I'm thinking about marriage, and kids are a topic obviously. I have a very good relationship with my dad, who tells me he never had peace until he had children. My relationship with my mom is rocky, and although she never says it outright, I can guess a part of her did not want kids. She always warns me to not having kids until I'm in my 30s because you can't do anything for yourself once you have kids. I'm only 24 so I don't have a strong desire for kids now, but I have the idea that I would like two kids maybe in my early 30s. But I think having kids will mean my life is over. Change my view.

I only hear bad things about "settling down", marriage but mostly kids. I'm afraid I'll regret having kids after reading about others' experiences. CMV. Basically I'm thinking about marriage, and kids are a topic obviously. I have a very good relationship with my dad, who tells me he never had peace until he had children. My relationship with my mom is rocky, and although she never says it outright, I can guess a part of her did not want kids. She always warns me to not having kids until I'm in my 30s because you can't do anything for yourself once you have kids. I'm only 24 so I don't have a strong desire for kids now, but I have the idea that I would like two kids maybe in my early 30s. But I think having kids will mean my life is over. Change my view.

t3_1tkvr4

There's no evidence for free will, so there's no reason to believe it exists. CMV

Yes, I see the irony in the question. The issue of free will has bothered me for some time. I recently watched [Sam Harris's lecture on the topic](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk), which re-ignited the question. His ideas are hard for me to argue. It seems there's every reason to believe that free will is an illusion. I don't want to feel trapped like a victim of circumstance. I've been craving a sense of empowerment. But without free will, it appears that isn't possible unless I delude myself. Maybe there are philosophical arguments that can be made, or criticisms of the science surrounding free will.

There's no evidence for free will, so there's no reason to believe it exists. CMV. Yes, I see the irony in the question. The issue of free will has bothered me for some time. I recently watched [Sam Harris's lecture on the topic](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk), which re-ignited the question. His ideas are hard for me to argue. It seems there's every reason to believe that free will is an illusion. I don't want to feel trapped like a victim of circumstance. I've been craving a sense of empowerment. But without free will, it appears that isn't possible unless I delude myself. Maybe there are philosophical arguments that can be made, or criticisms of the science surrounding free will.

t3_2bcxx8

CMV: Hamas is nothing short of a terrorist organization and Israel has every right to retaliate.

* Hamas has fired some 2000 missiles into Israel over the past 2 weeks despite numerous attempts by Israel to cease-fire without retaliation. * Hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left Israel with no options besides retaliation. With the main goal of Hamas being to destroy Israel; Israel has the right to neutralize Hamas to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens. * Israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in Gaza when Hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings. * I believe the disregard for civilian casualties by Hamas and continual bombing of Israel is enough justification to invade Gaza and prevent further bombings.

CMV: Hamas is nothing short of a terrorist organization and Israel has every right to retaliate. * Hamas has fired some 2000 missiles into Israel over the past 2 weeks despite numerous attempts by Israel to cease-fire without retaliation. * Hamas declining/ignoring these opportunities of peace have left Israel with no options besides retaliation. With the main goal of Hamas being to destroy Israel; Israel has the right to neutralize Hamas to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens. * Israel should not be held accountable for civilian casualties in Gaza when Hamas is actively trying to increase civilian casualties by firing missiles out of civilian buildings. * I believe the disregard for civilian casualties by Hamas and continual bombing of Israel is enough justification to invade Gaza and prevent further bombings.

t3_234a5k

CMV: I believe if homosexuality can be justified, than rape could equally be justified by the same grounds.

If homosexuality is justified as being something that people are "born with", and that it occurs frequently in nature, than I think rape should be justified by the same grounds. Animals rape each other left and right all throughout the animal kingdom. Sure you could argue consent, but this assumes that people *don't need* to consent a person being gay around other people. By a man dressing in revealing women's clothing, and acting unexpectedly, this person is imposing a great deal of risk on my safety or well-being. How do I know that the guy in drag passing me on the street isn't going to do something unexpected to me? These are all valid concerns, but most importantly, both examples I have provided are governed by the same laws. EDIT: clarification _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I believe if homosexuality can be justified, than rape could equally be justified by the same grounds. If homosexuality is justified as being something that people are "born with", and that it occurs frequently in nature, than I think rape should be justified by the same grounds. Animals rape each other left and right all throughout the animal kingdom. Sure you could argue consent, but this assumes that people *don't need* to consent a person being gay around other people. By a man dressing in revealing women's clothing, and acting unexpectedly, this person is imposing a great deal of risk on my safety or well-being. How do I know that the guy in drag passing me on the street isn't going to do something unexpected to me? These are all valid concerns, but most importantly, both examples I have provided are governed by the same laws. EDIT: clarification

t3_3ngrvt

CMV: There are no "Good Rebels" Fighting in Syria

I am watching the CNN International reports on the Russian attacks in Syrian and they are claiming that the Russians are attacking the moderate opposition to Assad. Among the groups that they admitted were targeted were the "Al Nusra Front". And they also admitted that these guys are classified as terrorists by the USA. But they didn't dwell too much on that and didn't give any other names of any moderate opponents to Bashar al Assad. The BBC whose reporting is more objective mentioned the Russian position who say that among these so called moderates are plenty of extremists like Al Nusra front. A little historical context will clarify the myth of the moderate opposition in Syria today. Qatar had wanted to declassify al Nusra as terrorists. Qatar who of course funds a lot of whabi terrorism in the middle east, just like Saudi Arabia. The the united states couldn't go that far along with their demands. Indeed, I am from Lebanon and here our local news does mention the names of the other groups, and guess what these names have islam somewhere in them and the groups carry a black war flag (the flag of islamism), just like Al Nusra for example. With that in mind, who are the moderate opposition? What are their political goals? Knowing that Syria has multiple religions and ethnicities, so an islamic system would not be better than Assad. I would like nothing better than to see Assad go and replaced with Democracy. As a Lebanese I remember the oppression of his regime here in Lebanon and would like nothing more than to see freedom for the Syrian people. But Islamism is not freedom. So I come here hoping that someone might have more information to change my mind. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There are no "Good Rebels" Fighting in Syria. I am watching the CNN International reports on the Russian attacks in Syrian and they are claiming that the Russians are attacking the moderate opposition to Assad. Among the groups that they admitted were targeted were the "Al Nusra Front". And they also admitted that these guys are classified as terrorists by the USA. But they didn't dwell too much on that and didn't give any other names of any moderate opponents to Bashar al Assad. The BBC whose reporting is more objective mentioned the Russian position who say that among these so called moderates are plenty of extremists like Al Nusra front. A little historical context will clarify the myth of the moderate opposition in Syria today. Qatar had wanted to declassify al Nusra as terrorists. Qatar who of course funds a lot of whabi terrorism in the middle east, just like Saudi Arabia. The the united states couldn't go that far along with their demands. Indeed, I am from Lebanon and here our local news does mention the names of the other groups, and guess what these names have islam somewhere in them and the groups carry a black war flag (the flag of islamism), just like Al Nusra for example. With that in mind, who are the moderate opposition? What are their political goals? Knowing that Syria has multiple religions and ethnicities, so an islamic system would not be better than Assad. I would like nothing better than to see Assad go and replaced with Democracy. As a Lebanese I remember the oppression of his regime here in Lebanon and would like nothing more than to see freedom for the Syrian people. But Islamism is not freedom. So I come here hoping that someone might have more information to change my mind.

t3_1xd8wk

I think Hillary Clinton already has a lock on the 2016 Democratic nomination. CMV

The Democrats don't have anyone else with the kind of national prominence required to replace Obama. Joe Biden is about as exciting as watching paint dry, Cory Booker is unknown outside of New Jersey, and Elizabeth Warren would be George McGovern all over again. Additionally, they aren't going to resist going for "first female president" now that "first black president" has been checked off. Barring the Republicans nominating someone bizarre and some other candidate emerging as a "perfect counter," Clinton is far and away the strongest in terms of general appeal.

I think Hillary Clinton already has a lock on the 2016 Democratic nomination. CMV. The Democrats don't have anyone else with the kind of national prominence required to replace Obama. Joe Biden is about as exciting as watching paint dry, Cory Booker is unknown outside of New Jersey, and Elizabeth Warren would be George McGovern all over again. Additionally, they aren't going to resist going for "first female president" now that "first black president" has been checked off. Barring the Republicans nominating someone bizarre and some other candidate emerging as a "perfect counter," Clinton is far and away the strongest in terms of general appeal.

t3_1zxu37

I believe that there's no connection between race and IQ. CMV

In terms of body structure, yes, there may be some room for HBD. Certain populations have more physical characteristics than others, such as height and skin tone. However, intelligence is not one of them. First of all, there's no definition for intelligence as of yet. The academic community has yet reached a consensus. Secondly, there has yet been genetic studies that associated an IQ gene to a given population. I have more arguments, but I'll wait for replies. Please keep this as civil as possible. This is a very controversial topic.

I believe that there's no connection between race and IQ. CMV. In terms of body structure, yes, there may be some room for HBD. Certain populations have more physical characteristics than others, such as height and skin tone. However, intelligence is not one of them. First of all, there's no definition for intelligence as of yet. The academic community has yet reached a consensus. Secondly, there has yet been genetic studies that associated an IQ gene to a given population. I have more arguments, but I'll wait for replies. Please keep this as civil as possible. This is a very controversial topic.

t3_1rdlkw

In 1-2 generations, swear words won't be offensive anymore CMV

Think about it, literally every teenager swears. I don't think that any of them are offended by swearing. Like seriously, try to find a teenager who finds swear words offensive. You never hear a teenager say "Hey watch your language!" or "I don't like it when people swear, it offends me" cause they don't care. If you call a teenager a "dumbass", they'll be offended by the meaning, of course, but not the word itself. If you say something like "This is fucking cool" or "Fuck yeah", you're not offending anyone, you're just making your statement stronger. There is no reason to offended by this. Of course, words like "faggot","nigger", and "retard" will still be offensive because of its homophobic, racist, and ableist relation. When we were kids we thought "stupid" was a swear word. Our parents would tell us that it was a swear word and that we should never say it. But as we grow up we learn that it's not a bad word, just that it's not nice to say to people. Our parents don't care if we say it anymore, only if we don't use it to hurt others. What makes "stupid" different than any other swear words? Why don't parents teach it like that with other swear words? Or "dork". It's not a swear word at all and never has been, but its definitely not nice to call people that. My point is that when all teenagers become adults and adults into old adults, swear words won't be swear words any more. Would you honestly be offended by your child swearing? Just teach them that using it offensively is wrong!

In 1-2 generations, swear words won't be offensive anymore CMV. Think about it, literally every teenager swears. I don't think that any of them are offended by swearing. Like seriously, try to find a teenager who finds swear words offensive. You never hear a teenager say "Hey watch your language!" or "I don't like it when people swear, it offends me" cause they don't care. If you call a teenager a "dumbass", they'll be offended by the meaning, of course, but not the word itself. If you say something like "This is fucking cool" or "Fuck yeah", you're not offending anyone, you're just making your statement stronger. There is no reason to offended by this. Of course, words like "faggot","nigger", and "retard" will still be offensive because of its homophobic, racist, and ableist relation. When we were kids we thought "stupid" was a swear word. Our parents would tell us that it was a swear word and that we should never say it. But as we grow up we learn that it's not a bad word, just that it's not nice to say to people. Our parents don't care if we say it anymore, only if we don't use it to hurt others. What makes "stupid" different than any other swear words? Why don't parents teach it like that with other swear words? Or "dork". It's not a swear word at all and never has been, but its definitely not nice to call people that. My point is that when all teenagers become adults and adults into old adults, swear words won't be swear words any more. Would you honestly be offended by your child swearing? Just teach them that using it offensively is wrong!

t3_1ee6mk

I believe interventionism should always prevail over isolationism. CMV

The United States practiced isolationism during World War I and during the beginning of World War II until they were forcibly involved in it due to Pearl Harbor. The enemy was clear: fascism and nazism, these are, the Axis powers. How come isolationism was a possible option at the time facing such policies? How come countries such as Russia or China constantly veto interventionist measures in countries such as Iran, Syria, Korea where the risk seems established (dictatorship, international threats..) and in which violations of human rights are -apparently- witnessed? My opinion is that not intervening is being accomplice of the violations of human rights. -CMV PS: I live in France, and support at 100% my government for engaging terrorists in Mali. I am on the opposite wing than my government.

I believe interventionism should always prevail over isolationism. CMV. The United States practiced isolationism during World War I and during the beginning of World War II until they were forcibly involved in it due to Pearl Harbor. The enemy was clear: fascism and nazism, these are, the Axis powers. How come isolationism was a possible option at the time facing such policies? How come countries such as Russia or China constantly veto interventionist measures in countries such as Iran, Syria, Korea where the risk seems established (dictatorship, international threats..) and in which violations of human rights are -apparently- witnessed? My opinion is that not intervening is being accomplice of the violations of human rights. -CMV PS: I live in France, and support at 100% my government for engaging terrorists in Mali. I am on the opposite wing than my government.

t3_2kf097

CMV: Canadian politicians and media are reacting to the "acts of terror" disproportionately because it fits their current agenda.

Two Canadian military personnel were killed in two completely unrelated events, a few days apart. American media is trying to frame this as "Canada's 9/11" and Canadian media is exercising slightly more self control, but throwing around terrorism and "the new normal" as if our country has been shaken to its core. Neither of the attacks were massively coordinated events that required years of planning and significant preparation to execute, but were carried out by two unconnected troubled individuals. Because one had pretty obvious interest in ISIS, and the other converted to Islam and was applying for a Libyan passport, everyone is having a field day with this and calling it terrorism. Compare that to three RCMP officers being killed by a white guy recently, and the reaction is night and day. These two attacks fit the narrative of ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State= bad, foreign, radical, terrorists. These men were not considered Canadians acting as Canadians, but *radicalized* by an ideology from half the world away by a group of people who are not Christians, therefore they are religious extremists. We can distance ourselves from their actions because they really aren't acting the way Canadians do, while justifying the government talking about increased security measures, new legislation, and our participation in a war we have no part in. If these two attacks happened to be by white guys, women, or someone else that doesn't conveniently fit the stereotypical terrorist profile, the response would be "this is a tragic case of two troubled individuals who happened to do something horrible in the same week," not "TERRORISM IN CANADA!!" Am I missing something? Please 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: Canadian politicians and media are reacting to the "acts of terror" disproportionately because it fits their current agenda. Two Canadian military personnel were killed in two completely unrelated events, a few days apart. American media is trying to frame this as "Canada's 9/11" and Canadian media is exercising slightly more self control, but throwing around terrorism and "the new normal" as if our country has been shaken to its core. Neither of the attacks were massively coordinated events that required years of planning and significant preparation to execute, but were carried out by two unconnected troubled individuals. Because one had pretty obvious interest in ISIS, and the other converted to Islam and was applying for a Libyan passport, everyone is having a field day with this and calling it terrorism. Compare that to three RCMP officers being killed by a white guy recently, and the reaction is night and day. These two attacks fit the narrative of ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State= bad, foreign, radical, terrorists. These men were not considered Canadians acting as Canadians, but *radicalized* by an ideology from half the world away by a group of people who are not Christians, therefore they are religious extremists. We can distance ourselves from their actions because they really aren't acting the way Canadians do, while justifying the government talking about increased security measures, new legislation, and our participation in a war we have no part in. If these two attacks happened to be by white guys, women, or someone else that doesn't conveniently fit the stereotypical terrorist profile, the response would be "this is a tragic case of two troubled individuals who happened to do something horrible in the same week," not "TERRORISM IN CANADA!!" Am I missing something? Please Change my view.

t3_1hc5om

I don't think alcoholism is a disease, nor should people "suffering" from it be praised for not drinking. CMV.

Like the title says, I don't think alcoholics are sick. I think they just lack discipline and self-control. The cure for this "disease" is not drinking alcohol and (maybe) going to support groups. That's not medicine, that's simply not drinking anymore. The "all or nothing" mindset, the "one drink and I'll completely relapse" idea completely sidesteps the actual issue and rids alcoholics of any real responsibility. I think "alcoholism" is just an excuse alcoholics make so they don't actually have to learn the discipline and self-control it takes to do something in moderation.

I don't think alcoholism is a disease, nor should people "suffering" from it be praised for not drinking. CMV. Like the title says, I don't think alcoholics are sick. I think they just lack discipline and self-control. The cure for this "disease" is not drinking alcohol and (maybe) going to support groups. That's not medicine, that's simply not drinking anymore. The "all or nothing" mindset, the "one drink and I'll completely relapse" idea completely sidesteps the actual issue and rids alcoholics of any real responsibility. I think "alcoholism" is just an excuse alcoholics make so they don't actually have to learn the discipline and self-control it takes to do something in moderation.

t3_1klwn8

I believe capitalism is one of the worst form of economic system. CMV

Hello CMV! So I think that capitalism is the worst form of economic system, and let me produce 3 arguments: a. By promoting "offer and demand" as the ultimate source for the distribution of money, people can get rich, or have a very high salary without doing much more work, or without making the world a better place that a min-wage worker does. *Ex1*: Does a hedgefund manager really produces 500 times more work than the cleaning lady who changes his bedsheets in the 5-star hotel he's staying in? I don't think so. Of course, he should be paid a *little* more, since his job has more responsibilities, requires more intelligence and so on. But not 500 times more than this cleaning lady who still does quite a difficult job. *Ex2*: I agree Bill Gates was a great inventor, who did change lots of things in this world. Still, did he really *deserve* 60 billion $ of fortune as a reward for his work, in comparison with all the artists, scientists or thinkers whose works are also creative and sometime change the world? I don't think so. *Ex3*: I consider a teacher to be much more important to society than the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Then why doesn't a teacher earn 40 millions a year? Well it's because lots of people need banks for a capitalist society to function correctly, and because teachers aren't an absolute necessity. b. By allowing capital to be amassed in the hands of one person and his family, capitalism leads to the reproduction of a non-productive bourgeoisie that still restfully profits from the work of her ancestors. *Ex4*: I've been to a private school in Switzerland. And Jesus, you had to see these stupid kids with their stupids parents having no intelligence whatsoever other that spending grandpa's money, without doing anything else. Why?? Why them?? What have they done in their lives to be able to enjoy a relaxing life that doesn't require to wake up early in the morning to go to a fucking factory? Why do they have the privilege of spending their lives being "art collectors", unproductive artists, strutting around town with 5 bags from luxury shops, living in superb houses with unbelievable views and swimming pools, just because grandpa did make a fortune? That doesn't seem right to me, at all. *Ex5*: But it seems like kids from rich families tend to achieve pretty good positions without help from their parents. Well, this is explainable: More money means better education, more possibilities for failure until finding the right way, and less pressure to work early, resulting in longer studies. c. Capitalism destroys any sort of honest political action, since the only purpose of men in a capitalist society is to make as much money as possible, and the only purpose of politicians to allow such a system to exist. *Ex6*: Hum... lobbies? Militaro-industrial complex? I could go on for a while. But these are the top three arguments. Why the "*one of the worst*"? I don't think this is worth expanding here, but I've studied quite a lot of other economical systems, and *most of them* allow for a much fairer distribution of the riches among the people, according to need of each one, his work, or how his work benefits society. My point is, I do not see *any positive aspect* of a capitalist society. And I could turn down lots of the usual arguments for it. So please destabilize me. I feel like a fanatic. Edit: Thanks for all you answers. I'll take some time to answer to each and everyone.

I believe capitalism is one of the worst form of economic system. CMV. Hello CMV! So I think that capitalism is the worst form of economic system, and let me produce 3 arguments: a. By promoting "offer and demand" as the ultimate source for the distribution of money, people can get rich, or have a very high salary without doing much more work, or without making the world a better place that a min-wage worker does. *Ex1*: Does a hedgefund manager really produces 500 times more work than the cleaning lady who changes his bedsheets in the 5-star hotel he's staying in? I don't think so. Of course, he should be paid a *little* more, since his job has more responsibilities, requires more intelligence and so on. But not 500 times more than this cleaning lady who still does quite a difficult job. *Ex2*: I agree Bill Gates was a great inventor, who did change lots of things in this world. Still, did he really *deserve* 60 billion $ of fortune as a reward for his work, in comparison with all the artists, scientists or thinkers whose works are also creative and sometime change the world? I don't think so. *Ex3*: I consider a teacher to be much more important to society than the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Then why doesn't a teacher earn 40 millions a year? Well it's because lots of people need banks for a capitalist society to function correctly, and because teachers aren't an absolute necessity. b. By allowing capital to be amassed in the hands of one person and his family, capitalism leads to the reproduction of a non-productive bourgeoisie that still restfully profits from the work of her ancestors. *Ex4*: I've been to a private school in Switzerland. And Jesus, you had to see these stupid kids with their stupids parents having no intelligence whatsoever other that spending grandpa's money, without doing anything else. Why?? Why them?? What have they done in their lives to be able to enjoy a relaxing life that doesn't require to wake up early in the morning to go to a fucking factory? Why do they have the privilege of spending their lives being "art collectors", unproductive artists, strutting around town with 5 bags from luxury shops, living in superb houses with unbelievable views and swimming pools, just because grandpa did make a fortune? That doesn't seem right to me, at all. *Ex5*: But it seems like kids from rich families tend to achieve pretty good positions without help from their parents. Well, this is explainable: More money means better education, more possibilities for failure until finding the right way, and less pressure to work early, resulting in longer studies. c. Capitalism destroys any sort of honest political action, since the only purpose of men in a capitalist society is to make as much money as possible, and the only purpose of politicians to allow such a system to exist. *Ex6*: Hum... lobbies? Militaro-industrial complex? I could go on for a while. But these are the top three arguments. Why the "*one of the worst*"? I don't think this is worth expanding here, but I've studied quite a lot of other economical systems, and *most of them* allow for a much fairer distribution of the riches among the people, according to need of each one, his work, or how his work benefits society. My point is, I do not see *any positive aspect* of a capitalist society. And I could turn down lots of the usual arguments for it. So please destabilize me. I feel like a fanatic. Edit: Thanks for all you answers. I'll take some time to answer to each and everyone.

t3_29xhdm

CMV: It makes sense for TERFs to want to have ciswomen only events, because transwomen haven't been brought up being gendered as girls and ladies

Disclaimer: I am a cisman who is not a TERF, I am just sympathetic to their position. TERFs, or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, are ciswomen (female women) who have want to have ciswomen only events. This causes a ruckus frequently, as many folks think that transwomen (males who have in some manner transitioned to being ladies) ought to be included in all events that are women-only. Sex is biological, gender is influenced by biology but is mostly a social thing. I think we all agree on this. There is a unique experience of being a biological female, brought up in a society that genders you as first a girl and then a woman, while experiencing the biological things that females experience. That is a very different set of experiences than being a biological male brought up as a boy who then transitions to being a woman, which is what transwomen experience. (some are brought up as girls, which is cool, but they still do not experience the biological aspects of being female, and society at large does not gender transfolks the way it does cisfolks: the experiences are quite different) It makes sense to me that there would be ciswomen who want to have events where they can be around and talk to other ciswomen about that shared set of experiences without having anyone there who did not have those experiences. Convince me that that does not make sense or is unreasonable or causes much more harm than good. Furthermore, and this is irrelevant to the main CMV, I am confused why transwomen even want to go to these events. The people there hate you and don't want you there, why on Earth would you want to hang out with them? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It makes sense for TERFs to want to have ciswomen only events, because transwomen haven't been brought up being gendered as girls and ladies. Disclaimer: I am a cisman who is not a TERF, I am just sympathetic to their position. TERFs, or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, are ciswomen (female women) who have want to have ciswomen only events. This causes a ruckus frequently, as many folks think that transwomen (males who have in some manner transitioned to being ladies) ought to be included in all events that are women-only. Sex is biological, gender is influenced by biology but is mostly a social thing. I think we all agree on this. There is a unique experience of being a biological female, brought up in a society that genders you as first a girl and then a woman, while experiencing the biological things that females experience. That is a very different set of experiences than being a biological male brought up as a boy who then transitions to being a woman, which is what transwomen experience. (some are brought up as girls, which is cool, but they still do not experience the biological aspects of being female, and society at large does not gender transfolks the way it does cisfolks: the experiences are quite different) It makes sense to me that there would be ciswomen who want to have events where they can be around and talk to other ciswomen about that shared set of experiences without having anyone there who did not have those experiences. Convince me that that does not make sense or is unreasonable or causes much more harm than good. Furthermore, and this is irrelevant to the main CMV, I am confused why transwomen even want to go to these events. The people there hate you and don't want you there, why on Earth would you want to hang out with them?

t3_22fn36

CMV: It is not in game publishers best interest to shut down fan-made remakes

Now, it is obviously in their legal right to have game remakes (chromotrigger, countless pokemon hacks, ect.) removed from the internet. My argument is that it's not in their best financial interest to do so. 1. I believe that it gains them a lot of bad will from fans. You're taking away something from the people you expect to pay you money. 2. Companies are missing out on free publicity. People making these rom hacks are essentially doing your work for you, by hyping fans up for the next official game. 3. Most importantly, these games existing aren't hurting the companies. No one is going to not purchase a new game because they played a fake one. If anything, reliving an old game in a new light will only make some one want to purchase it more. The biggest argument against this stance of mine that I can see is that it does encourage ROMs and Emulators, however the companies rarely seem to go after these legally in the first place. Remember, my argument isn't that they can't do that. Legally, they most certainly can, and they should be allowed to. My argument is that by removing them, it only hurts the company itself.

CMV: It is not in game publishers best interest to shut down fan-made remakes. Now, it is obviously in their legal right to have game remakes (chromotrigger, countless pokemon hacks, ect.) removed from the internet. My argument is that it's not in their best financial interest to do so. 1. I believe that it gains them a lot of bad will from fans. You're taking away something from the people you expect to pay you money. 2. Companies are missing out on free publicity. People making these rom hacks are essentially doing your work for you, by hyping fans up for the next official game. 3. Most importantly, these games existing aren't hurting the companies. No one is going to not purchase a new game because they played a fake one. If anything, reliving an old game in a new light will only make some one want to purchase it more. The biggest argument against this stance of mine that I can see is that it does encourage ROMs and Emulators, however the companies rarely seem to go after these legally in the first place. Remember, my argument isn't that they can't do that. Legally, they most certainly can, and they should be allowed to. My argument is that by removing them, it only hurts the company itself.

t3_3gysr8

CMV: Putting aside the whole argument about censorship, I think banning Coontown or any sub for that matter is bad because we are denied a chance to try and understand different people

That title is way to long but you get the point. I spent some time looking at threads in Coontown not because I agree with them but preciesly because I dont. I wanted to see why they thing that way and what made them who they are. A similar argument can be made about who you choose to friend on facebook. I know some people who delete anybody on their newsfeed who dont agree with them until they are left with an echo chamber of the same view. I think exposure to different opinions, even those who are negative, are essential in forming a perspective about an subject and removing all negative opinions from a persons enviroment only creates another bigot, even thou their bigotry is socially accepted.

CMV: Putting aside the whole argument about censorship, I think banning Coontown or any sub for that matter is bad because we are denied a chance to try and understand different people. That title is way to long but you get the point. I spent some time looking at threads in Coontown not because I agree with them but preciesly because I dont. I wanted to see why they thing that way and what made them who they are. A similar argument can be made about who you choose to friend on facebook. I know some people who delete anybody on their newsfeed who dont agree with them until they are left with an echo chamber of the same view. I think exposure to different opinions, even those who are negative, are essential in forming a perspective about an subject and removing all negative opinions from a persons enviroment only creates another bigot, even thou their bigotry is socially accepted.

t3_2gzzdj

CMV: I believe that those interested in the nature of truth should study Physics rather than Philosophy.

By truth I do not mean factual statements such as "Brett Favre used to be a quarterback for the Green Bay Packers". Obviously, neither physics nor philosophy are useful for collecting trivia type knowledge. Also, I concede that philosophy has better tools equipped to understand moral truths. However, when it comes to understanding and discovering general characteristics belonging to existing things, I believe that physics is superior to philosophy. Here are a few reasons why. * Philosophy, since it is not experimental in nature, merely reorganizes knowledge and does not produce any new knowledge. * Descriptions in mathematics are less ambiguous, more strictly logical, and lead to greater insights than descriptions in English or any other language. * Ideas in physics are much easier to test. * Philosophy has no defense against counter-intuitive truths such as "objects have a probabilistic rather than a defined set of characteristics". Hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions. * Newtonian mechanics, Big Bang, quantum mechanics, and relativity have done more to revolutionize our understanding of truth than any theory in philosophy. CMV! Edit: Thank you all for your interesting response. I'm going to bed now, but I will try and answer more of your posts tomorrow. _____ > *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 those interested in the nature of truth should study Physics rather than Philosophy. By truth I do not mean factual statements such as "Brett Favre used to be a quarterback for the Green Bay Packers". Obviously, neither physics nor philosophy are useful for collecting trivia type knowledge. Also, I concede that philosophy has better tools equipped to understand moral truths. However, when it comes to understanding and discovering general characteristics belonging to existing things, I believe that physics is superior to philosophy. Here are a few reasons why. * Philosophy, since it is not experimental in nature, merely reorganizes knowledge and does not produce any new knowledge. * Descriptions in mathematics are less ambiguous, more strictly logical, and lead to greater insights than descriptions in English or any other language. * Ideas in physics are much easier to test. * Philosophy has no defense against counter-intuitive truths such as "objects have a probabilistic rather than a defined set of characteristics". Hence, any study of truth within philosophy will be limited by our own imaginations or intuitions. * Newtonian mechanics, Big Bang, quantum mechanics, and relativity have done more to revolutionize our understanding of truth than any theory in philosophy. CMV! Edit: Thank you all for your interesting response. I'm going to bed now, but I will try and answer more of your posts tomorrow. > *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_5qjxb9

CMV: It should be acceptable to do something for religious reasons if and only if it would be acceptable to do it for non religious reasons

There are lots of things people do for religious reasons like going to church, praying, not be eating certain foods etc. I think in general people should have the right to do these things and practice their religion as they like. However if someone's religion requires them to do things which would not normally be acceptable like FGM then the fact that the reason they want to do it is religious does not change that it's unacceptable. Now this may seem like a fairly uncontroversial view but currently it is not how most societies work. If I want to wear a baseball cap in my driver's licence photo because I really like how I look in a baseball cap that's not allowed. But if a Sikh wants to wear his turban in his photo that is allowed. Wearing headgear in your photo is something which is normally not allowed by becomes allowed if you do it for religious purposes. I think that's wrong. _____ > *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: It should be acceptable to do something for religious reasons if and only if it would be acceptable to do it for non religious reasons. There are lots of things people do for religious reasons like going to church, praying, not be eating certain foods etc. I think in general people should have the right to do these things and practice their religion as they like. However if someone's religion requires them to do things which would not normally be acceptable like FGM then the fact that the reason they want to do it is religious does not change that it's unacceptable. Now this may seem like a fairly uncontroversial view but currently it is not how most societies work. If I want to wear a baseball cap in my driver's licence photo because I really like how I look in a baseball cap that's not allowed. But if a Sikh wants to wear his turban in his photo that is allowed. Wearing headgear in your photo is something which is normally not allowed by becomes allowed if you do it for religious purposes. I think that's wrong.

t3_3lbgrb

CMV: The tax system discriminates against the wealthy.

To clarify, I'm not making a statement of VALUE. I'm not saying how it should or shouldn't be. However, i want to challenge the popular narrative that rich people control the system to actively make it harder for poor people, and that rich people somehow get preferential treatment. For starters, there's taxes. It is objectively true that the wealthy pay more in taxes. They have a higher marginal tax rate, they pay more proportionally in income taxes than they make (again, proportionally, as in if they make X% of the countries income they pay more than X% of the country's income taxes). Next, there is absolutely no government system set up to benefit them. There's no tax advantaged investment plan that you can ONLY contribute to if you make over X per year. On the flip side, there are tons and tons of plans and exemptions that have an upward limit, as in you can't receive this benefit if you make over X per year. Educational IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401(k)s have a cap on what you can put in, ever single tax advantaged savings tool has an UPWARD cap on it, not a DOWNWARD one. Under Obamacare, wealthy people have significantly more expensive insurance than they did before, they aren't entitled to the same rates guaranteed to lower income people. Now, obviously wealthy people have their own advantages, including debt free schooling. I'm again not saying that any of this is wrong or right. However, from a strictly legal standpoint, only looking at laws and the way government treats citizens, there are tons of things set up to benefit those not as well off, and nothing set up strictly to benefit the well off. If you can give an example of some way the government shows preferential treatment to wealthy people, or a law clearly designed to detriment poor people in the wealthy's favor, you will receive a delta. _____ > *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 tax system discriminates against the wealthy. To clarify, I'm not making a statement of VALUE. I'm not saying how it should or shouldn't be. However, i want to challenge the popular narrative that rich people control the system to actively make it harder for poor people, and that rich people somehow get preferential treatment. For starters, there's taxes. It is objectively true that the wealthy pay more in taxes. They have a higher marginal tax rate, they pay more proportionally in income taxes than they make (again, proportionally, as in if they make X% of the countries income they pay more than X% of the country's income taxes). Next, there is absolutely no government system set up to benefit them. There's no tax advantaged investment plan that you can ONLY contribute to if you make over X per year. On the flip side, there are tons and tons of plans and exemptions that have an upward limit, as in you can't receive this benefit if you make over X per year. Educational IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401(k)s have a cap on what you can put in, ever single tax advantaged savings tool has an UPWARD cap on it, not a DOWNWARD one. Under Obamacare, wealthy people have significantly more expensive insurance than they did before, they aren't entitled to the same rates guaranteed to lower income people. Now, obviously wealthy people have their own advantages, including debt free schooling. I'm again not saying that any of this is wrong or right. However, from a strictly legal standpoint, only looking at laws and the way government treats citizens, there are tons of things set up to benefit those not as well off, and nothing set up strictly to benefit the well off. If you can give an example of some way the government shows preferential treatment to wealthy people, or a law clearly designed to detriment poor people in the wealthy's favor, you will receive a delta.

t3_3od7ks

CMV: Same-sex marriage in the United States is not and cannot be a states' rights issue simply because the issue transcends state lines.

I consider myself to be a right-wing libertarian, but one issue I was never able to completely side with was the issue of same-sex marriage. I am a devout Christian. I believe in my heart that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and I sympathize with the Republican presidential candidates who have heartfelt beliefs in regard to marriage. To appeal to a larger audience, they state that they are willing to have the individual states decide on it, even if their decision is contrary to their own personal and religious belief. But I feel as if that the issue of same-sex marriage cannot just be dismissed as a states' rights issue. If a gay couple were to move from California to Alabama, their marriage would not be recognized by their government. The rights they were given over in California would not be transferred to Alabama. To me, that is sickly inhumane and inconsiderate. Personally, I agree with the legalization of same-sex marriage in the classification of both hetero and homosexual couples as 'civil union(s)' to give everyone equal rights regardless of sexual orientation and lifestyle and to offend as little people as possible, especially in such a trivial issue as this. Summary: I don't think same-sex marriage rights is a states' rights issue. I support all marriages (hetero and homo) to be classified as 'civil unions'. The legalization of this should take place in a federal level as this issue transcends state lines. CMV. Edit: Just to add real quickly, I know that I'm siding liberal on a website that tends to lean left. So that might be difficult in this case, but we'll see how it works out. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Same-sex marriage in the United States is not and cannot be a states' rights issue simply because the issue transcends state lines. I consider myself to be a right-wing libertarian, but one issue I was never able to completely side with was the issue of same-sex marriage. I am a devout Christian. I believe in my heart that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and I sympathize with the Republican presidential candidates who have heartfelt beliefs in regard to marriage. To appeal to a larger audience, they state that they are willing to have the individual states decide on it, even if their decision is contrary to their own personal and religious belief. But I feel as if that the issue of same-sex marriage cannot just be dismissed as a states' rights issue. If a gay couple were to move from California to Alabama, their marriage would not be recognized by their government. The rights they were given over in California would not be transferred to Alabama. To me, that is sickly inhumane and inconsiderate. Personally, I agree with the legalization of same-sex marriage in the classification of both hetero and homosexual couples as 'civil union(s)' to give everyone equal rights regardless of sexual orientation and lifestyle and to offend as little people as possible, especially in such a trivial issue as this. Summary: I don't think same-sex marriage rights is a states' rights issue. I support all marriages (hetero and homo) to be classified as 'civil unions'. The legalization of this should take place in a federal level as this issue transcends state lines. CMV. Edit: Just to add real quickly, I know that I'm siding liberal on a website that tends to lean left. So that might be difficult in this case, but we'll see how it works out.

t3_1cjudr

I believe Islamic extremism is getting worse in the world, not better. CMV

I feel like there's always been this implicit assumption that as technology advances and the third world rises out of poverty, Islamic extremist ideology will fade away into the foreground and just become another fringe thought experiment. While I think that's true in the long-term, I don't think it's necessarily true in the short. Sure, will al-Qaeda groups eventually die out as people become more affluent? Yes, but you could make the argument that we're not on the other side of that apex yet. The problem could be getting worse before it gets better -- and I believe we're living in those times. You're seeing the French unilaterally attack West Africa to expunge Islamists from Mali -- Pakistan is becoming dangerously close to morphing into a nuclear-armed failed state and the Taliban seem to be taking more ground -- Syrian Islamists seem to be winning the fight over Assad-backed government forces. It just seems like the world is in for another rude awakening here shortly.

I believe Islamic extremism is getting worse in the world, not better. CMV. I feel like there's always been this implicit assumption that as technology advances and the third world rises out of poverty, Islamic extremist ideology will fade away into the foreground and just become another fringe thought experiment. While I think that's true in the long-term, I don't think it's necessarily true in the short. Sure, will al-Qaeda groups eventually die out as people become more affluent? Yes, but you could make the argument that we're not on the other side of that apex yet. The problem could be getting worse before it gets better -- and I believe we're living in those times. You're seeing the French unilaterally attack West Africa to expunge Islamists from Mali -- Pakistan is becoming dangerously close to morphing into a nuclear-armed failed state and the Taliban seem to be taking more ground -- Syrian Islamists seem to be winning the fight over Assad-backed government forces. It just seems like the world is in for another rude awakening here shortly.

t3_1i546m

I think boycotting a company because of their stated political views is silly and pointless. CMV

Okay, so I don't understand why people boycott things. For example, I'm gay and all of my friends and family are so anti-Chick-fil-a. I love Chick-fil-a food, and I'm perfectly happy eating there. When you buy something, you aren't saying you agree with every belief the company and every individual who works there believes. You're paying them for their product or service that you love. I mean, the only thing you accomplish by boycotting them is losing their product, not changing their views or stopping them from contributing to whatever causes you're against. **Edit:** Okay, so[ boycotts can help when the company is directly doing something wrong in how they run their company](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i546m/i_think_boycotting_a_company_because_of_their/cb12s54) but when it isn't the company itself you disagree with I still don't get it. **Edit 2:** [Well, my mind has been changed.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i546m/i_think_boycotting_a_company_because_of_their/cb132tw)

I think boycotting a company because of their stated political views is silly and pointless. CMV. Okay, so I don't understand why people boycott things. For example, I'm gay and all of my friends and family are so anti-Chick-fil-a. I love Chick-fil-a food, and I'm perfectly happy eating there. When you buy something, you aren't saying you agree with every belief the company and every individual who works there believes. You're paying them for their product or service that you love. I mean, the only thing you accomplish by boycotting them is losing their product, not changing their views or stopping them from contributing to whatever causes you're against. **Edit:** Okay, so[ boycotts can help when the company is directly doing something wrong in how they run their company](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i546m/i_think_boycotting_a_company_because_of_their/cb12s54) but when it isn't the company itself you disagree with I still don't get it. **Edit 2:** [Well, my mind has been changed.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i546m/i_think_boycotting_a_company_because_of_their/cb132tw)

t3_2lvawn

CMV: People that get jailed for committing an illegal act that later became legal should not be released.

Edit: thank you kingbane for your great post: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2lvawn/cmv_people_that_get_jailed_for_committing_an/clyichz my view had been changed Now with states starting to legalize marijuana a lot of people are saying that people who got jailed for smuggling/using marijuana should be release. I however disagree. Assuming that the law was a reasonable law that got removed because our society changed to such an extent that we no longer need the law the people who broke such a law should be jailed solely for the fact that they ignored the law. Examples of similar scenarios would be someone getting fined for driving 60 on a road who's speed limit was 30 but later the limit rose to 60. Or someone getting fined for j-walking on a place that later added a crosswalk. In those cases I think that most people would agree with me that those people should not get their money returned. In order for my view to be changed I would have to change my belief that solely for being a criminal/law breaker warrens you being punished

CMV: People that get jailed for committing an illegal act that later became legal should not be released. Edit: thank you kingbane for your great post: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2lvawn/cmv_people_that_get_jailed_for_committing_an/clyichz my view had been changed Now with states starting to legalize marijuana a lot of people are saying that people who got jailed for smuggling/using marijuana should be release. I however disagree. Assuming that the law was a reasonable law that got removed because our society changed to such an extent that we no longer need the law the people who broke such a law should be jailed solely for the fact that they ignored the law. Examples of similar scenarios would be someone getting fined for driving 60 on a road who's speed limit was 30 but later the limit rose to 60. Or someone getting fined for j-walking on a place that later added a crosswalk. In those cases I think that most people would agree with me that those people should not get their money returned. In order for my view to be changed I would have to change my belief that solely for being a criminal/law breaker warrens you being punished

t3_6hvgnk

CMV: 'you are doing that too much. try again in xx minutes' encourages circlejerk

Reddit, sadly, has some tools that make the circlejerk get out of control... one of them is the "'you are doing that too much. try again in xx minutes'"... which happens when you have negative karma in a community...(the original purpose was to deter trolls, but the side effect is a massive increase in circlejerking). Also, the fact that I can't see the upvotes and downvotes at the same time, and that both upvotes and downvotes are summed to give a final score of upvotes is very damaging to the discourse and a mistake by the reddit administrators... I am convinced these things turn reddit into a big circlejerk, and I see that as a bad thing. The comment structure also contributes to circlejerk, people in general tend to always upvote the first post, and not the replies as much.... If you get late into a thread, your post will be buried forever. I am convinced many of these changes were deliberate too, after all, the reddit political communities speak for themselves. TD;DR I am convinced reddit has many tools that turn all discourse into circlejerk.

CMV: 'you are doing that too much. try again in xx minutes' encourages circlejerk. Reddit, sadly, has some tools that make the circlejerk get out of control... one of them is the "'you are doing that too much. try again in xx minutes'"... which happens when you have negative karma in a community...(the original purpose was to deter trolls, but the side effect is a massive increase in circlejerking). Also, the fact that I can't see the upvotes and downvotes at the same time, and that both upvotes and downvotes are summed to give a final score of upvotes is very damaging to the discourse and a mistake by the reddit administrators... I am convinced these things turn reddit into a big circlejerk, and I see that as a bad thing. The comment structure also contributes to circlejerk, people in general tend to always upvote the first post, and not the replies as much.... If you get late into a thread, your post will be buried forever. I am convinced many of these changes were deliberate too, after all, the reddit political communities speak for themselves. TD;DR I am convinced reddit has many tools that turn all discourse into circlejerk.

t3_1pt86v

I think socialized medicine doesn't work. CMV

When I was younger I lived in Canada for a year and broke my arm. I was in the ER for hours until someone fixed it. Now I want to be a doctor and am slowly thinking that socialized medicine is the way to go, but all I can think about is the high(15%) taxes and ridiculous wait times. Why aunt who lives there has to book a mammogram at least 3 months in advance. I'm a teenager so when I was younger was only 6 years ago so I doubt very much has changed. The big problem I see is that I don't think our government could run healthcare very efficiently. Imagine if your local hospital was as well organized as your local DMV. So please CMV

I think socialized medicine doesn't work. CMV. When I was younger I lived in Canada for a year and broke my arm. I was in the ER for hours until someone fixed it. Now I want to be a doctor and am slowly thinking that socialized medicine is the way to go, but all I can think about is the high(15%) taxes and ridiculous wait times. Why aunt who lives there has to book a mammogram at least 3 months in advance. I'm a teenager so when I was younger was only 6 years ago so I doubt very much has changed. The big problem I see is that I don't think our government could run healthcare very efficiently. Imagine if your local hospital was as well organized as your local DMV. So please CMV

t3_21xoqz

CMV: I am a humble Monk and I believe that the Church charging for indulgences is wrong.

If God is truly as He is in the Bible then there should be no need for us to purchase indulgences through the Church and instead we should be able to approach Him as Himself. Too long for the post but you can see my full list of reasons the Church needs to change here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm

CMV: I am a humble Monk and I believe that the Church charging for indulgences is wrong. If God is truly as He is in the Bible then there should be no need for us to purchase indulgences through the Church and instead we should be able to approach Him as Himself. Too long for the post but you can see my full list of reasons the Church needs to change here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm

t3_5jcty7

CMV: We should set up self-sufficient gated communities to act as halfway accommodation between prison and society

Prisons are expensive, very expensive. As a result prison sentences are usually way too low to make any real difference. Re-offending rates are much higher than they should be and it's simply not a very good "return on investment". We can't afford to keep prisoners for much longer, and human rights mean we can't make prisons much "tougher" without being cruel to the inmates (which I don't advocate). So why can't we set up large _village_ type communities where the residents/inmates are allowed visitors, they are allowed to move freely around the "village" and take part in all entertainment as they wish, they get full civil liberties and they are allowed to choose how they spend their time and they are allowed a say in the politics of running such a place. The only freedom they are not allowed is the freedom to return to outer society. Sentences in such a community could be made longer because they would pay for themselves. We could even move the long-term unemployed straight into such places for a limited amount of time so they gain "work experience". I also believe it might help tackle the stigma around companies hiring ex-convicts because they would have been working in a relatively similar environment for a while. I'd like to point out I'm not talking about "labour camps" or anything like that. In my mind it would be more like a little village with bars, cinemas, offices, factories even...just without the ability to leave. Many people never leave their town/village anyway so I don't see why it's so unfeasible. I also think the responsibility of policing can be shared to give the residents more of a sense of _why_ we have laws and give them the responsibility of enforcing the law for everyone's benefit. Obviously, they would need a lot of police so the most responsible residents can manage the policing of the more violent/criminal residents. I'm open to any criticism or basic flaws in my idea/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: We should set up self-sufficient gated communities to act as halfway accommodation between prison and society. Prisons are expensive, very expensive. As a result prison sentences are usually way too low to make any real difference. Re-offending rates are much higher than they should be and it's simply not a very good "return on investment". We can't afford to keep prisoners for much longer, and human rights mean we can't make prisons much "tougher" without being cruel to the inmates (which I don't advocate). So why can't we set up large _village_ type communities where the residents/inmates are allowed visitors, they are allowed to move freely around the "village" and take part in all entertainment as they wish, they get full civil liberties and they are allowed to choose how they spend their time and they are allowed a say in the politics of running such a place. The only freedom they are not allowed is the freedom to return to outer society. Sentences in such a community could be made longer because they would pay for themselves. We could even move the long-term unemployed straight into such places for a limited amount of time so they gain "work experience". I also believe it might help tackle the stigma around companies hiring ex-convicts because they would have been working in a relatively similar environment for a while. I'd like to point out I'm not talking about "labour camps" or anything like that. In my mind it would be more like a little village with bars, cinemas, offices, factories even...just without the ability to leave. Many people never leave their town/village anyway so I don't see why it's so unfeasible. I also think the responsibility of policing can be shared to give the residents more of a sense of _why_ we have laws and give them the responsibility of enforcing the law for everyone's benefit. Obviously, they would need a lot of police so the most responsible residents can manage the policing of the more violent/criminal residents. I'm open to any criticism or basic flaws in my idea/view.

t3_6m4yip

CMV: America's politics are beyond saving peacefully.

This is a plea to please change my view. Since the emmense amount of hope I felt in 2008 that America could elect an intellectual and inspiring leader like Obama, the country has reacted poorly on all sides. Tea party, occupy Wall Street, Trump, Clinton, black lives matter, blue lives matter, fake news and Russian intervention have made me so pessimistic of our ability to agree on anything, I fear that more people will resort to more violence and the political battle lines will become litteral battlefields. Please 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: America's politics are beyond saving peacefully. This is a plea to please change my view. Since the emmense amount of hope I felt in 2008 that America could elect an intellectual and inspiring leader like Obama, the country has reacted poorly on all sides. Tea party, occupy Wall Street, Trump, Clinton, black lives matter, blue lives matter, fake news and Russian intervention have made me so pessimistic of our ability to agree on anything, I fear that more people will resort to more violence and the political battle lines will become litteral battlefields. Please CMV!

t3_1duhgz

I think American soldiers shouldn't be honored. CMV.

I'm specifying American because it's the country I'm familiar with. Soldiers knew what they signed up for, and knew the risks involved. If they were lied to during the recruitment process, they deserve our sympathy and indignation, but not probably not honor. I can see why it might be different if America was invaded, or at direct threat of invasion, but that's not the case. They're really not protecting the American people. So why do we act like they're doing a good deed by shooting at someone else in their homes? I would genuinely like to hear the other side to this, because the way I see it, a soldier killed in combat shouldn't be any more tragic than a person killed elsewhere. I don't mean any disrespect to veterans or their families, and yo should definitely be proud of an individual's accomplishments within the army, but just serving shouldn't be enough to be proud of, or command any respect.

I think American soldiers shouldn't be honored. CMV. I'm specifying American because it's the country I'm familiar with. Soldiers knew what they signed up for, and knew the risks involved. If they were lied to during the recruitment process, they deserve our sympathy and indignation, but not probably not honor. I can see why it might be different if America was invaded, or at direct threat of invasion, but that's not the case. They're really not protecting the American people. So why do we act like they're doing a good deed by shooting at someone else in their homes? I would genuinely like to hear the other side to this, because the way I see it, a soldier killed in combat shouldn't be any more tragic than a person killed elsewhere. I don't mean any disrespect to veterans or their families, and yo should definitely be proud of an individual's accomplishments within the army, but just serving shouldn't be enough to be proud of, or command any respect.

t3_5gdfen

CMV: Palimony should not exist, period

My view is simple: palimony should not exist. I do understand alimony should exist because when aalimony is around, marriage = legal contract and alimony is (one of) the consequences for breaking that contract. But with palimony, the marriage is not a contract, so parties can separate as they wish. Palimony is deterring people from getting into relationships, because now even premarital relationships carry risk. Non-breadwinners who get dumped after years by an unmarried partner are SOL in this case. Their partner is not bound by a contract to care for the other as is the case in a marital contract. It sucks for them but they are not legally obligated to support them. It is my honest opinion (I am not saying this as a fact) that palimony was created as a way for the divorce industry (divorce lawyers, family courts, judges etc.) to make more money when divorces started drying up. Palimony should not exist. Marriage is a legal contract, and alimony (circumstantially) should be applied as a violation of that contract, but palimony shouldn't exist because the two parties never engaged in a legal contract. (This is separate from child support)

CMV: Palimony should not exist, period. My view is simple: palimony should not exist. I do understand alimony should exist because when aalimony is around, marriage = legal contract and alimony is (one of) the consequences for breaking that contract. But with palimony, the marriage is not a contract, so parties can separate as they wish. Palimony is deterring people from getting into relationships, because now even premarital relationships carry risk. Non-breadwinners who get dumped after years by an unmarried partner are SOL in this case. Their partner is not bound by a contract to care for the other as is the case in a marital contract. It sucks for them but they are not legally obligated to support them. It is my honest opinion (I am not saying this as a fact) that palimony was created as a way for the divorce industry (divorce lawyers, family courts, judges etc.) to make more money when divorces started drying up. Palimony should not exist. Marriage is a legal contract, and alimony (circumstantially) should be applied as a violation of that contract, but palimony shouldn't exist because the two parties never engaged in a legal contract. (This is separate from child support)

t3_1x5vlr

I believe that televised talent shows (American Idol, The Voice, etc.) are counter productive. CMV.

Hello /r/changemyview, I haven't posted in a while, but I came to thinking about this today at work. I am an American Male for context. Here in the US, although I'm sure you have syndicated versions in your own countries, we have a television show called American Idol. This singing competition features hundreds of thousands of contestants auditioning and subsequently being picked off week by week for months. This goes on until one singer is left and is crowned "American Idol" and is given a lavish recording contract. Here's my beef. This show features dreamers who, for the most part, are all very talented. It exhibits situations of suspenseful heartbreak for weeks on end. Peoples' dreams being crushed on national television in front of an audience of millions. My question is this: Is the fulfillment of a single dream worth seeing thousands of other performers in tears as their own is crushed before their eyes? CMV P.S. I know that usually the top 2 or 3 performers are also offered deals with companies. TLDR; These shows show too much heartbreak to justify only 1 person being happy at the end.

I believe that televised talent shows (American Idol, The Voice, etc.) are counter productive. CMV. Hello /r/changemyview, I haven't posted in a while, but I came to thinking about this today at work. I am an American Male for context. Here in the US, although I'm sure you have syndicated versions in your own countries, we have a television show called American Idol. This singing competition features hundreds of thousands of contestants auditioning and subsequently being picked off week by week for months. This goes on until one singer is left and is crowned "American Idol" and is given a lavish recording contract. Here's my beef. This show features dreamers who, for the most part, are all very talented. It exhibits situations of suspenseful heartbreak for weeks on end. Peoples' dreams being crushed on national television in front of an audience of millions. My question is this: Is the fulfillment of a single dream worth seeing thousands of other performers in tears as their own is crushed before their eyes? CMV P.S. I know that usually the top 2 or 3 performers are also offered deals with companies. TLDR; These shows show too much heartbreak to justify only 1 person being happy at the end.

t3_26s9mt

CMV: Donald Sterling has compelling case to keep to the Clippers

Since my last CMV many things have materialized, so I decided to write a new CMV. The most important thing that materialized was the answer [Donald Sterling's Answer](http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2014/0527/dts_nba_charge.pdf) [I posted in /r/nba but it seems they've deleted or hid it some how.] Next we have V. Stivano's talk with Barbara Walter's & Dr. Phil: [Dr. Phil: V. Stiviano: The Woman behind the Donald Sterling Scandal - May 21, 2014](http://youtu.be/cD3FMgiz1kY) -I liked this interview a lot. I don't know if this is here and Donald have some sort of clandestine affair. However, I think she does very well under pressure. In a lot ways I think she's the perfect mistress, also the perfect assistant. She explains that she took him middle class shops, and did things with him that were his normal life. But more importantly she does not appear like gold digger, she feels she earned everything with work. She improves Donald's image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason. Whenever she talks about Donald talks about him very highly, even when she has the opportunity to betray him. I think you have to respect a person like that. I find it funny that every lady that I know immediately thinks she was sleeping Donald. [Donald Sterling's Confidante V.Stiviano Speaks Out](http://youtu.be/is9vJgoPsg4) -This interview is very convincing that Stivano cares about Donald. -Both interviews bring an important questions. Would it wrong for a racist man to hire someone that would help him not be racist? Can someone have redemption? [FULL INTERVIEW] DONALD STERLING ON ANDERSON COOPER 360°](http://youtu.be/QVDYYLkx2wQ) -This interview is odd because not entirely surely if Donald posturing or not. Since he's been a lawyer for a long time I believe he knows how to lie. The thing that's a problem here, is I'm not sure he can even have sex. Because he so vague about his encounters with V. Stiviano I feel like he's trying maintain his image. [Spike Lee addresses racist LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling](http://youtu.be/ajZ_kxjtXrk) -I think he's right that people shoudl speak about this. There's separation from activity and thoughts. I think we thoughts should be protected. [Mark Cuban on Donald Sterling Racism Scandal & Future of Privacy](http://youtu.be/YTWtRHZhFp4) -I think Mark Cuban's Take is fair. I agree also that you can't legislate morality. [Skip and Stephen A.'s Reaction to Mayweather - T.I. Brawl](http://youtu.be/boDalJdJiY8) -I added this video because I think it's hilarious that Stephen A. Smith says the exact same thing as Sterling did in his comments about Stiviano. In fact, the situation between Mayweather and TI is similar. Especially, if you believe that Sterling's jealousy brought up the comments. But for some reason it's ok for Stephen A. to talk about Race and perception, but not ok for Sterling? The only difference between Stephen A Smith and Sterling is history. I think that Sterling's statements are caustic. I think it's important to understand when he came from. He came from the heart of Jim Crow laws. He's also Jewish, and it is well Jews have received there share of racism. So the comments don't surprise me. I do not feel that he's wrong for thinking these thoughts. As long as he isn't making racist actions, his comments are about things we may not like, but it's something we must allow. Mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as Donald Sterling's comments, and if we didn't allow people have their individual thoughts we would never have gotten to where we are today. So if Sterling is ousted it should be on evidence rather than this call. And based on all the information that has come about, he should keep the Clippers.

CMV: Donald Sterling has compelling case to keep to the Clippers. Since my last CMV many things have materialized, so I decided to write a new CMV. The most important thing that materialized was the answer [Donald Sterling's Answer](http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2014/0527/dts_nba_charge.pdf) [I posted in /r/nba but it seems they've deleted or hid it some how.] Next we have V. Stivano's talk with Barbara Walter's & Dr. Phil: [Dr. Phil: V. Stiviano: The Woman behind the Donald Sterling Scandal - May 21, 2014](http://youtu.be/cD3FMgiz1kY) -I liked this interview a lot. I don't know if this is here and Donald have some sort of clandestine affair. However, I think she does very well under pressure. In a lot ways I think she's the perfect mistress, also the perfect assistant. She explains that she took him middle class shops, and did things with him that were his normal life. But more importantly she does not appear like gold digger, she feels she earned everything with work. She improves Donald's image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason. Whenever she talks about Donald talks about him very highly, even when she has the opportunity to betray him. I think you have to respect a person like that. I find it funny that every lady that I know immediately thinks she was sleeping Donald. [Donald Sterling's Confidante V.Stiviano Speaks Out](http://youtu.be/is9vJgoPsg4) -This interview is very convincing that Stivano cares about Donald. -Both interviews bring an important questions. Would it wrong for a racist man to hire someone that would help him not be racist? Can someone have redemption? [FULL INTERVIEW] DONALD STERLING ON ANDERSON COOPER 360°](http://youtu.be/QVDYYLkx2wQ) -This interview is odd because not entirely surely if Donald posturing or not. Since he's been a lawyer for a long time I believe he knows how to lie. The thing that's a problem here, is I'm not sure he can even have sex. Because he so vague about his encounters with V. Stiviano I feel like he's trying maintain his image. [Spike Lee addresses racist LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling](http://youtu.be/ajZ_kxjtXrk) -I think he's right that people shoudl speak about this. There's separation from activity and thoughts. I think we thoughts should be protected. [Mark Cuban on Donald Sterling Racism Scandal & Future of Privacy](http://youtu.be/YTWtRHZhFp4) -I think Mark Cuban's Take is fair. I agree also that you can't legislate morality. [Skip and Stephen A.'s Reaction to Mayweather - T.I. Brawl](http://youtu.be/boDalJdJiY8) -I added this video because I think it's hilarious that Stephen A. Smith says the exact same thing as Sterling did in his comments about Stiviano. In fact, the situation between Mayweather and TI is similar. Especially, if you believe that Sterling's jealousy brought up the comments. But for some reason it's ok for Stephen A. to talk about Race and perception, but not ok for Sterling? The only difference between Stephen A Smith and Sterling is history. I think that Sterling's statements are caustic. I think it's important to understand when he came from. He came from the heart of Jim Crow laws. He's also Jewish, and it is well Jews have received there share of racism. So the comments don't surprise me. I do not feel that he's wrong for thinking these thoughts. As long as he isn't making racist actions, his comments are about things we may not like, but it's something we must allow. Mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as Donald Sterling's comments, and if we didn't allow people have their individual thoughts we would never have gotten to where we are today. So if Sterling is ousted it should be on evidence rather than this call. And based on all the information that has come about, he should keep the Clippers.

t3_1jwbpe

I think I need to have millions upon millions of dollars in order to be happy. CMV.

My entire life, I've always dreamed of owning super cars and beach houses. I need vast wealth to buy luxury items in order to be happy. I'm a student trying (so far, unsuccessfully) to get a degree in Finance, because this seems to be a good route to my millions. But business school is killing me on the inside, and I absolutely hate it, but I see no alternative. People ask "What do you want to do?" And I want to be an entertainer; An actor, or a musician. But there's so much competition there, and there's no money in it unless you get widely known. Since my parents are paying for my school (some of it, the bulk of tuition is covered via scholarship) they're expecting me to become a successful businessman and get a more immediate pay off for their "investment".

I think I need to have millions upon millions of dollars in order to be happy. CMV. My entire life, I've always dreamed of owning super cars and beach houses. I need vast wealth to buy luxury items in order to be happy. I'm a student trying (so far, unsuccessfully) to get a degree in Finance, because this seems to be a good route to my millions. But business school is killing me on the inside, and I absolutely hate it, but I see no alternative. People ask "What do you want to do?" And I want to be an entertainer; An actor, or a musician. But there's so much competition there, and there's no money in it unless you get widely known. Since my parents are paying for my school (some of it, the bulk of tuition is covered via scholarship) they're expecting me to become a successful businessman and get a more immediate pay off for their "investment".

t3_2mbzid

CMV: People hesitate to suspect beauty of crime

Sociopathy is a serious issue for me at least - all around me, I see people worshiping the pleasant presences while looking past dastardly deeds. Sexual expectation reinforces this shallow, distracting nature of being; it's almost like they're evading the responsibility reality demands by using sexual entertainment as a means to forgetful complacency. These types will take to _anything_ to rid themselves of suspicion - I've seen men and women alike literally go psychopath-insane just to lie their way out of guilt - and they were _beautiful_ people. How many murders have gone unchecked because the cutie gave them the once-over? _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: People hesitate to suspect beauty of crime. Sociopathy is a serious issue for me at least - all around me, I see people worshiping the pleasant presences while looking past dastardly deeds. Sexual expectation reinforces this shallow, distracting nature of being; it's almost like they're evading the responsibility reality demands by using sexual entertainment as a means to forgetful complacency. These types will take to _anything_ to rid themselves of suspicion - I've seen men and women alike literally go psychopath-insane just to lie their way out of guilt - and they were _beautiful_ people. How many murders have gone unchecked because the cutie gave them the once-over?

t3_1or4j5

I think nudity and obscenity should be protected under the First Amendment. CMV.

I understand the reasoning behind yelling fire in a movie theater, or if there is a clear and present danger with some information being released or something. I'm not disputing that. But a lot of what people consider to be obscenity is just social stupidity/prudishness. The whole test of "no redeeming social value" begs the question w/r/t what is or is not allowed. We live in a society where so many people are ashamed of their bodies, are ashamed of their sexuality, and try to hide the fact that they poop. It isn't healthy. It's like, suppose we lived in a Victorian age society where people wanted to wear bikinis on the beach, but the Victorian prudes considered that to be obscene so they outlawed it. It's not that it's obscene, it's just social prudishness that reacts that way to it. Likewise, it's a free and open world outside, and if some people want to be able to walk around naked outside without shame or legal repercussions, I think they should be able to do so. I really think seeing a few naked people outside every day would do wonders for people being able to see how much they really do have in common with other people. The reason people give is that "no one wants to see that." But again, that's just begging the question, because that is what the Victorians would have said given their level of social prudishness. The problem for me, basically, is that speech is being prohibited/censored on the grounds of what *other people* find intolerable or offensive, not on the basis of what is actually harmful. This censorship creates a lot of unnecessary awkwardness/baggage for people w/r/t their bodies and sexuality and whatnot. And the Supreme Court has also recognized "symbolic speech," as nonverbal expression still protected under the first amendment, like the black armbands in Tinker v. Des Moines or the flag desecration cases, so the rationale for nudity being unprotected speech isn't that expression isn't protected under the Constitution. TL;DR - In a truly free country, people would be able to wander around naked outside without getting arrested.

I think nudity and obscenity should be protected under the First Amendment. CMV. I understand the reasoning behind yelling fire in a movie theater, or if there is a clear and present danger with some information being released or something. I'm not disputing that. But a lot of what people consider to be obscenity is just social stupidity/prudishness. The whole test of "no redeeming social value" begs the question w/r/t what is or is not allowed. We live in a society where so many people are ashamed of their bodies, are ashamed of their sexuality, and try to hide the fact that they poop. It isn't healthy. It's like, suppose we lived in a Victorian age society where people wanted to wear bikinis on the beach, but the Victorian prudes considered that to be obscene so they outlawed it. It's not that it's obscene, it's just social prudishness that reacts that way to it. Likewise, it's a free and open world outside, and if some people want to be able to walk around naked outside without shame or legal repercussions, I think they should be able to do so. I really think seeing a few naked people outside every day would do wonders for people being able to see how much they really do have in common with other people. The reason people give is that "no one wants to see that." But again, that's just begging the question, because that is what the Victorians would have said given their level of social prudishness. The problem for me, basically, is that speech is being prohibited/censored on the grounds of what *other people* find intolerable or offensive, not on the basis of what is actually harmful. This censorship creates a lot of unnecessary awkwardness/baggage for people w/r/t their bodies and sexuality and whatnot. And the Supreme Court has also recognized "symbolic speech," as nonverbal expression still protected under the first amendment, like the black armbands in Tinker v. Des Moines or the flag desecration cases, so the rationale for nudity being unprotected speech isn't that expression isn't protected under the Constitution. TL;DR - In a truly free country, people would be able to wander around naked outside without getting arrested.

t3_1hnwwx

I believe that the American Revolution was in essentially in vain. CMV.

It doesn't seem like America is much different from the England which our forefathers revolted against. Taxation without representation is rampant (when was the last time you were asked your opinion on an issue by your rep before they voted? Citizens of DC aren't even given pseudo-representation), all over our communications are spied on, we can be assassinated and indefinitely detained at any time, America is the largest perpetrator of terrorism in the world (responsible for at least a million innocent civilian deaths in the last 20 years), we torture and indefinitely detain innocent civilians, we can't decide what we put in our own bodies, we are ruled by a corporate-oligarch duopoly, third parties and independent candidates are treated extremely undemocratically and laws are made to make it harder for them to gain traction (closed primary, ballot access, campaign finance).. I could go on and on. So, what do you think? Was the American Revolution in vain?

I believe that the American Revolution was in essentially in vain. CMV. It doesn't seem like America is much different from the England which our forefathers revolted against. Taxation without representation is rampant (when was the last time you were asked your opinion on an issue by your rep before they voted? Citizens of DC aren't even given pseudo-representation), all over our communications are spied on, we can be assassinated and indefinitely detained at any time, America is the largest perpetrator of terrorism in the world (responsible for at least a million innocent civilian deaths in the last 20 years), we torture and indefinitely detain innocent civilians, we can't decide what we put in our own bodies, we are ruled by a corporate-oligarch duopoly, third parties and independent candidates are treated extremely undemocratically and laws are made to make it harder for them to gain traction (closed primary, ballot access, campaign finance).. I could go on and on. So, what do you think? Was the American Revolution in vain?

t3_3a4r9q

CMV: There is nothing wrong with choosing to be celibate for non religious reasons

So I am a 24 year old guy who is probably gay. I have had sex with a couple of guys and it was fun at the time but now I just regret it and I don't want to have sex anymore. I don't really think I need sex, despite what society expects of people don't need sex, its not going to kill them if they don't have any and well without it life is less complicated. I have talked about this with a couple of people i trust and they both think I am crazy or its "sad" that I want to live my life that way and i just gets me wondering why society has got this attitude towards sex whereby if you don't actively want it then there is something wrong with you. My body may on occasion want it but it also on occasion wants a smoke (something which i am trying to deny as well) I guess I just do fine on my own, I don't have any siblings or that many friends and I don't care, I just really need someone in my life and I sometimes think that doing without sex will also make my life easier and more time to focus on more important things _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is nothing wrong with choosing to be celibate for non religious reasons. So I am a 24 year old guy who is probably gay. I have had sex with a couple of guys and it was fun at the time but now I just regret it and I don't want to have sex anymore. I don't really think I need sex, despite what society expects of people don't need sex, its not going to kill them if they don't have any and well without it life is less complicated. I have talked about this with a couple of people i trust and they both think I am crazy or its "sad" that I want to live my life that way and i just gets me wondering why society has got this attitude towards sex whereby if you don't actively want it then there is something wrong with you. My body may on occasion want it but it also on occasion wants a smoke (something which i am trying to deny as well) I guess I just do fine on my own, I don't have any siblings or that many friends and I don't care, I just really need someone in my life and I sometimes think that doing without sex will also make my life easier and more time to focus on more important things

t3_2rty3l

CMV: Gun ban laws are/would be good, because with them criminals can be arrested for having weapons instead of waiting for the weapons to get used.

I acknowledge that getting rid of guns wouldn't get rid of murder since that can be accomplished with bare hands, but it seems like it would reduce unrelated people accidentally getting killed in shootings, help make criminals less dangerous to police, and prevent gun owner mishaps. I assume this is overly simplistic somehow, which is why I want my view changed to something that's more accurate. So, what is it that I'm overlooking here, exactly? (I'm Canadian by the way, just in case it comes up in your arguments)

CMV: Gun ban laws are/would be good, because with them criminals can be arrested for having weapons instead of waiting for the weapons to get used. I acknowledge that getting rid of guns wouldn't get rid of murder since that can be accomplished with bare hands, but it seems like it would reduce unrelated people accidentally getting killed in shootings, help make criminals less dangerous to police, and prevent gun owner mishaps. I assume this is overly simplistic somehow, which is why I want my view changed to something that's more accurate. So, what is it that I'm overlooking here, exactly? (I'm Canadian by the way, just in case it comes up in your arguments)

t3_45u26o

CMV: No actual paranormal events ever took place as a result of witchcraft during the time period of the Salem witch trials.

In 1692 prior to the salem witch trials, Tituba, a slave that was owned by Samuel Parris made confessions of practicing witchcraft after her owner beat her. Tituba made many claims about people in the surrounding area. She even claimed that Satan was among them. This caused a mass outbreak of panic and hysteria which spread like wildfire. There really is no proof of validity to the accusations that she spread. In result, people were brainwashed into having thoughts of chaos in which witchcraft was turning into some sort of epidemic. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: No actual paranormal events ever took place as a result of witchcraft during the time period of the Salem witch trials. In 1692 prior to the salem witch trials, Tituba, a slave that was owned by Samuel Parris made confessions of practicing witchcraft after her owner beat her. Tituba made many claims about people in the surrounding area. She even claimed that Satan was among them. This caused a mass outbreak of panic and hysteria which spread like wildfire. There really is no proof of validity to the accusations that she spread. In result, people were brainwashed into having thoughts of chaos in which witchcraft was turning into some sort of epidemic.

t3_1x1okl

I believe that proponents of animal welfare are trying to regulate morality similar to the logic of pro-life activists. CMV

People who support animal rights do so because they see an inherent value in an animal's life or suffering, and thus try their best to prevent the suffering/death of animals. Many of them support the use of state legislation to enforce their idea that the well being of animals are to be respected like advocating for the banning of factory farming, or even criminal persecutions for a human being who has abused an animal, all for the protection of animal welfare. The fundamental idea behind the animal welfare movement is the idea that we should reduce the suffering of animals, even if it means inconveniencing humans. Pro-Life people hold similar views. Many of them would want a ban or extremely strict regulations on abortions based on the fundamental idea that the fetus is a living human organism, and thus it would justify using state violence to enforce. Their belief is that the life of the fetus is worth protecting, even if it sacrifices other human rights and conveniences. Animal welfare supporters mainly use utilitarianism to justify their views (not all, most). The belief that the reduction of suffering in all human beings is an inherent good. Pro-Life advocates mostly use Christianity (not all, most) to justify their view of how a fetus is a human. Their belief that life starts at conception compels them to view abortion as an inherent evil. Both animal welfare and pro-life activists have a moral imperative that they are willing to use state action to enforce. Moral imperative ideologies that are not anywhere near universally accepted, and thus I believe both groups are attempting to regulate moral behavior based on their specific set of morals.

I believe that proponents of animal welfare are trying to regulate morality similar to the logic of pro-life activists. CMV. People who support animal rights do so because they see an inherent value in an animal's life or suffering, and thus try their best to prevent the suffering/death of animals. Many of them support the use of state legislation to enforce their idea that the well being of animals are to be respected like advocating for the banning of factory farming, or even criminal persecutions for a human being who has abused an animal, all for the protection of animal welfare. The fundamental idea behind the animal welfare movement is the idea that we should reduce the suffering of animals, even if it means inconveniencing humans. Pro-Life people hold similar views. Many of them would want a ban or extremely strict regulations on abortions based on the fundamental idea that the fetus is a living human organism, and thus it would justify using state violence to enforce. Their belief is that the life of the fetus is worth protecting, even if it sacrifices other human rights and conveniences. Animal welfare supporters mainly use utilitarianism to justify their views (not all, most). The belief that the reduction of suffering in all human beings is an inherent good. Pro-Life advocates mostly use Christianity (not all, most) to justify their view of how a fetus is a human. Their belief that life starts at conception compels them to view abortion as an inherent evil. Both animal welfare and pro-life activists have a moral imperative that they are willing to use state action to enforce. Moral imperative ideologies that are not anywhere near universally accepted, and thus I believe both groups are attempting to regulate moral behavior based on their specific set of morals.

t3_1g2lyw

I think being gay is unnatural, CMV

Two men nor two women alone can reproduce. If every single person on the planet became gay today and refused to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, the human species would be extinct within 100 years. That being said, I have no problem with anyone *being* gay or gay marriage because frankly, they aren't bothering me so why should I bother them? My point is only that being gay cannot be natural because it logically ends with the ceasing of the reproductive chain. Change my view.

I think being gay is unnatural, CMV. Two men nor two women alone can reproduce. If every single person on the planet became gay today and refused to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, the human species would be extinct within 100 years. That being said, I have no problem with anyone *being* gay or gay marriage because frankly, they aren't bothering me so why should I bother them? My point is only that being gay cannot be natural because it logically ends with the ceasing of the reproductive chain. Change my view.

t3_3g0wgx

CMV: As someone who was very passably (preop) MtF for more than a quarter of his life, then "de transitioned" and got to see trans* identities from the outside looking in, I feel that Gender Dysphoria should be treated as much of a disorder as dissociative disorders and psychosis.

One of the things that scares me now that I am no longer trans is that as I look at how I acted, thought, coped, and lived, it seems akin to how my mentally ill family acts, thinks, copes, and lives. They have to hide their real self from public eyes, they have to find ways to seem like they fit in within "normal society" they might not like and if they don't, they're seen as freaks and outcasts for looking/acting different, a lot of them have trouble with love and relationships because they're afraid of how their partner would react to such a serious condition, they have to lie to be able to keep their jobs, homes, and lifestyle, and most of all, most don't ever feel like they can just live without anybody scrutinizing or judging them for their differences—and most importantly have to justify their existence in the "normal society" to themselves and sometimes to other people. Yes, I realize some of these apply to cis gendered people who may be overweight, or grieving, or other exceptions, but if I were to make a checklist to compare the two, trans* lives and severely mentally ill lives, they would really seem similar. The one difference, that could be a similarity if I stretched it, is that trans*folk CHOOSE to come out and emulate the gender opposite their birth sex, while mentally people don't have much choice. If a closeted trans*person never came out, it would be like an unmedicated mentally ill person. Please CMV. I really want to be able to see the disorder/Dysphoria as something not as dangerous to an individual.

CMV: As someone who was very passably (preop) MtF for more than a quarter of his life, then "de transitioned" and got to see trans* identities from the outside looking in, I feel that Gender Dysphoria should be treated as much of a disorder as dissociative disorders and psychosis. One of the things that scares me now that I am no longer trans is that as I look at how I acted, thought, coped, and lived, it seems akin to how my mentally ill family acts, thinks, copes, and lives. They have to hide their real self from public eyes, they have to find ways to seem like they fit in within "normal society" they might not like and if they don't, they're seen as freaks and outcasts for looking/acting different, a lot of them have trouble with love and relationships because they're afraid of how their partner would react to such a serious condition, they have to lie to be able to keep their jobs, homes, and lifestyle, and most of all, most don't ever feel like they can just live without anybody scrutinizing or judging them for their differences—and most importantly have to justify their existence in the "normal society" to themselves and sometimes to other people. Yes, I realize some of these apply to cis gendered people who may be overweight, or grieving, or other exceptions, but if I were to make a checklist to compare the two, trans* lives and severely mentally ill lives, they would really seem similar. The one difference, that could be a similarity if I stretched it, is that trans*folk CHOOSE to come out and emulate the gender opposite their birth sex, while mentally people don't have much choice. If a closeted trans*person never came out, it would be like an unmedicated mentally ill person. Please CMV. I really want to be able to see the disorder/Dysphoria as something not as dangerous to an individual.

t3_3v4czp

CMV: Private prisons aren't as big of a deal as people make them seem.

I just don't see why private prisons are so important and why they have such strong negative consequences. They're so often emphasized as the biggest reason for mass incarceration in America, but that just doesn't make sense since less than 10% of prisons are for profit. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding private prisons seems to be mostly speculation or exaggeration (ex: Prison profiteers lobby for putting law-abiding citizens in jail). Many people talk about how this must be true because of minimum capacities in private prisons that motivate governments to arrest more people or implement or support frivolous laws such as drug illegalization, but I haven't seen any explicit evidence of minimum capacities, or any evidence that the private prisons are suffering such a shortage of prisoners to meet their supposed quotas that lobbying for an increase in arrests would even be necessary. It just seems incredibly overblown and purported as essentially the #1 cause of mass incarceration rates and America's prison system on Reddit when they make up a relatively small portion of the prisons in America. _____ > *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 prisons aren't as big of a deal as people make them seem. I just don't see why private prisons are so important and why they have such strong negative consequences. They're so often emphasized as the biggest reason for mass incarceration in America, but that just doesn't make sense since less than 10% of prisons are for profit. A lot of the rhetoric surrounding private prisons seems to be mostly speculation or exaggeration (ex: Prison profiteers lobby for putting law-abiding citizens in jail). Many people talk about how this must be true because of minimum capacities in private prisons that motivate governments to arrest more people or implement or support frivolous laws such as drug illegalization, but I haven't seen any explicit evidence of minimum capacities, or any evidence that the private prisons are suffering such a shortage of prisoners to meet their supposed quotas that lobbying for an increase in arrests would even be necessary. It just seems incredibly overblown and purported as essentially the #1 cause of mass incarceration rates and America's prison system on Reddit when they make up a relatively small portion of the prisons in America.

t3_1f5o18

I think representative systems are severely flawed and that all political regimes should be more oriented towards forcing only the scientifically proven fact or at least the arguable and logically correct to rule people's lives. CMV.

* 27 y/o * male * argentine Sick of having to accept those loads of shit congressmen say and that the only apparent way of behaving would be to adhere to one of the two main fractions of our political system to push against the other, because otherwise I'm accused of being functional to the other fraction, instead of being allowed to be a freethinker that just sees how the system prevents bullshit from becoming law and helping the truth rule our lives.

I think representative systems are severely flawed and that all political regimes should be more oriented towards forcing only the scientifically proven fact or at least the arguable and logically correct to rule people's lives. CMV. * 27 y/o * male * argentine Sick of having to accept those loads of shit congressmen say and that the only apparent way of behaving would be to adhere to one of the two main fractions of our political system to push against the other, because otherwise I'm accused of being functional to the other fraction, instead of being allowed to be a freethinker that just sees how the system prevents bullshit from becoming law and helping the truth rule our lives.

t3_5t57by

CMV: Trump is actually the most american president because America was never a democracy and freedom and equality were never its true values.

Note: I do not support trump or his policy's. I often hear people say that people like trump are un-American. But if you have read a history book than you will know that Trump is probably our most "American" president in a while. Immigration bans and racism have always existed in American history and politics. From the ban on Chinese immigrants to slavery you will see that America was never truly free. And the electoral college has always existed so we always were a republic not a democracy. Even with things like women's rights America was pretty late half of Europe had granted women suffrage by 1905. So the cold hard truth is Trump is the most American president in a while.

CMV: Trump is actually the most american president because America was never a democracy and freedom and equality were never its true values. Note: I do not support trump or his policy's. I often hear people say that people like trump are un-American. But if you have read a history book than you will know that Trump is probably our most "American" president in a while. Immigration bans and racism have always existed in American history and politics. From the ban on Chinese immigrants to slavery you will see that America was never truly free. And the electoral college has always existed so we always were a republic not a democracy. Even with things like women's rights America was pretty late half of Europe had granted women suffrage by 1905. So the cold hard truth is Trump is the most American president in a while.

t3_4hjgvo

CMV: Drake won the battle. Meek Mill won the war.

Meek Mill will never be an A-list rapper anyway, so he lost nothing. Drake, on the other hand, has a lot more to lose. Yes, his Back to Back diss could be considered a modern Ether, and yes, Meek was humiliated. But the charges of Drake using ghostwriters is widespread and his legacy will never escape it. He's to rap right now what Eminem was in '03 and what Lil Wayne was in '06. But Wayne and Em (like it or not) write their own bars, and it's a fair case to make that the former is top 25 material and the latter is top 10 material. When it comes to the top 50 greatest of all time discussion, we have obvious picks like Rakim, Ice Cube, Big Pun, but I'm not sure that Drake will score high, despite the fact that he's dominating right now. Drake will be known as one of the greatest pop artists of our time (and there's nothing wrong with that). But in the long term, he will never be solidified into that list. He certainly had the bars to be in that category, had Meek Mill not exposed him. _____ > *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: Drake won the battle. Meek Mill won the war. Meek Mill will never be an A-list rapper anyway, so he lost nothing. Drake, on the other hand, has a lot more to lose. Yes, his Back to Back diss could be considered a modern Ether, and yes, Meek was humiliated. But the charges of Drake using ghostwriters is widespread and his legacy will never escape it. He's to rap right now what Eminem was in '03 and what Lil Wayne was in '06. But Wayne and Em (like it or not) write their own bars, and it's a fair case to make that the former is top 25 material and the latter is top 10 material. When it comes to the top 50 greatest of all time discussion, we have obvious picks like Rakim, Ice Cube, Big Pun, but I'm not sure that Drake will score high, despite the fact that he's dominating right now. Drake will be known as one of the greatest pop artists of our time (and there's nothing wrong with that). But in the long term, he will never be solidified into that list. He certainly had the bars to be in that category, had Meek Mill not exposed him.

t3_22gzvc

CMV: Fishing for fun is cruel

I use this example specifically as fishing for pleasure is not only a common practice in many cultures, it is often one that is seen as virtuous. In film it is romanticised, typically as a father-son bonding session or something of the like. Objectively, it seems odd that going out and intentionally torturing and killing animals for no purpose other than fun is seen as a peaceful, reflective activity. I'd be interested to hear any people who do fish for fun argue why it they see it as acceptable. It seems to me that this practice is sadistic (or at least clearly cruel if considered at all). - Any links or debate about the science behind how fish feel pain are welcome, as I feel that is intrinsic to the argument.

CMV: Fishing for fun is cruel. I use this example specifically as fishing for pleasure is not only a common practice in many cultures, it is often one that is seen as virtuous. In film it is romanticised, typically as a father-son bonding session or something of the like. Objectively, it seems odd that going out and intentionally torturing and killing animals for no purpose other than fun is seen as a peaceful, reflective activity. I'd be interested to hear any people who do fish for fun argue why it they see it as acceptable. It seems to me that this practice is sadistic (or at least clearly cruel if considered at all). - Any links or debate about the science behind how fish feel pain are welcome, as I feel that is intrinsic to the argument.

t3_67mv3i

CMV: I'm so scared of dying and I feel like everybody who isn't is living in a state of perpetual disbelief

I think it's incredibly short sighted of people to not be frightened. We are all going to die. Some sooner, some later - But ultimately the difference is negligible. It's going to happen. I believe we purposefully block the thought of death from our minds because to not would be debilitating. We unconsciously choose ignorance over truth in order to keep the charade in tact and justify getting out of bed in the morning to do things we don't want to. There is no use in being scared and it is undoubtably NOT a constructive or positive use of ones time. But that's not the point I'm making. I'm not saying it would be good if we were all terrified, in fact, I'm envious of those that are not. The point I'm trying to make is that we *should* be terrified.

CMV: I'm so scared of dying and I feel like everybody who isn't is living in a state of perpetual disbelief. I think it's incredibly short sighted of people to not be frightened. We are all going to die. Some sooner, some later - But ultimately the difference is negligible. It's going to happen. I believe we purposefully block the thought of death from our minds because to not would be debilitating. We unconsciously choose ignorance over truth in order to keep the charade in tact and justify getting out of bed in the morning to do things we don't want to. There is no use in being scared and it is undoubtably NOT a constructive or positive use of ones time. But that's not the point I'm making. I'm not saying it would be good if we were all terrified, in fact, I'm envious of those that are not. The point I'm trying to make is that we *should* be terrified.

t3_2iojlf

CMV: Prince Hans is the true hero of Frozen and would have made a better ruler for Arendelle than Elsa

There are two ideas that I was left with after watching Frozen for the first time and they were only solidified after a recent rewatching: 1.Prince Hans is the Hero of the Story. 2.Prince Hans would have made a great king for Arendelle or at least a better ruler than Elsa. Number one is easy. Even though he's the 'bad guy' he isn't the cause for the trouble that has fallen on Arendelle. That's all on Anna being too insistent and Elsa being a drama queen. He does, however, take care of the citizens of Arendelle during their time of need, ultimately saves Arendelle from a never ending winter as promised, and inadvertently saves Anna from her doom. He would have saved Arendelle from the Monster, Elsa, if he had been able to slay her, as was his intention, but even though Elsa was ultimately saved from Hans by Anna, this display of True Love (Anna's sacrifice) caused Elsa to be able to dial back her powers to end the blizzard. Either way, Hans' actions were going to lead to Arendelle being saved (killing Elsa / prompting an act of True Love that allows Elsa to regain control of her powers). Hans's actions, prompting Anna to sacrifice herself, also actually saved Anna. Had it not been for Hans, Anna would have died at the hands of her awful sister. Number two is easy when you realize how awful Elsa is as a ruler. She has spent the better part of her life in complete isolation - presumably her education into the finer points of ruling severely lacking. She has self image and self control issues that endanger everyone in her kingdom and causes her to nearly kills her sister (a second time). Hans on the other hand knows what needs to be done and is willing to take the actions necessary to achieve his goals. As already noted, he made sure the people of Arendelle were taken care of during Elsa's neglect. He's cunning, resourceful, and ambitious. He has an idea of how to play the Game of Thrones™, shown by how easily he manipulates everyone. His views on marriage as a tool to power would have helped him to ally Arendelle with another country for economic or militaristic gains for Arendelle.

CMV: Prince Hans is the true hero of Frozen and would have made a better ruler for Arendelle than Elsa. There are two ideas that I was left with after watching Frozen for the first time and they were only solidified after a recent rewatching: 1.Prince Hans is the Hero of the Story. 2.Prince Hans would have made a great king for Arendelle or at least a better ruler than Elsa. Number one is easy. Even though he's the 'bad guy' he isn't the cause for the trouble that has fallen on Arendelle. That's all on Anna being too insistent and Elsa being a drama queen. He does, however, take care of the citizens of Arendelle during their time of need, ultimately saves Arendelle from a never ending winter as promised, and inadvertently saves Anna from her doom. He would have saved Arendelle from the Monster, Elsa, if he had been able to slay her, as was his intention, but even though Elsa was ultimately saved from Hans by Anna, this display of True Love (Anna's sacrifice) caused Elsa to be able to dial back her powers to end the blizzard. Either way, Hans' actions were going to lead to Arendelle being saved (killing Elsa / prompting an act of True Love that allows Elsa to regain control of her powers). Hans's actions, prompting Anna to sacrifice herself, also actually saved Anna. Had it not been for Hans, Anna would have died at the hands of her awful sister. Number two is easy when you realize how awful Elsa is as a ruler. She has spent the better part of her life in complete isolation - presumably her education into the finer points of ruling severely lacking. She has self image and self control issues that endanger everyone in her kingdom and causes her to nearly kills her sister (a second time). Hans on the other hand knows what needs to be done and is willing to take the actions necessary to achieve his goals. As already noted, he made sure the people of Arendelle were taken care of during Elsa's neglect. He's cunning, resourceful, and ambitious. He has an idea of how to play the Game of Thrones™, shown by how easily he manipulates everyone. His views on marriage as a tool to power would have helped him to ally Arendelle with another country for economic or militaristic gains for Arendelle.

t3_69j463

CMV: I don't need any evidence to claim that God does not exist.

This is a very common point I see when there is an “atheism vs religion” argument. Whenever religious people are asked for the proof of existence of God, they counter argue by saying that God can’t be disproved either; i.e. there is no evidence that God does not exist. However, the burden of proof always falls on the person making a claim, and until that claim is backed by evidence, the default is always considered false. For example, if I were to make a claim saying that a flying unicorn exists, I need to provide proof for it’s existence. My evidence can’t simply be “well, you can’t really prove it doesn’t exist either”. Until I provide proof, everyone has a right to say that no such thing exists. The only time I would need proof to claim something does not exist, is when there is a piece of evidence present that validates its existence in the first place. So, if I were to make a claim like “dinosaurs never existed”, I would need to back that claim up with evidence regarding the unreliability of the bones we found underneath the earth, as they are considered evidence for the existence for dinosaurs. If every claim made was considered true by default, until proven otherwise, then anyone can practically claim anything. Sure everyone has a right to claim anything they want, but without evidence, such a claim must always be considered false by default. We follow this principle in all aspects of life (like science, law & order, math etc.), and I believe religion/God should be no exception, as God is nothing but a claim without any tangible evidence to back it up. edit: I would like to clarify that my view is not that I have the right to walk up to every religious person and claim "God does not exist", but rather it is that I don't require any proof to claim that God does not exist.

CMV: I don't need any evidence to claim that God does not exist. This is a very common point I see when there is an “atheism vs religion” argument. Whenever religious people are asked for the proof of existence of God, they counter argue by saying that God can’t be disproved either; i.e. there is no evidence that God does not exist. However, the burden of proof always falls on the person making a claim, and until that claim is backed by evidence, the default is always considered false. For example, if I were to make a claim saying that a flying unicorn exists, I need to provide proof for it’s existence. My evidence can’t simply be “well, you can’t really prove it doesn’t exist either”. Until I provide proof, everyone has a right to say that no such thing exists. The only time I would need proof to claim something does not exist, is when there is a piece of evidence present that validates its existence in the first place. So, if I were to make a claim like “dinosaurs never existed”, I would need to back that claim up with evidence regarding the unreliability of the bones we found underneath the earth, as they are considered evidence for the existence for dinosaurs. If every claim made was considered true by default, until proven otherwise, then anyone can practically claim anything. Sure everyone has a right to claim anything they want, but without evidence, such a claim must always be considered false by default. We follow this principle in all aspects of life (like science, law & order, math etc.), and I believe religion/God should be no exception, as God is nothing but a claim without any tangible evidence to back it up. edit: I would like to clarify that my view is not that I have the right to walk up to every religious person and claim "God does not exist", but rather it is that I don't require any proof to claim that God does not exist.

t3_2vwuzq

CMV: The "Model Minority" and "Positive" Asian Stereotypes are Dangerous and Racist

People don’t believe Asian stereotypes are harmful. We are the “model minority” and how can stereotypes be harmful when these stereotypes are “positive?” All my childhood, I have been bombarded with unrealistic expectations of being quiet, demure, and smart. I felt like if I didn’t live up to these standards that I was a failure. I was supposed to be good at math, ace every test, and know every answer. All my achievements were attributed to my racial status rather than praised as evidence of my hard work. It was even worse when I started puberty and engaged in social media platforms. The hyper sexualization and fetishization of Asian women in media was appalling. Media had created the image of the Asian woman as passive, submissive, and flat; in addition, the lack of Asian female representation perpetuated this stereotype due to ignorance. It equated Asian women to the epitome of feminine women who praised the patriarchy. We are “exotic” in the eyes of Western media. So how can Asian stereotypes not be harmful when it creates a toxic mindset and perpetuates the sexual objectification of an entire race? Edit: I am an Asian woman. _____ > *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 "Model Minority" and "Positive" Asian Stereotypes are Dangerous and Racist. People don’t believe Asian stereotypes are harmful. We are the “model minority” and how can stereotypes be harmful when these stereotypes are “positive?” All my childhood, I have been bombarded with unrealistic expectations of being quiet, demure, and smart. I felt like if I didn’t live up to these standards that I was a failure. I was supposed to be good at math, ace every test, and know every answer. All my achievements were attributed to my racial status rather than praised as evidence of my hard work. It was even worse when I started puberty and engaged in social media platforms. The hyper sexualization and fetishization of Asian women in media was appalling. Media had created the image of the Asian woman as passive, submissive, and flat; in addition, the lack of Asian female representation perpetuated this stereotype due to ignorance. It equated Asian women to the epitome of feminine women who praised the patriarchy. We are “exotic” in the eyes of Western media. So how can Asian stereotypes not be harmful when it creates a toxic mindset and perpetuates the sexual objectification of an entire race? Edit: I am an Asian woman.

t3_1v00n8

I've only heard good things about LSD and i really want to try it. CMV

I don't have a lot of experience with drugs. I only tried alchool and Weed. I drink occasionally with friends and i can enjoy it. About weed, i stopped smoking a few years ago, because it never felt that good, and i don't enjoy the "high" of weed tha much. It gives me something like a sleeping effect and i don't like it. However when i read about LSD it sounded amazing, and i read that it has almost no side-effects or something like that, i don't know if i understood properly. Anyway if you have any experience about it, are there any negative sides about it or any reason why you would not reccomend it?

I've only heard good things about LSD and i really want to try it. CMV. I don't have a lot of experience with drugs. I only tried alchool and Weed. I drink occasionally with friends and i can enjoy it. About weed, i stopped smoking a few years ago, because it never felt that good, and i don't enjoy the "high" of weed tha much. It gives me something like a sleeping effect and i don't like it. However when i read about LSD it sounded amazing, and i read that it has almost no side-effects or something like that, i don't know if i understood properly. Anyway if you have any experience about it, are there any negative sides about it or any reason why you would not reccomend it?

t3_20ba8v

There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics… CMV

>*There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics…* >*Cretins don’t even talk; they sort of slobber and stumble…* >*Fools are in great demand, especially on social occasions. They embarrass everyone but provide material for conversation…Fools don’t claim that cats bark, but they talk about cats when everyone else is talking about dogs. They offend all the rules of conversation, and when they really offend, they’re magnificent…* >*Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong. Like the fellow who says that all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, therefore cats bark…Morons will occasionally say something that’s right, but they say it for the wrong reason…* >*A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn’t know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars…There are lunatics who don’t bring up the Templars, but those who do are the most insidious. At first they seem normal, then all of a sudden…* Okay so it isn't my view, it's from Umberto Eco in [*Foucault's Pendulum*](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/11221066-il-pendolo-di-foucault). But I happen to agree with it and (so far) can't think of any exceptions. Change my admittedly cynical, misanthropic view. **EDIT:** Seems I need to spell out the challenge more literally. This is a rule. To prove it wrong, you have to find exceptions to it. Find specific examples of actual people who fit none of the four categories. Convince me that they are indeed exceptions, and I will award you a delta. It should be easy... right?

There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics… CMV. >*There are four kinds of people in this world: cretins, fools, morons, and lunatics…* >*Cretins don’t even talk; they sort of slobber and stumble…* >*Fools are in great demand, especially on social occasions. They embarrass everyone but provide material for conversation…Fools don’t claim that cats bark, but they talk about cats when everyone else is talking about dogs. They offend all the rules of conversation, and when they really offend, they’re magnificent…* >*Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong. Like the fellow who says that all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, therefore cats bark…Morons will occasionally say something that’s right, but they say it for the wrong reason…* >*A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn’t know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars…There are lunatics who don’t bring up the Templars, but those who do are the most insidious. At first they seem normal, then all of a sudden…* Okay so it isn't my view, it's from Umberto Eco in [*Foucault's Pendulum*](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/11221066-il-pendolo-di-foucault). But I happen to agree with it and (so far) can't think of any exceptions. Change my admittedly cynical, misanthropic view. **EDIT:** Seems I need to spell out the challenge more literally. This is a rule. To prove it wrong, you have to find exceptions to it. Find specific examples of actual people who fit none of the four categories. Convince me that they are indeed exceptions, and I will award you a delta. It should be easy... right?

t3_21w3iu

CMV: Emotion is more important than Logic

This may ramble a bit because I'm trying to cover a lot. I notice a tendency for redditors to have a preoccupation with trying to sound/be logical to the point of cold heartedness and robot-like recitation of College Logic 101 courses. (I swear if I hear "Straw Man" one more time, I'll rip my hair out.) I don't know if it's just college kids flexing their new found argument skills, the rise of Aspies and the socially awkward, or just an increase in people trying to be Sheldon Cooper, but whatever it is, it merely comes across as condescending, arrogant, and dismissive. First off, Logic itself, while in theory is a perfect concept of linear thought, in practice, it is performed in the minds of human beings. Since human beings are inherently flawed and imperfect beings, the "pureness" of the Logic will be flawed and imperfect accordingly. Warped by the persons prejudices. Skewed by their assumptions. Bent to fit their personal preferences. No human being can actually properly *use* pure logic. At best they can grasp a few of the concepts and buzz words, and flail them around clumsily as either weapon, armor, or both in an argument. Many seem to think that emotion (passion) leads to the worst of humanity. Anger. Violence. Hate. War. Maybe it does, but it is absolutely worth it in the grand scheme when you realize what good things passion brings to humanity. Art, Music, Philosophy, Discussion, and Literature can all be broken down into mathematics and base components but it was the creator's passion that willed the note from the violin, or streaked brush across canvas. Science and Logic may have been used to chart the stars and manufacture the ships, but it was a sea captain's passion that had him sail off the edge of that map, past "There Be Dragons Here", and into parts unknown. While Logic may have provided the map for mankind to explore the sciences and the universe, it is Passion that inspires men in ships to sail the seas and ride $30b tin cans into space. Passion may be heavy handed and messy, it may be hot headed and make mistakes, but it will ALWAYS trump Logic for bringing humanity further as a race. That is why Kirk will always be the captain and Spock will always be supporting him. Now, all this being said, I'm willing to give a listen as to why being coldly logical is better for humanity than fiery passion, so go ahead and CMV. *P.S. I'll be off to bed shortly but I will answer replies tomorrow. Thanks!) _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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: Emotion is more important than Logic. This may ramble a bit because I'm trying to cover a lot. I notice a tendency for redditors to have a preoccupation with trying to sound/be logical to the point of cold heartedness and robot-like recitation of College Logic 101 courses. (I swear if I hear "Straw Man" one more time, I'll rip my hair out.) I don't know if it's just college kids flexing their new found argument skills, the rise of Aspies and the socially awkward, or just an increase in people trying to be Sheldon Cooper, but whatever it is, it merely comes across as condescending, arrogant, and dismissive. First off, Logic itself, while in theory is a perfect concept of linear thought, in practice, it is performed in the minds of human beings. Since human beings are inherently flawed and imperfect beings, the "pureness" of the Logic will be flawed and imperfect accordingly. Warped by the persons prejudices. Skewed by their assumptions. Bent to fit their personal preferences. No human being can actually properly *use* pure logic. At best they can grasp a few of the concepts and buzz words, and flail them around clumsily as either weapon, armor, or both in an argument. Many seem to think that emotion (passion) leads to the worst of humanity. Anger. Violence. Hate. War. Maybe it does, but it is absolutely worth it in the grand scheme when you realize what good things passion brings to humanity. Art, Music, Philosophy, Discussion, and Literature can all be broken down into mathematics and base components but it was the creator's passion that willed the note from the violin, or streaked brush across canvas. Science and Logic may have been used to chart the stars and manufacture the ships, but it was a sea captain's passion that had him sail off the edge of that map, past "There Be Dragons Here", and into parts unknown. While Logic may have provided the map for mankind to explore the sciences and the universe, it is Passion that inspires men in ships to sail the seas and ride $30b tin cans into space. Passion may be heavy handed and messy, it may be hot headed and make mistakes, but it will ALWAYS trump Logic for bringing humanity further as a race. That is why Kirk will always be the captain and Spock will always be supporting him. Now, all this being said, I'm willing to give a listen as to why being coldly logical is better for humanity than fiery passion, so go ahead and CMV. *P.S. I'll be off to bed shortly but I will answer replies tomorrow. Thanks!) > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than 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!*

t3_24h3zr

CMV: Conspiracy theorists raise valid points and it's wrong to disregard them all as "nutjobs".

Let me start off with this idea: If I don't know much about a subject and don't want to spend a very long time educating myself about it, I think it is reasonable to listen to those who *have* spent all that time. * If I want to build a house and don't want to study engineering and construction work for years, then I hire someone to build it for me. * If I want to know what tomorrows weather will be, I listen to the weatherman rather than setting up my own weather stations and learn to interpret their data. * And if I am interested in a conspiracy theory, I listen to those who have studied them for much longer than I have. Why would this approach not be reasonable in my last example? (**Edit:** My view about this changed here: [link](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/24h3zr/cmv_conspiracy_theorists_raise_valid_points_and/ch72c4s)) Now, lets think about some of the topics that conspiracy theorists often raise. I claim they all contain *some* valid points. Fluoride in toothpaste and public water for instance. Sodium fluoride *is* toxic and that alone should raise questions and encourage further research. And this goes for every conspiracy theory I've encountered, I think most of us can admit that the official 9/11 story does have doubts. I personally don't draw the conclusion that there is an evil government behind everything like some people do. But these people still have their valid points, and get ridiculed by other redditors before they have a chance to say them. Even if you don't believe in anything yourself but merely defend conspiracy theorists in a friendly tone, people will downvote and attack you, or rather attack their stereotypical conspiracy theorist straw man: http://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24d37n/til_felix_landau_of_the_nazi_einsatzgruppen_death/ch64fp8 I would like to not go into specific theories in this thread, I am asserting that most popular conspiracy theories do have valid points. I personally approach each conspiracy theory independently and acknowledge the fair points that are raised instead of generalizing every conspiracy theory there is and call them "insane" or some other negative label. My view is that this is the most reasonable approach and that more people should use 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: Conspiracy theorists raise valid points and it's wrong to disregard them all as "nutjobs". Let me start off with this idea: If I don't know much about a subject and don't want to spend a very long time educating myself about it, I think it is reasonable to listen to those who *have* spent all that time. * If I want to build a house and don't want to study engineering and construction work for years, then I hire someone to build it for me. * If I want to know what tomorrows weather will be, I listen to the weatherman rather than setting up my own weather stations and learn to interpret their data. * And if I am interested in a conspiracy theory, I listen to those who have studied them for much longer than I have. Why would this approach not be reasonable in my last example? (**Edit:** My view about this changed here: [link](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/24h3zr/cmv_conspiracy_theorists_raise_valid_points_and/ch72c4s)) Now, lets think about some of the topics that conspiracy theorists often raise. I claim they all contain *some* valid points. Fluoride in toothpaste and public water for instance. Sodium fluoride *is* toxic and that alone should raise questions and encourage further research. And this goes for every conspiracy theory I've encountered, I think most of us can admit that the official 9/11 story does have doubts. I personally don't draw the conclusion that there is an evil government behind everything like some people do. But these people still have their valid points, and get ridiculed by other redditors before they have a chance to say them. Even if you don't believe in anything yourself but merely defend conspiracy theorists in a friendly tone, people will downvote and attack you, or rather attack their stereotypical conspiracy theorist straw man: http://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/24d37n/til_felix_landau_of_the_nazi_einsatzgruppen_death/ch64fp8 I would like to not go into specific theories in this thread, I am asserting that most popular conspiracy theories do have valid points. I personally approach each conspiracy theory independently and acknowledge the fair points that are raised instead of generalizing every conspiracy theory there is and call them "insane" or some other negative label. My view is that this is the most reasonable approach and that more people should use it.

t3_5rne7z

CMV: Involving creationists in discussions about evolution does not add anything to the conversation.

There is a common idea on Reddit that you need all viewpoints present in order to not have an echo chamber. I think that if we apply this to creationism vs evolution, the idea falls apart. I don't think there is any viewpoint that creationists add to the discussion that is both useful and can't be had by scientists and/or people who are ignorant/skeptical of the science but are not engaging in bad faith (which means they haven't been shown enough information to make a decision, as opposed to making a decision based on little/faulty evidence). The only use for engaging with creationists at all is to shoot them down when they try to convince other people of creationism, but the creationist is not uniquely improving the conversation in any way at this point. Edit: should probably clarify a few things. One, I am looking at the benefit to a discussion rather than a benefit to society. I think it can be beneficial to engage creationists in order to change their or other people's minds, but this does not improve any scientific discussions. I also want to clarify that when I talk about creationists, I mean people who use scientific arguments to argue that creationism is the actual explanation for what happened after life started. Someone accepting the evidence for evolution while also believing there is a higher power does not fit here, even if someone labels that creationism. This can also be opened up to include people who believe that evolution is wrong while not necessarily believing that God created the world in 6 days etc. The main point is that it is a faulty conclusion built on bad scientific processes. Edit 2: At this point people are just replying with copies of what has been said before, so I think I'm going to stop responding. I'm thinking about remaking this in a week or two with the mods approval so that I can clarify things and hopefully avoid people trying to argue against something that I don't mean. _____ > *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: Involving creationists in discussions about evolution does not add anything to the conversation. There is a common idea on Reddit that you need all viewpoints present in order to not have an echo chamber. I think that if we apply this to creationism vs evolution, the idea falls apart. I don't think there is any viewpoint that creationists add to the discussion that is both useful and can't be had by scientists and/or people who are ignorant/skeptical of the science but are not engaging in bad faith (which means they haven't been shown enough information to make a decision, as opposed to making a decision based on little/faulty evidence). The only use for engaging with creationists at all is to shoot them down when they try to convince other people of creationism, but the creationist is not uniquely improving the conversation in any way at this point. Edit: should probably clarify a few things. One, I am looking at the benefit to a discussion rather than a benefit to society. I think it can be beneficial to engage creationists in order to change their or other people's minds, but this does not improve any scientific discussions. I also want to clarify that when I talk about creationists, I mean people who use scientific arguments to argue that creationism is the actual explanation for what happened after life started. Someone accepting the evidence for evolution while also believing there is a higher power does not fit here, even if someone labels that creationism. This can also be opened up to include people who believe that evolution is wrong while not necessarily believing that God created the world in 6 days etc. The main point is that it is a faulty conclusion built on bad scientific processes. Edit 2: At this point people are just replying with copies of what has been said before, so I think I'm going to stop responding. I'm thinking about remaking this in a week or two with the mods approval so that I can clarify things and hopefully avoid people trying to argue against something that I don't mean.

t3_3h8y7m

CMV: There is a 'Normal' state and Homosexuality and Autism and the like are irregular states.

"Normal" (adj.) Conforming to the standard or common type. --- By the above definition, we can be sure that there is a 'Normal' human being. Or at the very least, various 'Normal' states to make up a 'Normal' human being. Anything that is in the majority is a 'Normal' state. So, the 'Normal' human being is a Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Chinese man. This means that states such as Transgender, Homosexual, Autistic etc. are not 'Normal'. They are in fact 'different'. and we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal. They are different. This does not mean they are worse, undesirable or negative. Nor does it mean they are better, desirable or positive. They are simply different. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There is a 'Normal' state and Homosexuality and Autism and the like are irregular states. "Normal" (adj.) Conforming to the standard or common type. --- By the above definition, we can be sure that there is a 'Normal' human being. Or at the very least, various 'Normal' states to make up a 'Normal' human being. Anything that is in the majority is a 'Normal' state. So, the 'Normal' human being is a Cisgendered, Heterosexual, Chinese man. This means that states such as Transgender, Homosexual, Autistic etc. are not 'Normal'. They are in fact 'different'. and we desperately need to stop acting as if they are normal. They are different. This does not mean they are worse, undesirable or negative. Nor does it mean they are better, desirable or positive. They are simply different.

t3_1i4avj

I believe ufos are really aliens on earth CMV

There is such an overwhelming amount of footage taken every year of ufos all around the world that it is almost foolish to deny their existence. Now some people would reason that these craft are merely advanced military aircraft that have yet to be declassified. However I think that based on the appearance of the technology, we are far from achieving the kind of maneuverability and agility that these crafts possess, so they must be the product of a more technologically advanced people. Beings from another planet come to visit earth, to study us perhaps. Their purpose here is not what I wish to argue but I do believe they are here and that the evidence supporting my belief is vast. Along with all the footage captured I find that there is nothing to prove that they aren't here. Change my view, if you can. I look forward to reading the replies!

I believe ufos are really aliens on earth CMV. There is such an overwhelming amount of footage taken every year of ufos all around the world that it is almost foolish to deny their existence. Now some people would reason that these craft are merely advanced military aircraft that have yet to be declassified. However I think that based on the appearance of the technology, we are far from achieving the kind of maneuverability and agility that these crafts possess, so they must be the product of a more technologically advanced people. Beings from another planet come to visit earth, to study us perhaps. Their purpose here is not what I wish to argue but I do believe they are here and that the evidence supporting my belief is vast. Along with all the footage captured I find that there is nothing to prove that they aren't here. Change my view, if you can. I look forward to reading the replies!

t3_28bk7f

CMV: The Game of Thrones fandom is just as bad as the Doctor Who fandom, and it is hypocritical to dislike one but not the other.

I've noticed an oft-upvoted sentiment on reddit is a dislike of Doctor Who "because of its fandom", namely the fandom's obsessive nature, lack of originality, and inclination toward flamewars and fervent arguments. However, as a member of both fandoms (although I've only read the books in the case of Game of Thrones, as I don't have cable or pirate), I've often seen these same aforementioned behaviors for which Doctor Who's fandom is so criticized in the Game of Thrones fandom (especially arguments over whether the books or TV series are superior), yet I've not seen any such criticism of Game of Throne's fandom upvoted nearly as much as ones of Doctor Who's fandom. Is there some obvious reason for this that I'm missing, or is it just the fact that there are proportionally far more GoT fans on Reddit than Doctor Who fans? To me, it seems blatantly hypocritical to dislike Doctor Who's fandom but not Game of Throne's, but I fear that I may be missing some obvious, logical reason, so I leave it up to you. CMV.

CMV: The Game of Thrones fandom is just as bad as the Doctor Who fandom, and it is hypocritical to dislike one but not the other. I've noticed an oft-upvoted sentiment on reddit is a dislike of Doctor Who "because of its fandom", namely the fandom's obsessive nature, lack of originality, and inclination toward flamewars and fervent arguments. However, as a member of both fandoms (although I've only read the books in the case of Game of Thrones, as I don't have cable or pirate), I've often seen these same aforementioned behaviors for which Doctor Who's fandom is so criticized in the Game of Thrones fandom (especially arguments over whether the books or TV series are superior), yet I've not seen any such criticism of Game of Throne's fandom upvoted nearly as much as ones of Doctor Who's fandom. Is there some obvious reason for this that I'm missing, or is it just the fact that there are proportionally far more GoT fans on Reddit than Doctor Who fans? To me, it seems blatantly hypocritical to dislike Doctor Who's fandom but not Game of Throne's, but I fear that I may be missing some obvious, logical reason, so I leave it up to you. CMV.

t3_3f3t77

CMV: High minimum wages create a disincentive for higher education and important skilled labor jobs

Many cities across the US have high minimum wages or are currently increasing minimum wages. For example Los Angeles (soon) and Seattle have $15 minimum wages far higher than other cities and the federal rate. I understand the cost of living is factored in as well but many cities with low costs of living have high minimum wages as well (eg Santa Fe, Chicago and Portland, Maine). While I do believe minimum wages should be high enough for someone to support themselves, these wages seem ridiculously high. At 15 dollars an hour if someone is working full time 5 days a week they make 15*8*5*52.177= $31,306/year. While that doesn't seem ridiculously high, consider that they are making about the salary a teacher and most research lab employees (22,000-36000 for technicians and lab assistants) make. Why work your ass off for advanced schooling to become a teacher or work your ass of to get a chem/physics/biochem degree and then work your ass off in those positions when you could be making the same or more working at McDonalds? We need and thrive off of the skilled labor these positions offer in the classroom and for our scientific advances. But why would someone spend years of their life and go into debt to work an incredibly demanding job if they could make essentially the same salary ringing up froyo orders. I'm not saying that these minimum wage jobs aren't necessary or that they aren't hard work at times, but let's be real: Getting a B.S. in a complex science and using that knowledge everyday to help advance research in a lab is more difficult and more in demand than most unskilled work that require no higher degree or debt. You might argue that this is an appropriate minimum wage and those other jobs are simply underpaid but the federal poverty threshold is far lower. For a single person, two person, and three person households the federal poverty level is $11700, $15930 and $20000 respectively as annual income. While I don't think someone working full time in a minimum wage position should be at the poverty level I also don't think they should be making nearly three times that level. If you can live an independent and comfortable life at an easy job doing simple tasks what would be the incentive to work hard for that same comfortable lifestyle?

CMV: High minimum wages create a disincentive for higher education and important skilled labor jobs. Many cities across the US have high minimum wages or are currently increasing minimum wages. For example Los Angeles (soon) and Seattle have $15 minimum wages far higher than other cities and the federal rate. I understand the cost of living is factored in as well but many cities with low costs of living have high minimum wages as well (eg Santa Fe, Chicago and Portland, Maine). While I do believe minimum wages should be high enough for someone to support themselves, these wages seem ridiculously high. At 15 dollars an hour if someone is working full time 5 days a week they make 15*8*5*52.177= $31,306/year. While that doesn't seem ridiculously high, consider that they are making about the salary a teacher and most research lab employees (22,000-36000 for technicians and lab assistants) make. Why work your ass off for advanced schooling to become a teacher or work your ass of to get a chem/physics/biochem degree and then work your ass off in those positions when you could be making the same or more working at McDonalds? We need and thrive off of the skilled labor these positions offer in the classroom and for our scientific advances. But why would someone spend years of their life and go into debt to work an incredibly demanding job if they could make essentially the same salary ringing up froyo orders. I'm not saying that these minimum wage jobs aren't necessary or that they aren't hard work at times, but let's be real: Getting a B.S. in a complex science and using that knowledge everyday to help advance research in a lab is more difficult and more in demand than most unskilled work that require no higher degree or debt. You might argue that this is an appropriate minimum wage and those other jobs are simply underpaid but the federal poverty threshold is far lower. For a single person, two person, and three person households the federal poverty level is $11700, $15930 and $20000 respectively as annual income. While I don't think someone working full time in a minimum wage position should be at the poverty level I also don't think they should be making nearly three times that level. If you can live an independent and comfortable life at an easy job doing simple tasks what would be the incentive to work hard for that same comfortable lifestyle?

t3_1d3kwh

I believe that, for those who have been previously incarcerated or punished by a legal system and then fulfilled the obligations of their sentence, it should be illegal to discriminate against them in matters of employment, housing ,etc. CMV

At least in the United States, the federal government has indicated specific protected classes upon which discrimination is illegal, such as ethnicity, gender or age. If someone has completely fulfilled the obligations a court sentence, why should we allow for their past crimes to follow them around in society, seeing as they have done what a legal authority laid out as needing to be done to serve as penance for their crime? Should we not identify these persons as the target of unfair discrimination? If the government is not willing to make this change, I believe it is recognizing legally, to some extent, that people cannot change. Are there examples when this is appropriate, but when it is most definitely not; what maxim could we devise to hash out the line at which it becomes acceptable to discriminate on this basis? http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sympathy-terrorist-article-1.1325341 This piece inspired my thoughts on the subject if anyone is curious. Seeing as I am fairly ignorant of the legal systems of countries other than the U.S., I would love to hear some arguments involving foreign legal systems, just out of curiosity. Edit @ 10:54 pm, Thursday, April 25th: Thanks you everyone for contributing, I really enjoyed the discussion! My view has not shifted significantly, but the discussion that ensued caused me to really flesh out and qualify my opinion and its implications, and for that I'm grateful. I need to get off reddit for now, but I'd really enjoy to check back in in a week or so and see some further opinions/retorts/views.

I believe that, for those who have been previously incarcerated or punished by a legal system and then fulfilled the obligations of their sentence, it should be illegal to discriminate against them in matters of employment, housing ,etc. CMV. At least in the United States, the federal government has indicated specific protected classes upon which discrimination is illegal, such as ethnicity, gender or age. If someone has completely fulfilled the obligations a court sentence, why should we allow for their past crimes to follow them around in society, seeing as they have done what a legal authority laid out as needing to be done to serve as penance for their crime? Should we not identify these persons as the target of unfair discrimination? If the government is not willing to make this change, I believe it is recognizing legally, to some extent, that people cannot change. Are there examples when this is appropriate, but when it is most definitely not; what maxim could we devise to hash out the line at which it becomes acceptable to discriminate on this basis? http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sympathy-terrorist-article-1.1325341 This piece inspired my thoughts on the subject if anyone is curious. Seeing as I am fairly ignorant of the legal systems of countries other than the U.S., I would love to hear some arguments involving foreign legal systems, just out of curiosity. Edit @ 10:54 pm, Thursday, April 25th: Thanks you everyone for contributing, I really enjoyed the discussion! My view has not shifted significantly, but the discussion that ensued caused me to really flesh out and qualify my opinion and its implications, and for that I'm grateful. I need to get off reddit for now, but I'd really enjoy to check back in in a week or so and see some further opinions/retorts/views.

t3_4huxeq

CMV: Game of Thrones has finally been stretched too thin by the constraints of television and the storytelling is starting to suffer. [SPOILERS!]

Spoilers for everything, obviously... It wasn't always this way- seasons 1-4 faithfully kept to the books, deftly removed irrelevant storylines (and, if you've ever read the books, there was plenty) and even managed to add plenty of new backstory and character development that the books didn't have. All in all, they were excellent adaptations of a difficult-to-adapt source material. Last season and this season (so far), however, are another matter... 1) Because some storylines moved faster than others, the writers had to create all kinds of rubbish storylines that didn't happen in the books and so consequently have no impact on the story (I'm looking at you, Night's Watch...). Some pretty brilliant edits were made to keep characters relevant/concise (merging Sansa, Brienne and Ramsay's storylines was a stroke of genius and shelving Bran for a season was also definitely a good move), but there have also been some major missteps (Dorne was an unmitigated mess, though bringing Jaime and Bronn into the story wasn't a horrible idea). Add to all that the whitewashing of some characters (namely Tyrion, Daenerys and Jon Snow), and the shows have begun to lack the complexity that made the first few seasons and the source material so riveting. 2) Moreover, because it can only make ten hours of content a season, the show has to move so rapidly between storylines that the twists and turns have less emotional impact. In the first season, we had only a few storylines: the Wall, King's Landing, Essos and the Riverlands later on in the season. We could spend a third of an episode in each location and not miss too much. Now, while we might know the characters better and need less exposition, we have so many different stories in different locations (Arya, Sansa, Ramsay, Dorne, The Wall, Cersei, Dany, Tyrion, etc. etc. etc.) that to touch on each or even most in an episode means we only get 5 or so minutes in each location. As a result, the big changes have a lot less impact- the reason the Red Wedding and even the Purple Wedding were such powerful episodes was because the build to the insane finale at the end was made with slower suspense-building scenes. Even Renly got a good amount of chill time before he got offed. But just think- in the last few episodes, in the first two episodes of the season (SPOILERS!) three major heads of houses have been offed, but each was with very little buildup- We basically see them for little over a minute before they're viciously double-crossed (especially problematic in Balon's scene since we haven't seen him for a few seasons!). I know the characters getting killed aren't the main characters or even the most sympathetic, but they're important heads of houses and their deaths should have a little more impact. Some scenes are still great, of course- Tyrion's and Jon Snow's in last episode were handled excellently- but I feel like the show's suddenly got to do a bunch of tickboxing on certain storylines due to time constraints, and it's the first time I've felt like the show was at a real disadvantage to the books in terms of medium. TLDR: There's too much going on in GOT now that compressing all of the plot developments into an hour-long episode reduces the emotional impact and hinders the storytelling. _____ > *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: Game of Thrones has finally been stretched too thin by the constraints of television and the storytelling is starting to suffer. [SPOILERS!]. Spoilers for everything, obviously... It wasn't always this way- seasons 1-4 faithfully kept to the books, deftly removed irrelevant storylines (and, if you've ever read the books, there was plenty) and even managed to add plenty of new backstory and character development that the books didn't have. All in all, they were excellent adaptations of a difficult-to-adapt source material. Last season and this season (so far), however, are another matter... 1) Because some storylines moved faster than others, the writers had to create all kinds of rubbish storylines that didn't happen in the books and so consequently have no impact on the story (I'm looking at you, Night's Watch...). Some pretty brilliant edits were made to keep characters relevant/concise (merging Sansa, Brienne and Ramsay's storylines was a stroke of genius and shelving Bran for a season was also definitely a good move), but there have also been some major missteps (Dorne was an unmitigated mess, though bringing Jaime and Bronn into the story wasn't a horrible idea). Add to all that the whitewashing of some characters (namely Tyrion, Daenerys and Jon Snow), and the shows have begun to lack the complexity that made the first few seasons and the source material so riveting. 2) Moreover, because it can only make ten hours of content a season, the show has to move so rapidly between storylines that the twists and turns have less emotional impact. In the first season, we had only a few storylines: the Wall, King's Landing, Essos and the Riverlands later on in the season. We could spend a third of an episode in each location and not miss too much. Now, while we might know the characters better and need less exposition, we have so many different stories in different locations (Arya, Sansa, Ramsay, Dorne, The Wall, Cersei, Dany, Tyrion, etc. etc. etc.) that to touch on each or even most in an episode means we only get 5 or so minutes in each location. As a result, the big changes have a lot less impact- the reason the Red Wedding and even the Purple Wedding were such powerful episodes was because the build to the insane finale at the end was made with slower suspense-building scenes. Even Renly got a good amount of chill time before he got offed. But just think- in the last few episodes, in the first two episodes of the season (SPOILERS!) three major heads of houses have been offed, but each was with very little buildup- We basically see them for little over a minute before they're viciously double-crossed (especially problematic in Balon's scene since we haven't seen him for a few seasons!). I know the characters getting killed aren't the main characters or even the most sympathetic, but they're important heads of houses and their deaths should have a little more impact. Some scenes are still great, of course- Tyrion's and Jon Snow's in last episode were handled excellently- but I feel like the show's suddenly got to do a bunch of tickboxing on certain storylines due to time constraints, and it's the first time I've felt like the show was at a real disadvantage to the books in terms of medium. TLDR: There's too much going on in GOT now that compressing all of the plot developments into an hour-long episode reduces the emotional impact and hinders the storytelling.

t3_6jznxw

CMV: Death penalty & corporal Punishment

ADDED - I see a lot of people making the argument that a % of people are wrongly convicted and I agree that in the case of current prisons but the point I am making is on the rare 1% of clear guilt video footage, DNA evidence convictions, the death penalty is a reasonable punishment. e.g. school shooter, terrorists, people caught in the act on CCTV etc. People who really haven't got a leg to stand on if they plead not guilty ORIGINAL - Hello, Here in the UK it costs ~£90,000 to convict a criminal & ~£60,000 a year to keep them in prison, so going by those numbers it cost roughly 1 million pounds to convict a murderer and for them to serve a life sentence (15 years) We don't have any form of capital punishment and I for one am in favour of it. So here are my proposals; Murderers (beyond doubt) :- Shall receive the death penalty Serial Rapists & offending paedophiles (beyond doubt) :- Should be Castrated This isn't to say that all convicted murders and rapists shall receive these punishments but for the few who's guilt is undeniable can receive this more fitting punishment. Also I believe that such punishments will act a deterrents for people committing such terrible crimes. also I believe Commonly used low risk drugs e.g. Weed & Cocaine (pure form) Should be legalised and taxed. These measures I feel will save the country some money and hopefully save some lives in the process. I know that a lot of murders and rapes are spur of the moment but I feel that peoples awareness of the punishment awaiting them if caught can make a difference. I also believe there need to be some form of spending reform in prisons themselves seeing as the US spends around a quarter of what the UK spends per prisoner with similar return rates anyway but that's probably a subject for another day. Thanks for reading, let get debating.

CMV: Death penalty & corporal Punishment. ADDED - I see a lot of people making the argument that a % of people are wrongly convicted and I agree that in the case of current prisons but the point I am making is on the rare 1% of clear guilt video footage, DNA evidence convictions, the death penalty is a reasonable punishment. e.g. school shooter, terrorists, people caught in the act on CCTV etc. People who really haven't got a leg to stand on if they plead not guilty ORIGINAL - Hello, Here in the UK it costs ~£90,000 to convict a criminal & ~£60,000 a year to keep them in prison, so going by those numbers it cost roughly 1 million pounds to convict a murderer and for them to serve a life sentence (15 years) We don't have any form of capital punishment and I for one am in favour of it. So here are my proposals; Murderers (beyond doubt) :- Shall receive the death penalty Serial Rapists & offending paedophiles (beyond doubt) :- Should be Castrated This isn't to say that all convicted murders and rapists shall receive these punishments but for the few who's guilt is undeniable can receive this more fitting punishment. Also I believe that such punishments will act a deterrents for people committing such terrible crimes. also I believe Commonly used low risk drugs e.g. Weed & Cocaine (pure form) Should be legalised and taxed. These measures I feel will save the country some money and hopefully save some lives in the process. I know that a lot of murders and rapes are spur of the moment but I feel that peoples awareness of the punishment awaiting them if caught can make a difference. I also believe there need to be some form of spending reform in prisons themselves seeing as the US spends around a quarter of what the UK spends per prisoner with similar return rates anyway but that's probably a subject for another day. Thanks for reading, let get debating.

t3_4hwvpw

CMV: All colleges and universities should make condoms freely available to their students.

Condom distribution in schools has been and continues to be a controversial topic among students, parents, and administrators in the United States. In the early 1990s, prompted by the AIDS crisis and a surge in teenage pregnancies, some U.S. schools began considering and implementing policies, which allowed for distribution of condoms to students. There are many reasons why I feel schools should have condoms at disposal for their students. Free condoms, easy access to protection, and sex ed programs create healthier college campuses. Many students do not receive adequate sex education in high school. Even comprehensive sex education that includes discussion of protection often neglects issues like consent, mixing sex and alcohol. Too many college students are under the impression that they know everything there is to know about sex and that is how we end up with unplanned pregnancies and the spread of STI’s. Students can choose if they want to grab free condoms or leave them in the health center. The condoms would be available if needed, not handed out to promote sex. Another reason why I believe schools should have condoms at disposal for their students is the cost of condoms. Many students are on a strict budget and cannot afford to buy condoms every time they engage in sexual relations. Also, having condoms at student’s disposal encourages healthy and safe sex practices among students, something schools ought to be doing more of. I think it would be really bad if even a few college students per year had to drop out because of an unwanted pregnancy.

CMV: All colleges and universities should make condoms freely available to their students. Condom distribution in schools has been and continues to be a controversial topic among students, parents, and administrators in the United States. In the early 1990s, prompted by the AIDS crisis and a surge in teenage pregnancies, some U.S. schools began considering and implementing policies, which allowed for distribution of condoms to students. There are many reasons why I feel schools should have condoms at disposal for their students. Free condoms, easy access to protection, and sex ed programs create healthier college campuses. Many students do not receive adequate sex education in high school. Even comprehensive sex education that includes discussion of protection often neglects issues like consent, mixing sex and alcohol. Too many college students are under the impression that they know everything there is to know about sex and that is how we end up with unplanned pregnancies and the spread of STI’s. Students can choose if they want to grab free condoms or leave them in the health center. The condoms would be available if needed, not handed out to promote sex. Another reason why I believe schools should have condoms at disposal for their students is the cost of condoms. Many students are on a strict budget and cannot afford to buy condoms every time they engage in sexual relations. Also, having condoms at student’s disposal encourages healthy and safe sex practices among students, something schools ought to be doing more of. I think it would be really bad if even a few college students per year had to drop out because of an unwanted pregnancy.

t3_2ldsgu

CMV: College isn't worth the cost.

I don't see how the gains/loss ratio works for college. If I go, I get a piece of paper and a huge student loan debt. Not to mention the job outlook is very poor, the competition is fierce, and I will have "work experience". I could justify a trade or vocational school though. They at least are cheap and have generally halfway decent paying jobs with marketable skills. So why is college so important? I saw a statistic(Not sure of validity) the other day that said almost half of all college graduates are working in jobs that don't require college degrees. That made me shudder. EDIT: Thanks everyone! I think my view has been changed for the most part. If anything I was just scared of the next few years. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: College isn't worth the cost. I don't see how the gains/loss ratio works for college. If I go, I get a piece of paper and a huge student loan debt. Not to mention the job outlook is very poor, the competition is fierce, and I will have "work experience". I could justify a trade or vocational school though. They at least are cheap and have generally halfway decent paying jobs with marketable skills. So why is college so important? I saw a statistic(Not sure of validity) the other day that said almost half of all college graduates are working in jobs that don't require college degrees. That made me shudder. EDIT: Thanks everyone! I think my view has been changed for the most part. If anything I was just scared of the next few years.

t3_1v4wu2

I believe that "poor black family" sitcoms like Diff'rent Strokes, Good Times, and in some ways The Jeffersons were intentional efforts at calming growing possibilities of class warfare. CMV.

I think the overwhelming concept is not one of "everyone's good", but instead "you should be happy, even though you're poor, and not try to make your life better". Some related thoughts: - no one seems to bring up that Mr. Drummond took in Arnold and Willis when their mother, his housekeeper who was allegedly a beloved part of the family, died. But it's clear that they were kept in poverty their entire previous lives, and therefore the Drummond weren't paying a living wage. - a constant theme in the Jeffersons is that rich people have huge problems and are generally extremely unhappy (again, the concept being that it's not worth improving your life). - In Good Times, the family sits and suffers while continually being exposed to rich people who have an easier time of life, but never seem to have any comeuppance for their negative behaviours (I think, on this regard, the politician who makes many appearances, and the everpresent complaints about the landlord). As for this being intentional...I understand it's almost impossible to prove that. I just can't see these choices being made at top corporate levels without some inkling of the concepts behind it. FWIW, I grew up as a lower-class white Canadian, so my insight into poor black American families is not terribly deep.

I believe that "poor black family" sitcoms like Diff'rent Strokes, Good Times, and in some ways The Jeffersons were intentional efforts at calming growing possibilities of class warfare. CMV. I think the overwhelming concept is not one of "everyone's good", but instead "you should be happy, even though you're poor, and not try to make your life better". Some related thoughts: - no one seems to bring up that Mr. Drummond took in Arnold and Willis when their mother, his housekeeper who was allegedly a beloved part of the family, died. But it's clear that they were kept in poverty their entire previous lives, and therefore the Drummond weren't paying a living wage. - a constant theme in the Jeffersons is that rich people have huge problems and are generally extremely unhappy (again, the concept being that it's not worth improving your life). - In Good Times, the family sits and suffers while continually being exposed to rich people who have an easier time of life, but never seem to have any comeuppance for their negative behaviours (I think, on this regard, the politician who makes many appearances, and the everpresent complaints about the landlord). As for this being intentional...I understand it's almost impossible to prove that. I just can't see these choices being made at top corporate levels without some inkling of the concepts behind it. FWIW, I grew up as a lower-class white Canadian, so my insight into poor black American families is not terribly deep.