id
stringlengths 9
9
| title
stringlengths 9
300
| selftext
stringlengths 9
9.73k
| text
stringlengths 53
9.81k
|
|---|---|---|---|
t3_1e5yke | [Mod Post] Looking for a Wiki Mod | **This is Mod post 21. You can read the previous Mod Post by clicking [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e3ab0/mod_post_possible_changes_and_more/), or by visiting the [Mod Post Archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.**
---
We made a lot of promises [in our last mod post] (http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e3ab0/mod_post_possible_changes_and_more/), and to show our subscribers that we're doing our best to improve the sub, we're going to be crossing things off of that list as soon as possible. One of our biggest complaints is the fact that there are many repeat CMV threads. **We're still not sure on how exactly we want to tackle this problem**, but one thing we are sure about is using the wiki page to catalog popular topics for users to search through. [We think /r/askhistorians] (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/index) did a wonderful job with their Wiki page and would like to set one up and maintain one just like that.
Therefore, we are looking for **one** person who will be a "wiki moderator." By this I mean your only permission will be editing the wiki page. (This does not mean you won't ever have the chance to become a full moderator, but these are just the permissions you will start out with.)
---
**What you will be doing:**
* Editing the wiki page with links to popular CMV threads that you feel are comprehensive over a certain topic.
* Organize the wiki page so that new users can easily find older threads that are similar to their interests.
* Keep up to date with CMV threads, and add new threads to the wiki if you feel that the discussion is high quality.
---
[Here is an extremely rough version] (http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics) of the Wiki page that /u/Snorrrlax made to give you an idea of what we're looking for.
---
**IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE LEAVE A REPLY TO THIS THREAD!** We will primarily be looking for users who have a good history with the sub. No prior mod experience is necessary, though if you are good at editing subreddit wikis that would definitely be a plus.
---
---
---
**What else should you be expecting?**
* So far, we have confirmed that our first **TCMV Tuesday** will be on May 15th. This will be posted by moderator /u/GameboyPATH, though the exact time of day when it will be up is not known.
* Sidebar changes and new rules - **very soon**.
* Requiring mod approvals for meta posts - **already being enforced**
* Link flairs for when OP gives delta/doesn't respond - **soon**
* Banning neutral posts - **yet to be discussed**
---
And that's all.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
| [Mod Post] Looking for a Wiki Mod. **This is Mod post 21. You can read the previous Mod Post by clicking [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e3ab0/mod_post_possible_changes_and_more/), or by visiting the [Mod Post Archive](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modpostarchive) in our wiki.**
---
We made a lot of promises [in our last mod post] (http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1e3ab0/mod_post_possible_changes_and_more/), and to show our subscribers that we're doing our best to improve the sub, we're going to be crossing things off of that list as soon as possible. One of our biggest complaints is the fact that there are many repeat CMV threads. **We're still not sure on how exactly we want to tackle this problem**, but one thing we are sure about is using the wiki page to catalog popular topics for users to search through. [We think /r/askhistorians] (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/index) did a wonderful job with their Wiki page and would like to set one up and maintain one just like that.
Therefore, we are looking for **one** person who will be a "wiki moderator." By this I mean your only permission will be editing the wiki page. (This does not mean you won't ever have the chance to become a full moderator, but these are just the permissions you will start out with.)
---
**What you will be doing:**
* Editing the wiki page with links to popular CMV threads that you feel are comprehensive over a certain topic.
* Organize the wiki page so that new users can easily find older threads that are similar to their interests.
* Keep up to date with CMV threads, and add new threads to the wiki if you feel that the discussion is high quality.
---
[Here is an extremely rough version] (http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics) of the Wiki page that /u/Snorrrlax made to give you an idea of what we're looking for.
---
**IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, PLEASE LEAVE A REPLY TO THIS THREAD!** We will primarily be looking for users who have a good history with the sub. No prior mod experience is necessary, though if you are good at editing subreddit wikis that would definitely be a plus.
---
---
---
**What else should you be expecting?**
* So far, we have confirmed that our first **TCMV Tuesday** will be on May 15th. This will be posted by moderator /u/GameboyPATH, though the exact time of day when it will be up is not known.
* Sidebar changes and new rules - **very soon**.
* Requiring mod approvals for meta posts - **already being enforced**
* Link flairs for when OP gives delta/doesn't respond - **soon**
* Banning neutral posts - **yet to be discussed**
---
And that's all.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
|
t3_1lj075 | My father and I believe that the death penalty should be applied immediately to those who plead guilty to heinous crimes of murder and rape CMV | We don't see any reason to leave someone alive who has done such evil things and feels no remorse, and/or would likely do those things again. We think that if there is any question of a person's innocence, the death penalty should NOT be applied under any circumstances. I would be happy to clarify or elaborate if I haven't been clear/elaborate enough. I've met a lot of people who don't think the death penalty should be applied at all, but I think it is very important to the safety of society and to enforce the fact that heinous evil acts are not to be performed in tho country.
EDIT: I now think that there should in fact be a trial to determine whether the person is innocent or guilty no matter their plea, but I still maintain that some people deserve to die.
EDIT2: My V has been C'd, though not completely. Honestly, I think it has been changed as much as it can be (due to my beliefs, sorry) so it's unfair to ask you guys to keep trying beyond this point. A lot of you played a role, however small, in changing my view, and I awarded deltas to the two people who put forth the best, first, and most well-written arguments. For an explanation on how my views have changed, if you are interested, see my conversations in the comments with LogicDragon and Anton_Lemieux. Thank you for your time. | My father and I believe that the death penalty should be applied immediately to those who plead guilty to heinous crimes of murder and rape CMV. We don't see any reason to leave someone alive who has done such evil things and feels no remorse, and/or would likely do those things again. We think that if there is any question of a person's innocence, the death penalty should NOT be applied under any circumstances. I would be happy to clarify or elaborate if I haven't been clear/elaborate enough. I've met a lot of people who don't think the death penalty should be applied at all, but I think it is very important to the safety of society and to enforce the fact that heinous evil acts are not to be performed in tho country.
EDIT: I now think that there should in fact be a trial to determine whether the person is innocent or guilty no matter their plea, but I still maintain that some people deserve to die.
EDIT2: My V has been C'd, though not completely. Honestly, I think it has been changed as much as it can be (due to my beliefs, sorry) so it's unfair to ask you guys to keep trying beyond this point. A lot of you played a role, however small, in changing my view, and I awarded deltas to the two people who put forth the best, first, and most well-written arguments. For an explanation on how my views have changed, if you are interested, see my conversations in the comments with LogicDragon and Anton_Lemieux. Thank you for your time. |
t3_1jmv9x | Gendered bathrooms should correspond to anatomy, not identity. CMV | I hear of this issue most often in schools, where a transgender person uses the 'wrong' bathroom and people get upset.
Here is an example:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2013/06/24/transgender-first-grader-wins-right-use-girls-bathroom
I think that ideally, bathrooms should be gender-neutral but for some reason that isn't reality so let's deal with what we've got.
Bathrooms are physical spaces with different toilets corresponding to the anatomy of the user. It doesn't make sense that a male-identified person with a vagina should have to use a [go-girl] (http://www.go-girl.com/) or some other special device in order to use a urinal when it's not made for that person's anatomy in the first place.
Men can wear dresses, women can grow beards, I don't care. What matters to the bathroom as a physical space is the anatomy your body uses to relieve itself.
Certainly there is a small minority of people who have some indistinguishable genitalia, but in the safety of a bathroom stall, no one will know anyway. | Gendered bathrooms should correspond to anatomy, not identity. CMV. I hear of this issue most often in schools, where a transgender person uses the 'wrong' bathroom and people get upset.
Here is an example:
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2013/06/24/transgender-first-grader-wins-right-use-girls-bathroom
I think that ideally, bathrooms should be gender-neutral but for some reason that isn't reality so let's deal with what we've got.
Bathrooms are physical spaces with different toilets corresponding to the anatomy of the user. It doesn't make sense that a male-identified person with a vagina should have to use a [go-girl] (http://www.go-girl.com/) or some other special device in order to use a urinal when it's not made for that person's anatomy in the first place.
Men can wear dresses, women can grow beards, I don't care. What matters to the bathroom as a physical space is the anatomy your body uses to relieve itself.
Certainly there is a small minority of people who have some indistinguishable genitalia, but in the safety of a bathroom stall, no one will know anyway. |
t3_26b9o5 | CMV: I'm thinking of dropping out of college. | I am currently a 21 yo male and am seriously struggling with school. I seem to be excelling in most other aspects of my life (job, relationships, etc.) but I cannot get it together with school. College has given me horrible anxiety for the past few years, and I think maybe I have a fear of the future.
I am a senior in college and, for the first two years of school, I was a 4.0 student. My junior year at college, I became apathetic and depressed which made my grades slip. I got into drugs and alcohol and it was obviously a bad influence in my life. So I transferred schools to get away from that lifestyle, and I no longer partake in partying like I used to. However, my grades and tolerance for school have continued to plummet. I know I'm only one year from graduation, but I cannot fail another class and disappoint myself even further.
I'm strongly considering either a) taking a year off and getting my real estate license; or b) quitting school altogether so that I can begin working a full time job.
It will be a disappointment to my parents if this is what I decide, but it will also be an incredible disappointment for myself. But whenever I enroll in classes I get anxious and have panic attacks.
I know that getting my degree is important, and I'm close to graduation so I should just suck it up. But this is honestly making me unhappy. I will have loans I need to pay back, but I think the happiness I will gain back will be worth it. So please, if anyone has any advice, or any similar experiences feel free to share.
If I missed anything or need to elaborate more, let me know.
Thanks!
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I'm thinking of dropping out of college. I am currently a 21 yo male and am seriously struggling with school. I seem to be excelling in most other aspects of my life (job, relationships, etc.) but I cannot get it together with school. College has given me horrible anxiety for the past few years, and I think maybe I have a fear of the future.
I am a senior in college and, for the first two years of school, I was a 4.0 student. My junior year at college, I became apathetic and depressed which made my grades slip. I got into drugs and alcohol and it was obviously a bad influence in my life. So I transferred schools to get away from that lifestyle, and I no longer partake in partying like I used to. However, my grades and tolerance for school have continued to plummet. I know I'm only one year from graduation, but I cannot fail another class and disappoint myself even further.
I'm strongly considering either a) taking a year off and getting my real estate license; or b) quitting school altogether so that I can begin working a full time job.
It will be a disappointment to my parents if this is what I decide, but it will also be an incredible disappointment for myself. But whenever I enroll in classes I get anxious and have panic attacks.
I know that getting my degree is important, and I'm close to graduation so I should just suck it up. But this is honestly making me unhappy. I will have loans I need to pay back, but I think the happiness I will gain back will be worth it. So please, if anyone has any advice, or any similar experiences feel free to share.
If I missed anything or need to elaborate more, let me know.
Thanks!
|
t3_1pwqe3 | CMV on how Christianity is true, but religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other religion is false. | If we look at religion historically, we can see a very clear and political pattern. The earliest religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism had a more polytheistic structure, where their wasn't a supreme ruler/creator of the universe. Later, Zoroastrianism formed and taught things like heaven and hell, good and evil, and moral obligations. Zoroastrianism gave rise to Judaism, which was the first religion to have a completely monotheistic view. It shares many of the same beliefs as Christianity, which, of course, was formed later. Knowing the trends of religion historically, convince me that Christianity is true but the religions that influenced its formation are false. | CMV on how Christianity is true, but religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other religion is false. If we look at religion historically, we can see a very clear and political pattern. The earliest religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism had a more polytheistic structure, where their wasn't a supreme ruler/creator of the universe. Later, Zoroastrianism formed and taught things like heaven and hell, good and evil, and moral obligations. Zoroastrianism gave rise to Judaism, which was the first religion to have a completely monotheistic view. It shares many of the same beliefs as Christianity, which, of course, was formed later. Knowing the trends of religion historically, convince me that Christianity is true but the religions that influenced its formation are false. |
t3_3iqa8u | CMV: IT IS NEVER A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL! | Guys! Come *ON*! I mean, I'm sorry that I'm yelling, but seriously: It is never^* a 13 year old girl. When you are a 40-something or 50-something year old dude trolling the internet for some sex, the 13 year old girl that you think you're talking to is never^* a 13 year old girl. It is most likely either (a) a cop or similar or (b) some other 40-50-something dude pretending to be a 13 year old girl to get his jollies.
Sure, if you're in your 20's; or if you misrepresent who you are, you *might* find some small portion of 13 year old girls who will have sexual conversations with you. But if you accurately represent you 40+ age, and some "13 year old girl" invites you over to her house to have sex with her, IT IS NOT^* GOING TO BE A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL!
I don't know how to break this to you, but there are no^* 13 year old girls who are interested in having sex with a 40-50-something dude. It just doesn't^* happen. You *might* find a few 17-18 year olds willing to have sex with you, but there a just no^* 13 year olds who are sexually mature, advanced or experienced enough that they are going to have any desire to get it on with some old dude.
So when you get back from your chat with Chris Hansen, change my view. Explain to me that I'm wrong and, actually, it real often *is* a 13 year old girl. I'd like my view changed because (a) I can't believe there are that many mind-boggling stupid dudes out there that think that a 13 year old girl wants to have sex with them and (b) when they go tot he "13 year old girl's" house to have sex with her, I think they are just going to verify their belief that they're being trolled and that no actual 13 year old girl exists; I don't think they are going there actually expecting to have sex with a 13 year old girl.
^* - The use of this term is not intended to be literal and absolute. Rather, it is intend as a general term indicating that the contrary is such a minuscule portion of the population that it is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. | CMV: IT IS NEVER A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL!. Guys! Come *ON*! I mean, I'm sorry that I'm yelling, but seriously: It is never^* a 13 year old girl. When you are a 40-something or 50-something year old dude trolling the internet for some sex, the 13 year old girl that you think you're talking to is never^* a 13 year old girl. It is most likely either (a) a cop or similar or (b) some other 40-50-something dude pretending to be a 13 year old girl to get his jollies.
Sure, if you're in your 20's; or if you misrepresent who you are, you *might* find some small portion of 13 year old girls who will have sexual conversations with you. But if you accurately represent you 40+ age, and some "13 year old girl" invites you over to her house to have sex with her, IT IS NOT^* GOING TO BE A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL!
I don't know how to break this to you, but there are no^* 13 year old girls who are interested in having sex with a 40-50-something dude. It just doesn't^* happen. You *might* find a few 17-18 year olds willing to have sex with you, but there a just no^* 13 year olds who are sexually mature, advanced or experienced enough that they are going to have any desire to get it on with some old dude.
So when you get back from your chat with Chris Hansen, change my view. Explain to me that I'm wrong and, actually, it real often *is* a 13 year old girl. I'd like my view changed because (a) I can't believe there are that many mind-boggling stupid dudes out there that think that a 13 year old girl wants to have sex with them and (b) when they go tot he "13 year old girl's" house to have sex with her, I think they are just going to verify their belief that they're being trolled and that no actual 13 year old girl exists; I don't think they are going there actually expecting to have sex with a 13 year old girl.
^* - The use of this term is not intended to be literal and absolute. Rather, it is intend as a general term indicating that the contrary is such a minuscule portion of the population that it is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. |
t3_1ib9o8 | I don't believe Obama should have been involved in the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case. CMV. | Obama is undoubtedly considered one of the highest regarded leaders in not only the African-American community, but also in the United States. Therefore after he made the comments "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" and more recently "The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America," many people, whether they were black or not, became impassioned about this case. The trial became more about "How far have we really come?" (in regards to civil rights) than "Is Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" I do think the case would have been covered heavily even if Obama had not commented, but I also believe he made it messier. If the president of the United States of America takes a side in a trial, the opposing side will be seen as nothing short of abhorrent in the eyes of his supporters.
My view is that Obama's involvement in the case was divisive and further separated the gap between white and black in 2013 America. CMV
Note: I don't want to seem annoying with another Zimmerman-related CMV, but I did not see one that directly related Obama when I used the search bar and I have a strong opinion about his role specifically. Apologies if it is a repeat. | I don't believe Obama should have been involved in the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case. CMV. Obama is undoubtedly considered one of the highest regarded leaders in not only the African-American community, but also in the United States. Therefore after he made the comments "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon" and more recently "The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America," many people, whether they were black or not, became impassioned about this case. The trial became more about "How far have we really come?" (in regards to civil rights) than "Is Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" I do think the case would have been covered heavily even if Obama had not commented, but I also believe he made it messier. If the president of the United States of America takes a side in a trial, the opposing side will be seen as nothing short of abhorrent in the eyes of his supporters.
My view is that Obama's involvement in the case was divisive and further separated the gap between white and black in 2013 America. CMV
Note: I don't want to seem annoying with another Zimmerman-related CMV, but I did not see one that directly related Obama when I used the search bar and I have a strong opinion about his role specifically. Apologies if it is a repeat. |
t3_2lg9xh | CMV: knowledge exists but we will never know the truth about anything. | If a fact cant be disproved eventually then its not scientific. Science is the only way to know true from false, but the ultimate truth about anything will never be revealed to us because if it cant be proved wrong one day it isnt scientific.
Eg. Leeches cure headaches, thats knowledge but its only a fraction of the truth about why peoole get headaches and how to cure them.
We have more advanced knowledge about why people get headaches and how to cure them but its still just a fraction of the truth and in 500 years aspirin will be to modern humans what leeches are to us (in terms of how primitive it is as a way of healing an illness).
So we should always have humility and stop acting like we know the truth when all we have is intrinsically flawed knowledge. | CMV: knowledge exists but we will never know the truth about anything. If a fact cant be disproved eventually then its not scientific. Science is the only way to know true from false, but the ultimate truth about anything will never be revealed to us because if it cant be proved wrong one day it isnt scientific.
Eg. Leeches cure headaches, thats knowledge but its only a fraction of the truth about why peoole get headaches and how to cure them.
We have more advanced knowledge about why people get headaches and how to cure them but its still just a fraction of the truth and in 500 years aspirin will be to modern humans what leeches are to us (in terms of how primitive it is as a way of healing an illness).
So we should always have humility and stop acting like we know the truth when all we have is intrinsically flawed knowledge. |
t3_2ax3k5 | CMV: Iran Having a nuke and missile to go with it is no big deal, they can't do anything with it. | Iran has two countries that it REALLY hates, Israel and the U.S. These two countries are the two most probable targets, to my understanding. But Israel and the U.S. both have some of, if not the, best military equipment in the world. And both have anti-missile capabilities, along with some of the best Intel in the world. My point is, its not a viable offensive weapon for Iran. So what's the big deal, let them have it, they can't do dick with it.
Missile defense is nothing new, and a weapon combined with intelligence work seems to get the job done. Accordingly, it ought to here.
_____
> *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: Iran Having a nuke and missile to go with it is no big deal, they can't do anything with it. Iran has two countries that it REALLY hates, Israel and the U.S. These two countries are the two most probable targets, to my understanding. But Israel and the U.S. both have some of, if not the, best military equipment in the world. And both have anti-missile capabilities, along with some of the best Intel in the world. My point is, its not a viable offensive weapon for Iran. So what's the big deal, let them have it, they can't do dick with it.
Missile defense is nothing new, and a weapon combined with intelligence work seems to get the job done. Accordingly, it ought to here. |
t3_4g1erg | CMV: Headlights in cars should come on automatically when the wiper blades are activated (eg - when it is raining) | Similar to how in some cars, the headlights come on automatically at night - except this would only require a relay. I mean, we even have rain-sensitive wipers. This should be a simple, inexpensive feature that is required by federal law, similar to backup cameras or brake lights. Driving without your headlights on in the rain is extremely dangerous, especially when it is dark and they drive a black car.
By the way, I was driving in the rain today in South Carolina and came up with this! We're not #1 or #2 for worst drivers in the US for nothing, trust me.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Headlights in cars should come on automatically when the wiper blades are activated (eg - when it is raining). Similar to how in some cars, the headlights come on automatically at night - except this would only require a relay. I mean, we even have rain-sensitive wipers. This should be a simple, inexpensive feature that is required by federal law, similar to backup cameras or brake lights. Driving without your headlights on in the rain is extremely dangerous, especially when it is dark and they drive a black car.
By the way, I was driving in the rain today in South Carolina and came up with this! We're not #1 or #2 for worst drivers in the US for nothing, trust me.
|
t3_27d4iz | CMV: The responsibilities for overpopulation goes to China, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc. | Frequently I've had people tell me "I'm never having children because there are too many people blah, blah blah".
They cite "overpopulation" as a key term and rant how if *we* don't stop having so many children, humanity will be an excessive burden on the planet.
What I don't understand is why anyone in a country (especially the western world with declining birthrate) with a good balance between land and people would have to worry about overpopulation. Overpopulation is a concern for countries like China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan who all have a massive population and not enough land/resources. Overpopulation will strain *their* resources and will create misery in *their* country.
What effect would limiting the population of countries with low population do to overpopulation. You haven't touched on the source of the problem, that being the countries with excessive birth rates.
To add on more, 7+ billion may sound tremendous, and that we are nearing the full capacity of planet Earth, yet scientists have been thinking so for centuries. Similar to how scientists of the past were faulty in believing that humanity would capitulate at, say, 1 billion, how are we any less wrong in believe that 7+ billion is our max? | CMV: The responsibilities for overpopulation goes to China, India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, etc. Frequently I've had people tell me "I'm never having children because there are too many people blah, blah blah".
They cite "overpopulation" as a key term and rant how if *we* don't stop having so many children, humanity will be an excessive burden on the planet.
What I don't understand is why anyone in a country (especially the western world with declining birthrate) with a good balance between land and people would have to worry about overpopulation. Overpopulation is a concern for countries like China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan who all have a massive population and not enough land/resources. Overpopulation will strain *their* resources and will create misery in *their* country.
What effect would limiting the population of countries with low population do to overpopulation. You haven't touched on the source of the problem, that being the countries with excessive birth rates.
To add on more, 7+ billion may sound tremendous, and that we are nearing the full capacity of planet Earth, yet scientists have been thinking so for centuries. Similar to how scientists of the past were faulty in believing that humanity would capitulate at, say, 1 billion, how are we any less wrong in believe that 7+ billion is our max? |
t3_6u1hye | CMV: Trump is not a nazi, he just can't say bad things about people who support(ed) him | Recent events have people claim that Trump is a nazi sympathiser and some have even claimed that he is, himself, a nazi.
First let me be clear, I resent Donald Trump, I do believe he is racist, and this is not a defence of his views, I'm just trying to get my head around the POV he is a nazi, which is a strong statement. I also happen to be married to a German for whom that word should not be used lightly.
Yes, Trump's statements may qualify as a nazi sympathiser in certain respects, but fact of the matter is, he let his daughter marry a Jewish man, which in itself goes against the hypothesis he would be a nazi in the first place.
More importantly, I think calling him a nazi is somewhat missing why Trump makes such stupid statements: he is a narcissist. When Trump made his press conference, he never said that he agreed with White supremacists, he just tried to not single out a group that has supported him (the alt-right), vs a group that has publicly opposed him (the left).
The pattern with Trump is common: say something nice about him, he likes you. Say something negative about him, you're a failure to mankind. He does not give credit to the ideas behind a person as much as he cannot help himself say good things (or, in this case, protect) groups that are supporting him.
As such, I don't think Trump can or even should be called a nazi. I think he is simply so obsessed with himself that he could not manage to single out supporters, because if they support him, some of them are, by this Trumpian definition, "nice people". | CMV: Trump is not a nazi, he just can't say bad things about people who support(ed) him. Recent events have people claim that Trump is a nazi sympathiser and some have even claimed that he is, himself, a nazi.
First let me be clear, I resent Donald Trump, I do believe he is racist, and this is not a defence of his views, I'm just trying to get my head around the POV he is a nazi, which is a strong statement. I also happen to be married to a German for whom that word should not be used lightly.
Yes, Trump's statements may qualify as a nazi sympathiser in certain respects, but fact of the matter is, he let his daughter marry a Jewish man, which in itself goes against the hypothesis he would be a nazi in the first place.
More importantly, I think calling him a nazi is somewhat missing why Trump makes such stupid statements: he is a narcissist. When Trump made his press conference, he never said that he agreed with White supremacists, he just tried to not single out a group that has supported him (the alt-right), vs a group that has publicly opposed him (the left).
The pattern with Trump is common: say something nice about him, he likes you. Say something negative about him, you're a failure to mankind. He does not give credit to the ideas behind a person as much as he cannot help himself say good things (or, in this case, protect) groups that are supporting him.
As such, I don't think Trump can or even should be called a nazi. I think he is simply so obsessed with himself that he could not manage to single out supporters, because if they support him, some of them are, by this Trumpian definition, "nice people". |
t3_4e7wip | CMV: Expecting monogamy is unrealistic and leads only to pain | I have been a member of swinger/polyamory groups for four years. I have seen lovely, loving couples who have good relationships, relationships that include occasionally having sex with other people. I've seen them look after kids, and in one case grandkids.
They form good relationships without the demand: "you're not allowed have sex with anyone besides me!"
I've also seen monogamous couples that have gone thru what is called (in their moralistic vocabulary) 'cheating' or 'infidelity', and it has led to emotional anguish and homicidal rage. To me it seems that those bad emotions are not caused by the sex that happened, but the rule that said it could not/should not happen
If people feel inclined to have sex with someone besides their partner, I say let them. Let both parties agree to this beforehand, so there is no need for deception. Because people *will* feel inclined; there are a lot of sexy prospects out there!
We can also look at the animal kingdom and see that lifelong monogamy, of the sort enshrined in marriage, barely ever happens. You only see something resembling marriage in a few obscure species like the Malagasy giant rat. It is unnatural, and to impose a moral code against nature/instincts is inviting trouble. Like Tom Waits said, "You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it always comes roaring back again".
Thanks for reading!
_____
> *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: Expecting monogamy is unrealistic and leads only to pain. I have been a member of swinger/polyamory groups for four years. I have seen lovely, loving couples who have good relationships, relationships that include occasionally having sex with other people. I've seen them look after kids, and in one case grandkids.
They form good relationships without the demand: "you're not allowed have sex with anyone besides me!"
I've also seen monogamous couples that have gone thru what is called (in their moralistic vocabulary) 'cheating' or 'infidelity', and it has led to emotional anguish and homicidal rage. To me it seems that those bad emotions are not caused by the sex that happened, but the rule that said it could not/should not happen
If people feel inclined to have sex with someone besides their partner, I say let them. Let both parties agree to this beforehand, so there is no need for deception. Because people *will* feel inclined; there are a lot of sexy prospects out there!
We can also look at the animal kingdom and see that lifelong monogamy, of the sort enshrined in marriage, barely ever happens. You only see something resembling marriage in a few obscure species like the Malagasy giant rat. It is unnatural, and to impose a moral code against nature/instincts is inviting trouble. Like Tom Waits said, "You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it always comes roaring back again".
Thanks for reading! |
t3_1g9ezh | I think that drink driving penalties should be significantly harsher than they are now. CMV | The thing about drink driving is that it isn't an education issue. You would be phenomenally hard pushed to find someone who doesn't understand that it's dangerous and puts the lives of themselves and others at risk.
So I assert that someone knowingly doing something that puts the lives at others at undue risk should be punished far more heavily than just a fine and a slap-on-the-wrists, because without suitable penalties - there's nothing discouraging the phenomenally stupid from doing it anyway.
What I'd propose as penalties goes something along the lines of:
- First offence: Fine of no less than $200 and a mandatory 'safe driving' type course. Those who had been driving for less than 6 months would also have their licence revoked and have to take the test again.
- Second offence: Community service order no less than 48 hours, $500 fine and a weeks driving ban (unless circumstances mean this would prevent the person from working, in which case an additional 12 hours to the community service)
- Third offence: 100 hours community service, $1000 penalty, licence revocation and test may not be re-taken for 6 months. (if circumstances meant that losing their licence would cause the person to become unemployed, double the community service)
- Fourth offence: lifetime driving ban.
CMV on either the view, or the penalties. | I think that drink driving penalties should be significantly harsher than they are now. CMV. The thing about drink driving is that it isn't an education issue. You would be phenomenally hard pushed to find someone who doesn't understand that it's dangerous and puts the lives of themselves and others at risk.
So I assert that someone knowingly doing something that puts the lives at others at undue risk should be punished far more heavily than just a fine and a slap-on-the-wrists, because without suitable penalties - there's nothing discouraging the phenomenally stupid from doing it anyway.
What I'd propose as penalties goes something along the lines of:
- First offence: Fine of no less than $200 and a mandatory 'safe driving' type course. Those who had been driving for less than 6 months would also have their licence revoked and have to take the test again.
- Second offence: Community service order no less than 48 hours, $500 fine and a weeks driving ban (unless circumstances mean this would prevent the person from working, in which case an additional 12 hours to the community service)
- Third offence: 100 hours community service, $1000 penalty, licence revocation and test may not be re-taken for 6 months. (if circumstances meant that losing their licence would cause the person to become unemployed, double the community service)
- Fourth offence: lifetime driving ban.
CMV on either the view, or the penalties. |
t3_3fnta0 | CMV: Saying you rescued a kitten/puppy shouldn't give you the moral high ground | Some of my friends have adopted kittens/puppies from a breeder and some have gotten them from shelters. Recently one of the girls I am friends with has gotten "morally righteous" that she got her kittens from a shelter. This has me thinking that its not really fair on her part to put down people who go to breeders to get kittens/puppies as she essentially did the same thing by going to the shelter and looking at all of their kittens and bypassing all the adult cats.
**CVM: It's not really "morally" better to rescue a kitten/puppy from a shelter. If you really want to make a difference rescue an animal that is older and will have a dramatically lower chance of getting adopted because of people who just want kittens/puppies.**
I, of course, recognize there are edge cases like ones that are sick and whatnot and am not including them in this view because anyone willing to take on the burden of healthcare for a pet doesn't really fall into this. | CMV: Saying you rescued a kitten/puppy shouldn't give you the moral high ground. Some of my friends have adopted kittens/puppies from a breeder and some have gotten them from shelters. Recently one of the girls I am friends with has gotten "morally righteous" that she got her kittens from a shelter. This has me thinking that its not really fair on her part to put down people who go to breeders to get kittens/puppies as she essentially did the same thing by going to the shelter and looking at all of their kittens and bypassing all the adult cats.
**CVM: It's not really "morally" better to rescue a kitten/puppy from a shelter. If you really want to make a difference rescue an animal that is older and will have a dramatically lower chance of getting adopted because of people who just want kittens/puppies.**
I, of course, recognize there are edge cases like ones that are sick and whatnot and am not including them in this view because anyone willing to take on the burden of healthcare for a pet doesn't really fall into this. |
t3_1g016m | I think that the My Little Pony and Homestuck fanbases are the worst in existence with Sonic. CMV | All of these fanbases breed the worst people, and all of them seem to attract all kinds of autistic people or people with mental disorders.
With sites like tumblr, these fanbases circlejerk and spread their fandom EVERYWHERE. I have lost numerous friends to these fanbases, and now they fan over whatever the fanbase pertains to like it's their religion. | I think that the My Little Pony and Homestuck fanbases are the worst in existence with Sonic. CMV. All of these fanbases breed the worst people, and all of them seem to attract all kinds of autistic people or people with mental disorders.
With sites like tumblr, these fanbases circlejerk and spread their fandom EVERYWHERE. I have lost numerous friends to these fanbases, and now they fan over whatever the fanbase pertains to like it's their religion. |
t3_1c9yd0 | I believe it is not incorrect to use literally to mean figuratively in the right context as it is an example of hyperbole. CMV. | I hear a lot of hate for this one - for example - here
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally
But if I say something like "My mind was blown by the twist at the end of the movie" - it is clearly an intensifier.
Other places suggest this is a new trend
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/the-wrong-definition-of-literally-is-literally-going-in-the
But it isn't really new as evinced here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17337706
and here
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2005/11/the_word_we_love_to_hate.html
Of course - there is the argument that it obscures language. Well - there are a lot of words that mean different things in different contexts. This is just another one.
Then there are metaphors and similes and all kinds of tools we use to make our language flowery.
Of course - if you're writing a military report you won't say "There was literally the entire chinese army at the border".
Now I am not saying it is always correct, or even appropriate to use the word. But that in a lot of cases using literally is perfectly ok. CMV. | I believe it is not incorrect to use literally to mean figuratively in the right context as it is an example of hyperbole. CMV. I hear a lot of hate for this one - for example - here
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally
But if I say something like "My mind was blown by the twist at the end of the movie" - it is clearly an intensifier.
Other places suggest this is a new trend
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/the-wrong-definition-of-literally-is-literally-going-in-the
But it isn't really new as evinced here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17337706
and here
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2005/11/the_word_we_love_to_hate.html
Of course - there is the argument that it obscures language. Well - there are a lot of words that mean different things in different contexts. This is just another one.
Then there are metaphors and similes and all kinds of tools we use to make our language flowery.
Of course - if you're writing a military report you won't say "There was literally the entire chinese army at the border".
Now I am not saying it is always correct, or even appropriate to use the word. But that in a lot of cases using literally is perfectly ok. CMV. |
t3_1zoed2 | I believe that true happiness cannot exist without the presence of sadness...CMV? | In my opinion happiness is simply the comfort of knowing that bad things are not happening to you, or bad things are happening to other people and not you. The knowledge that one is avoiding such misfortunes while others must suffer through them creates the sensation of happiness.
Bearing this in mind, it is only logical that happiness cannot exist without sadness. I think this notion applies to any scale of human life: No one is truly happy unless they have been exposed to or experience misfortune. This leads me to believe that there will always have to be someone who is sad for there to be someone who is happy.
Points of contention:
- Happiness is simply the result of the avoidance or overcoming of misfortune.
- In order for happiness to exist, there must be sadness.
- Therefore, there must always be sad people for anyone to be happy.
I would like to discuss this topic because it seems very pessimistic in my mind. I strive toward optimism in my life, but this belief suggests that a perfect world is impossible, which seems a bit sad. Maybe it is impossible, but I'd still love thoughts. | I believe that true happiness cannot exist without the presence of sadness...CMV?. In my opinion happiness is simply the comfort of knowing that bad things are not happening to you, or bad things are happening to other people and not you. The knowledge that one is avoiding such misfortunes while others must suffer through them creates the sensation of happiness.
Bearing this in mind, it is only logical that happiness cannot exist without sadness. I think this notion applies to any scale of human life: No one is truly happy unless they have been exposed to or experience misfortune. This leads me to believe that there will always have to be someone who is sad for there to be someone who is happy.
Points of contention:
- Happiness is simply the result of the avoidance or overcoming of misfortune.
- In order for happiness to exist, there must be sadness.
- Therefore, there must always be sad people for anyone to be happy.
I would like to discuss this topic because it seems very pessimistic in my mind. I strive toward optimism in my life, but this belief suggests that a perfect world is impossible, which seems a bit sad. Maybe it is impossible, but I'd still love thoughts. |
t3_3kg4hj | CMV: The US Should Abolish The Federal Taxes And Replace It With A Value Added Tax (VAT) and a Capital Gains Tax | For those of you unfamiliar with a VAT, in its purest form, it is basically a sales tax on the purchase price of any good. However, I propose a VAT between 5-10%, with exemptions for necessities. For example, the following would be taxed at 0%:
* Food
* Clothing
* Housing
* Fuel/Some Transportation
This ensures that, unlike a flat-tax, a VAT does not disproportionately impact lower income individuals, who are spending most of their income on those four classes of items. I also would favor some sort of luxury clause included in the VAT, that does not provide exemptions for exceptionally expensive items within those four classes that clearly fall outside the realm of necessity.
I favor these changes for a few reasons:
1) **Simplification of the tax code:** Simply put, I think things have gotten out of hand when I have to pay extra money for someone else to do my taxes for me, in order make sure that I am not over-paying the government.
2) **More citizen friendly tax collection:** This somewhat goes hand-in-hand with my first point. It's absurd that a significant portion of our taxes are essentially interest-free loans to the government, and that we have to *wait* until a designated time each year for us to get back money that the government had no business taking from us in the first place.
3) **Federal Taxes are Too High:** Frankly, it's just too much, and the Federal Government has not shown me that they are worthy of the absurd amount of tax money that they rake in every year. While it may be true that Federal revenue may be lower than with the original taxes, I don't think that's a bad thing. Smaller revenues will force the downsizing of what is currently an overly bloated and bureaucratic federal government.
Edit: I want to reinforce my point 3, since many people seem to be missing what is at the heart of that statement. The goal of my VAT is NOT to keep Federal tax revenues where they already are. Arguing that a VAT of 5-10% won't be sufficient to maintain the revenue will not 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: The US Should Abolish The Federal Taxes And Replace It With A Value Added Tax (VAT) and a Capital Gains Tax. For those of you unfamiliar with a VAT, in its purest form, it is basically a sales tax on the purchase price of any good. However, I propose a VAT between 5-10%, with exemptions for necessities. For example, the following would be taxed at 0%:
* Food
* Clothing
* Housing
* Fuel/Some Transportation
This ensures that, unlike a flat-tax, a VAT does not disproportionately impact lower income individuals, who are spending most of their income on those four classes of items. I also would favor some sort of luxury clause included in the VAT, that does not provide exemptions for exceptionally expensive items within those four classes that clearly fall outside the realm of necessity.
I favor these changes for a few reasons:
1) **Simplification of the tax code:** Simply put, I think things have gotten out of hand when I have to pay extra money for someone else to do my taxes for me, in order make sure that I am not over-paying the government.
2) **More citizen friendly tax collection:** This somewhat goes hand-in-hand with my first point. It's absurd that a significant portion of our taxes are essentially interest-free loans to the government, and that we have to *wait* until a designated time each year for us to get back money that the government had no business taking from us in the first place.
3) **Federal Taxes are Too High:** Frankly, it's just too much, and the Federal Government has not shown me that they are worthy of the absurd amount of tax money that they rake in every year. While it may be true that Federal revenue may be lower than with the original taxes, I don't think that's a bad thing. Smaller revenues will force the downsizing of what is currently an overly bloated and bureaucratic federal government.
Edit: I want to reinforce my point 3, since many people seem to be missing what is at the heart of that statement. The goal of my VAT is NOT to keep Federal tax revenues where they already are. Arguing that a VAT of 5-10% won't be sufficient to maintain the revenue will not 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!* |
t3_1glzc3 | I think wheat is one of the biggest poisons in our culture today. CMV | I have been gluten-free for only six months and I can tell you now that I've felt indescribably happier, healthier, more energized, more mentally stable, more agile, more productive, etc. I am not diagnosed with gluten intolerance or celiac disease, but I still believe that gluten-containing products—wheat, primarily— are worse than drugs, alcohol and tobacco for everyone, intolerant or not. Wheat intake has been linked to "over 200" diseases, including arthritis, cancers, obesity, schizophrenia, etc and it has been said that human beings cannot digest gluten. Wheat has been claimed to be as addictive as nicotine as well.
Now, my problem with personally having this view is that it's biased to the point where I silently scold people when I see them eating a piece of bread or a cookie. I know it's not something I don't want to consume because it makes me feel bad, but I just can't understand the appeal to others, sometimes to a point where it makes me mad. I don't want to become one of those people who spouts their gross scare tactics around town claiming wheat is the devil and if you eat that sandwich, you are accepting the power of satan into your soul. Especially when I still occasionally smoke tobacco, drink alcohol and consume artifical flavorings and colors. Please send help. | I think wheat is one of the biggest poisons in our culture today. CMV. I have been gluten-free for only six months and I can tell you now that I've felt indescribably happier, healthier, more energized, more mentally stable, more agile, more productive, etc. I am not diagnosed with gluten intolerance or celiac disease, but I still believe that gluten-containing products—wheat, primarily— are worse than drugs, alcohol and tobacco for everyone, intolerant or not. Wheat intake has been linked to "over 200" diseases, including arthritis, cancers, obesity, schizophrenia, etc and it has been said that human beings cannot digest gluten. Wheat has been claimed to be as addictive as nicotine as well.
Now, my problem with personally having this view is that it's biased to the point where I silently scold people when I see them eating a piece of bread or a cookie. I know it's not something I don't want to consume because it makes me feel bad, but I just can't understand the appeal to others, sometimes to a point where it makes me mad. I don't want to become one of those people who spouts their gross scare tactics around town claiming wheat is the devil and if you eat that sandwich, you are accepting the power of satan into your soul. Especially when I still occasionally smoke tobacco, drink alcohol and consume artifical flavorings and colors. Please send help. |
t3_213ub2 | I don't think the NSA spying on our phone calls, texts, or internet usage is really that big of a deal. CMV. | Everybody seems to be outraged by the fact that the National Survellience Agency is taping into our phones and tracking our internet activity. But to be honest, why is it such a big deal? Unless you're hiding something, what's wrong with them knowing you watch a lot of Walking Dead or what type of porn you're looking at? I understand why, at first, a lot of people would be annoyed. It's a privacy issue, I get that. But that's honestly the only reason I can see people being angered by this. But I don't consider my privacy that big of a deal from government agents who don't know anything about me just making sure I'm not planning to blow anyone up in the next few months.
I don't know, I must be missing something here. CMV!
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | I don't think the NSA spying on our phone calls, texts, or internet usage is really that big of a deal. CMV. Everybody seems to be outraged by the fact that the National Survellience Agency is taping into our phones and tracking our internet activity. But to be honest, why is it such a big deal? Unless you're hiding something, what's wrong with them knowing you watch a lot of Walking Dead or what type of porn you're looking at? I understand why, at first, a lot of people would be annoyed. It's a privacy issue, I get that. But that's honestly the only reason I can see people being angered by this. But I don't consider my privacy that big of a deal from government agents who don't know anything about me just making sure I'm not planning to blow anyone up in the next few months.
I don't know, I must be missing something here. CMV!
|
t3_1lr37j | I feel like most 'great' athletes in sports from previous era's would be less than average if they played today. CMV | I had this thought the other day after hearing someone say "Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player to ever play". My first thought was that if you put Babe Ruth in a time machine and had him play currently, he would suck so there is no way he could be the best ever when even average players today are better than him.
I say this because back when he played, the competition was almost non existant. Pitchers basically threw the ball straight with very little movement. Speeds were much slower as well. The game was just very easy compared to what is being played currently. Put Babe Ruth in the batter's box against someone like Mariano Rivera and im sure he would see a few pitches, laugh and walk away, knowing there is no chance of him doing anything with the pitches. Even giving him a few years in the league to get used to things i dont feel would make much of a difference.
There is a lot of reasons for this, mainly advancements in health and almost a decade more experience for players.
With that though, i got to thinking about other sports and for the most part i feel like the argument still works. Now, if you want to say "such and such was the best player of his era", im completely fine with that but to think athletes that competed generations ago could even come close to holding a candle to todays athletes, now i just find that laughable. What do you guys think? | I feel like most 'great' athletes in sports from previous era's would be less than average if they played today. CMV. I had this thought the other day after hearing someone say "Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player to ever play". My first thought was that if you put Babe Ruth in a time machine and had him play currently, he would suck so there is no way he could be the best ever when even average players today are better than him.
I say this because back when he played, the competition was almost non existant. Pitchers basically threw the ball straight with very little movement. Speeds were much slower as well. The game was just very easy compared to what is being played currently. Put Babe Ruth in the batter's box against someone like Mariano Rivera and im sure he would see a few pitches, laugh and walk away, knowing there is no chance of him doing anything with the pitches. Even giving him a few years in the league to get used to things i dont feel would make much of a difference.
There is a lot of reasons for this, mainly advancements in health and almost a decade more experience for players.
With that though, i got to thinking about other sports and for the most part i feel like the argument still works. Now, if you want to say "such and such was the best player of his era", im completely fine with that but to think athletes that competed generations ago could even come close to holding a candle to todays athletes, now i just find that laughable. What do you guys think? |
t3_1e7fgs | I think most "Modern Art" is pretentious, takes nearly no skill, and is sub-par compared to art before that period. CMV. | I've heard the arguments behind the many paintings under the category of Modern Art. I just don't see how these can be considered "good art". I won't deny that it is art, I just consider them horrible pieces of art.
I don't think all modern art is horrible. Just a lot of it. I'll provide examples:
http://princeton.guendel.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/img_8705.JPG
http://princeton.guendel.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/img_8710.thumbnail.JPG (This one in particular). It's just a solid color, seriously.
http://princeton.guendel.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/img_8708.thumbnail.JPG
I feel that the message the "artist" is trying to convey can probably be sent in a more pleasing image. I feel that "modern art" is just an excuse for untalented artist to create expressions that are lacking in substance without being called out as a bad artist.
Change my view, please. Thank you for your time. | I think most "Modern Art" is pretentious, takes nearly no skill, and is sub-par compared to art before that period. CMV. I've heard the arguments behind the many paintings under the category of Modern Art. I just don't see how these can be considered "good art". I won't deny that it is art, I just consider them horrible pieces of art.
I don't think all modern art is horrible. Just a lot of it. I'll provide examples:
http://princeton.guendel.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/img_8705.JPG
http://princeton.guendel.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/img_8710.thumbnail.JPG (This one in particular). It's just a solid color, seriously.
http://princeton.guendel.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/img_8708.thumbnail.JPG
I feel that the message the "artist" is trying to convey can probably be sent in a more pleasing image. I feel that "modern art" is just an excuse for untalented artist to create expressions that are lacking in substance without being called out as a bad artist.
Change my view, please. Thank you for your time. |
t3_6m43ac | CMV: Currently, there has been no threshold established about wether humans are the only animals worthy of moral consideration while excluding all other animals | I started this debate with another redditor in an other subreddit, but he has since stopped replying.
My argument first began on a post about why killing animals isn't wrong. His reasoning is that humans have a cognitive ability that animals due not. While I can agree that the average human had a higher standard of rational than any other animals, certain individuals ( comatose or mentally handicapped) that dont meet the threshold and have lesser cognitive abilities than some animals. Its a kind of popular argument: marginal cases. In other words, if we were to define a threshold of moral consideration, there is no way we can include all humans without excluding some animals.
Now of course you can just bite the bullet and say that comatose patients and the mentally handicapped are not worthy of moral consideration, but I'll have to ask you put this belief into practice.
Another argument that seems to be made is that human beings are worthy of moral consideration solely for the fact that they are human beings. Now I've not been convinced of this because no one has provided an objective reason why why should put human beings on another level.
Anyways, give me an objective threshold of what animal can be considered worthy of moral consideration. Change my view! | CMV: Currently, there has been no threshold established about wether humans are the only animals worthy of moral consideration while excluding all other animals. I started this debate with another redditor in an other subreddit, but he has since stopped replying.
My argument first began on a post about why killing animals isn't wrong. His reasoning is that humans have a cognitive ability that animals due not. While I can agree that the average human had a higher standard of rational than any other animals, certain individuals ( comatose or mentally handicapped) that dont meet the threshold and have lesser cognitive abilities than some animals. Its a kind of popular argument: marginal cases. In other words, if we were to define a threshold of moral consideration, there is no way we can include all humans without excluding some animals.
Now of course you can just bite the bullet and say that comatose patients and the mentally handicapped are not worthy of moral consideration, but I'll have to ask you put this belief into practice.
Another argument that seems to be made is that human beings are worthy of moral consideration solely for the fact that they are human beings. Now I've not been convinced of this because no one has provided an objective reason why why should put human beings on another level.
Anyways, give me an objective threshold of what animal can be considered worthy of moral consideration. Change my view! |
t3_6nuk3s | CMV: If the sports team you support is TERRIBLE, to the point where the players aren't trying and the owners aren't spending money to improve things, it's okay to find a new team to support. | This came up during a discussion with a friend, about the Pittsburg Pirates. They were literally awful for DECADES. My friend felt that anyone who abandoned the team during that time period is a terrible baseball fan, because you never desert your team, full stop.
Whereas I feel (and this is especially true if you've moved away from your home town) that your loyalty to "your" team shouldn't be unconditional. I, for example, gave up on the Patriots a few years ago. I wasn't a rabid fan or anything, but I grew up in New England, you can't escape that area without someone attempting to forcibly convert you into a Patriots fan. I am definitely NOT a fan of the Patriots any longer, as they've grown into a smug, insufferable band of jerks in my opinion.
I just feel like if I'm expected to support a team financially, socially, and emotionally, there should be SOME kind of reciprocation. If a team is awful for an extended period of time, they should feel the need to rebuild, or the owner should sell the team to someone who IS interested in rebuilding. There should at least be an attempt by the owners to make following a team enjoyable. not a punishing slog of losing season after losing season that lasts for many years.
Again, I'm not saying anyone should bail on their team when they have a few bad seasons in a row, that happens to everyone. I just feel like there are some examples of teams who took their fan base for granted, and didn't really care what was happening on the field as long as the team was generating income. I don't think owners who treat their fans like that should feel confident that they'll retain their fan base, they should feel compelled to improve their team or risk losing income.*
*I'm aware attendance usually drops when teams perform badly, so owners probably DO feel the pressure to some extent. The issue is that fans who stop attending are generally maligned as "fair weather fans", when I feel those people's lack of attendance is one of the only things that can actually motivate an owner to improve their on-field product.
_____
> *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 the sports team you support is TERRIBLE, to the point where the players aren't trying and the owners aren't spending money to improve things, it's okay to find a new team to support. This came up during a discussion with a friend, about the Pittsburg Pirates. They were literally awful for DECADES. My friend felt that anyone who abandoned the team during that time period is a terrible baseball fan, because you never desert your team, full stop.
Whereas I feel (and this is especially true if you've moved away from your home town) that your loyalty to "your" team shouldn't be unconditional. I, for example, gave up on the Patriots a few years ago. I wasn't a rabid fan or anything, but I grew up in New England, you can't escape that area without someone attempting to forcibly convert you into a Patriots fan. I am definitely NOT a fan of the Patriots any longer, as they've grown into a smug, insufferable band of jerks in my opinion.
I just feel like if I'm expected to support a team financially, socially, and emotionally, there should be SOME kind of reciprocation. If a team is awful for an extended period of time, they should feel the need to rebuild, or the owner should sell the team to someone who IS interested in rebuilding. There should at least be an attempt by the owners to make following a team enjoyable. not a punishing slog of losing season after losing season that lasts for many years.
Again, I'm not saying anyone should bail on their team when they have a few bad seasons in a row, that happens to everyone. I just feel like there are some examples of teams who took their fan base for granted, and didn't really care what was happening on the field as long as the team was generating income. I don't think owners who treat their fans like that should feel confident that they'll retain their fan base, they should feel compelled to improve their team or risk losing income.*
*I'm aware attendance usually drops when teams perform badly, so owners probably DO feel the pressure to some extent. The issue is that fans who stop attending are generally maligned as "fair weather fans", when I feel those people's lack of attendance is one of the only things that can actually motivate an owner to improve their on-field product. |
t3_1fy83e | I believe profanities should be allowed on network television. CMV. | Here are the reasons I currently hold this belief:
* A word like 'shit' (which refers to a disgusting bodily substance) can be used on channels such as FX and AMC. Comedy Central allows South Park to use "asshole", "goddamn", and the aforementioned 'shit' without censorship (they even got away with 'cunt' at one time), yet 'fuck' --a word used to describe sex, but is usually meaningless -- is bleeped.
* The only way to keep children from hearing profanities is to lock them in the house, monitor what they view, and home school them. There are very few places on this planet kids can go without picking up bad language.
* Many shows deal with sensitive topics such as rape, torture, and drug use, yet these same shows sound like a PG-13 movie.
* Children who are not old and/or mature enough to watch shows like The Walking Dead, Law & Order: SVU, and Family Guy should stick to Nickelodeon, The Disney Channel, and PBS.
* Shows are rated according to content. Something that is TV-MA should not be treated as if it's under a modern Hays Code.
I know this will never change, and I want to accept that.
| I believe profanities should be allowed on network television. CMV. Here are the reasons I currently hold this belief:
* A word like 'shit' (which refers to a disgusting bodily substance) can be used on channels such as FX and AMC. Comedy Central allows South Park to use "asshole", "goddamn", and the aforementioned 'shit' without censorship (they even got away with 'cunt' at one time), yet 'fuck' --a word used to describe sex, but is usually meaningless -- is bleeped.
* The only way to keep children from hearing profanities is to lock them in the house, monitor what they view, and home school them. There are very few places on this planet kids can go without picking up bad language.
* Many shows deal with sensitive topics such as rape, torture, and drug use, yet these same shows sound like a PG-13 movie.
* Children who are not old and/or mature enough to watch shows like The Walking Dead, Law & Order: SVU, and Family Guy should stick to Nickelodeon, The Disney Channel, and PBS.
* Shows are rated according to content. Something that is TV-MA should not be treated as if it's under a modern Hays Code.
I know this will never change, and I want to accept that.
|
t3_412t3x | CMV:Telling your children to "follow your dreams" or "you can be whatever you want to, if you just work hard enough" (or similar) is instilling false hope, and is at best cruel and at worst sadistic. | A friend of mine recently said that he resented his parents for encouraging a sense of ambition and creativity and big ideas, as it opened his mind and gave him an 'anything is possible' view of the world. Now he's stuck in crap unfulfilling jobs and living on the cusp of poverty, and feels bitter that he was lied to.
The more I think about what he said, the more I think he's right. Unless you're wealthy and/or well-connected (and this is especially true in the UK, where I'm from), you're point-blank lying to your kid if you fill their head with such stuff. You're essentially setting them up for a lifetime of disappointment. How horrible. How cruel.
It might seem cold or brutal, but wouldn't it be better in the long run to tell your kids the truth - that the world is designed to keep you down, and that it's better to grasp that idea while you're young than grow up and wonder 'what the hell happened'?
I know it's satire, but this Onion piece hits the nail on the head for me:
http://www.theonion.com/article/unemployed-miserable-man-still-remembers-teacher-w-34955
_____
> *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:Telling your children to "follow your dreams" or "you can be whatever you want to, if you just work hard enough" (or similar) is instilling false hope, and is at best cruel and at worst sadistic. A friend of mine recently said that he resented his parents for encouraging a sense of ambition and creativity and big ideas, as it opened his mind and gave him an 'anything is possible' view of the world. Now he's stuck in crap unfulfilling jobs and living on the cusp of poverty, and feels bitter that he was lied to.
The more I think about what he said, the more I think he's right. Unless you're wealthy and/or well-connected (and this is especially true in the UK, where I'm from), you're point-blank lying to your kid if you fill their head with such stuff. You're essentially setting them up for a lifetime of disappointment. How horrible. How cruel.
It might seem cold or brutal, but wouldn't it be better in the long run to tell your kids the truth - that the world is designed to keep you down, and that it's better to grasp that idea while you're young than grow up and wonder 'what the hell happened'?
I know it's satire, but this Onion piece hits the nail on the head for me:
http://www.theonion.com/article/unemployed-miserable-man-still-remembers-teacher-w-34955
|
t3_1s6l91 | I believe that Philosophy is for the most part an entirely useless area of study, producing almost nothing practical for the world. CMV | NOTE: I'm not bashing all Philosophy. There are a lot of great ideas that are practical, such as those by Plato and Aristotle. A lot of their ideas jump-started my field of study, and we wouldn't have gotten this far without the big thinkers. I won't go too far into this, I'm pretty sure that this is clear.
With that being said, is Philosophy interesting to think about? Of course! Does it serve any purpose in our world? NO! I enjoyed taking classes such Critical Thinking, Logic, even History of Philo. But seriously, why study stuff like metaphysics? Why do we need huge debates on Presentism vs Eternalism, when there is no clear answer that we will ever know or decide upon? Why even bother debating the Ship of Theseus paradox?
I would argue that all fields of study contain aspects of Philosophy in one way or another, but it more often than not aspects of Ancient Philosophy. "This idea began with Plato, and transformed into the way we place importance in this subject". I would also argue that this is all the Philosophy we need and that all areas of study force us to think and question things anyways, and that almost every other field of study is more important (except maybe Art History... sorry to anyone that is taking that)
I'm going to quote the first sentence of the Wikipedia article - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." In my opinion, a Psychologist (and in certain contexts, a Neuroscientist) is in every way more qualified than a Philosopher to study the mind. A Linguist is more qualified to study language, and the field Developmental Psychology is making a lot of headway in terms of infant and child mind, language, learning, problem solving, etc. How does a Philosopher contribute to this? Also, in terms of reality, existence, etc. we have no way of coming to conclusions, so why even debate it? Why do people so strongly believe theories that they can't even begin to provide evidence for?
I'll stop there, I'm not going to write an essay. I'll come back to check comments later today, It's the end of the semester and there is a lot of work to do! | I believe that Philosophy is for the most part an entirely useless area of study, producing almost nothing practical for the world. CMV. NOTE: I'm not bashing all Philosophy. There are a lot of great ideas that are practical, such as those by Plato and Aristotle. A lot of their ideas jump-started my field of study, and we wouldn't have gotten this far without the big thinkers. I won't go too far into this, I'm pretty sure that this is clear.
With that being said, is Philosophy interesting to think about? Of course! Does it serve any purpose in our world? NO! I enjoyed taking classes such Critical Thinking, Logic, even History of Philo. But seriously, why study stuff like metaphysics? Why do we need huge debates on Presentism vs Eternalism, when there is no clear answer that we will ever know or decide upon? Why even bother debating the Ship of Theseus paradox?
I would argue that all fields of study contain aspects of Philosophy in one way or another, but it more often than not aspects of Ancient Philosophy. "This idea began with Plato, and transformed into the way we place importance in this subject". I would also argue that this is all the Philosophy we need and that all areas of study force us to think and question things anyways, and that almost every other field of study is more important (except maybe Art History... sorry to anyone that is taking that)
I'm going to quote the first sentence of the Wikipedia article - "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language." In my opinion, a Psychologist (and in certain contexts, a Neuroscientist) is in every way more qualified than a Philosopher to study the mind. A Linguist is more qualified to study language, and the field Developmental Psychology is making a lot of headway in terms of infant and child mind, language, learning, problem solving, etc. How does a Philosopher contribute to this? Also, in terms of reality, existence, etc. we have no way of coming to conclusions, so why even debate it? Why do people so strongly believe theories that they can't even begin to provide evidence for?
I'll stop there, I'm not going to write an essay. I'll come back to check comments later today, It's the end of the semester and there is a lot of work to do! |
t3_42cudo | CMV: Bernie Sanders did not and does not support Obama, or Obama's polices. | I don't really see this as a critique of Sanders. Obama is a moderate in almost every way, and Sanders clearly isn't. Obama has supported things like the TPP and other free trade deals, while Sanders thinks that free trade is bad for the country.
Obama is not for the "medicare for all" plan that Sanders put out, and instead always wanted a more moderate plan.
Obama's views on foreign policy are obviously very different than what Bernie Sanders proposes, as Sanders critiques a lot of what Obama has been doing.
And Obama is very anti gun, while Sanders has always been cautious about guns.
Sanders also didn't like how Obama worked with Republicans and was angry with how much the healthcare plan was gutted in order to get it through Congress. [Sanders also stated that he was on the fence about voting for the ACA because he felt that it didn't do enough.](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18liberals.html)
[Buzzfeed interviewed some of the Obama campaign aids and they reported that Sanders did attack Obama from the left in 2012
](http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-obama-campaign-remembers-2012-very-differently-from-bern#.fj69lyVxj). Sanders did talk about how he would like if a Democrat ran against Obama in the primaries in order to push him to the left.
In my opinion Clinton is in every way the follow up to Obama. They are far closer in policy and they have worked together a great deal. Sanders is not the heir to Obama, but instead an entirely different candidate. Yes, Sanders supported Obama vs. Romney and vs. McCain, but that doesn't mean he was a fan of Obama. He simply preferred him to the alternative.
I've been very disappointed in the way that Sanders seems to be trying to mislead voters in acting as if he is similar to Obama. Or how he acted as if he helped write the ACA, when he was fighting against 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: Bernie Sanders did not and does not support Obama, or Obama's polices. I don't really see this as a critique of Sanders. Obama is a moderate in almost every way, and Sanders clearly isn't. Obama has supported things like the TPP and other free trade deals, while Sanders thinks that free trade is bad for the country.
Obama is not for the "medicare for all" plan that Sanders put out, and instead always wanted a more moderate plan.
Obama's views on foreign policy are obviously very different than what Bernie Sanders proposes, as Sanders critiques a lot of what Obama has been doing.
And Obama is very anti gun, while Sanders has always been cautious about guns.
Sanders also didn't like how Obama worked with Republicans and was angry with how much the healthcare plan was gutted in order to get it through Congress. [Sanders also stated that he was on the fence about voting for the ACA because he felt that it didn't do enough.](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18liberals.html)
[Buzzfeed interviewed some of the Obama campaign aids and they reported that Sanders did attack Obama from the left in 2012
](http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-obama-campaign-remembers-2012-very-differently-from-bern#.fj69lyVxj). Sanders did talk about how he would like if a Democrat ran against Obama in the primaries in order to push him to the left.
In my opinion Clinton is in every way the follow up to Obama. They are far closer in policy and they have worked together a great deal. Sanders is not the heir to Obama, but instead an entirely different candidate. Yes, Sanders supported Obama vs. Romney and vs. McCain, but that doesn't mean he was a fan of Obama. He simply preferred him to the alternative.
I've been very disappointed in the way that Sanders seems to be trying to mislead voters in acting as if he is similar to Obama. Or how he acted as if he helped write the ACA, when he was fighting against it. |
t3_6srcew | CMV: Google CEO misinterprets James Damore | We have all read google memo: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evzjww/here-are-the-citations-for-the-anti-diversity-manifesto-circulating-at-google
And Google CEO reaction: http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google-anti-diversity-memo-sundar-pichai-letter/
Confronting the two:
> To suggest a **group of our colleagues** have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
vs.
> I’m simply stating that the **distribution** of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences **may explain** why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you **can’t say anything about an individual** given these population level distributions.
The studies he links to are population-wide, employees of Google are not a random sample of population, so none of the claims about the differences applies to Google employees. James Damore makes this explicit. James Damore is being misinterpreted. CMV.
> Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
Same reasoning as above. If google employees have read the memo, they would know that **you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions** and they have a perfect way of refuting anyone who tries to use these population statistics on them. CMV.
It seems to me that unless there is some strong reason not to, we should take what the person wrote *at face value*. Otherwise we are arguing not against "what he said", but rather against "what he could have meant". This is an unknown person, not taking at face value what he wrote is wrong. CMV.
The whole memo can be summarised as: the current gender ratio in Google is in part likely a result of biological differences in **preferences** of women. Here are suggestions what could Google change in order to achieve higher diversity while taking biological differences into account. CMV.
Taken at face value what these guys have written and given that Google CEO is surely a very bright person, it's more probable that he is intentionally lying than that James Damore *thinks* women in Google are less biologically suited for their job. (This is a statement of relative probabilities(!) and meant more as a joke, but think about 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: Google CEO misinterprets James Damore. We have all read google memo: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evzjww/here-are-the-citations-for-the-anti-diversity-manifesto-circulating-at-google
And Google CEO reaction: http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google-anti-diversity-memo-sundar-pichai-letter/
Confronting the two:
> To suggest a **group of our colleagues** have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
vs.
> I’m simply stating that the **distribution** of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences **may explain** why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.
> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you **can’t say anything about an individual** given these population level distributions.
The studies he links to are population-wide, employees of Google are not a random sample of population, so none of the claims about the differences applies to Google employees. James Damore makes this explicit. James Damore is being misinterpreted. CMV.
> Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being “agreeable” rather than “assertive,” showing a “lower stress tolerance,” or being “neurotic.”
Same reasoning as above. If google employees have read the memo, they would know that **you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions** and they have a perfect way of refuting anyone who tries to use these population statistics on them. CMV.
It seems to me that unless there is some strong reason not to, we should take what the person wrote *at face value*. Otherwise we are arguing not against "what he said", but rather against "what he could have meant". This is an unknown person, not taking at face value what he wrote is wrong. CMV.
The whole memo can be summarised as: the current gender ratio in Google is in part likely a result of biological differences in **preferences** of women. Here are suggestions what could Google change in order to achieve higher diversity while taking biological differences into account. CMV.
Taken at face value what these guys have written and given that Google CEO is surely a very bright person, it's more probable that he is intentionally lying than that James Damore *thinks* women in Google are less biologically suited for their job. (This is a statement of relative probabilities(!) and meant more as a joke, but think about it)
|
t3_36tyf9 | CMV: HBO has filled a phenomenal storyline with petty bullshit and clearly botched Game of Thrones. | I was first exposed to the universe by watching season 1 and 2 of the show. I really liked them and purchased the A Song of Ice and Fire books and loved them even more. Now, when I watch the new episodes or go back and watch those ones I initially liked it feels different.
* The show now seems like a rookie film students first attempt at portraying the book. The acting, budget, and sets all seem fine. Things like staging, dialogue, character's appearances and the plot's movements seem very obvious and amateurish.
At first I played it off with rationale like, they have budget issues, or it's just harder to portray these complex scenes on television, or that they needed to shorten the storyline to fit it in a ten season show. Now I am starting to feel like the show's creators are really just amateurs. They are using the "best" books in the last two decades so of course the show is popular. But if someone without their rapey suckage had control, could it be that much better?
Please change my view so I can enjoy the show again.
**I think to accomplish this someone has to either just absolutely school me on film knowledge or make me feel good about the fact that they didn't have a choice for toning basically everything down. Maybe I'm asking too much, if so I apologize.
Translations of my words for clarity.
Rapey suckage - using sexual violence in ways that seem to be more geared towards shocking the audience than furthering the plot. I'm actually thinking more of the rape scenes for Dany and Cersi.
Staging - there is no subtly to the character's positioning in frames. As someone who is only a casual film observer I prefer a show like Breaking Bad where I have to watch it a second time to finally be able to see the importance of things like a character's positioning on camera. GOT seems amateurish when compared.
Dialouge - too many corny phrasings and catch phrases (especially when they use modern idioms). I am currently trying to find a script online so I don't have to transcribe scenes to give you examples. They also do a poor job introducing characters and have to make up for it by having character's say their own names all the time
Character's Appearance - Why can't people have the long hair and beards they are supposed to? Legolas had hair down to his waist and he was still a sex symbol. I know Tyrion can't really have his nose chopped off but their first casting or Daario left my head spinning.
Plot's Movement - Given that they are cutting half of the books out there shouldn't be so many complaints out of non-book readers that the show is boring. Or is the general public just that impatient?
Edit 3 - added a question mark
Edit 4 - Maybe this context will help someone to see another angle to change my view to. I have a cousin who watched the show and read all the books who insists the show is better than the books but never gives me reasons. What could his argument possibly be?
| CMV: HBO has filled a phenomenal storyline with petty bullshit and clearly botched Game of Thrones. I was first exposed to the universe by watching season 1 and 2 of the show. I really liked them and purchased the A Song of Ice and Fire books and loved them even more. Now, when I watch the new episodes or go back and watch those ones I initially liked it feels different.
* The show now seems like a rookie film students first attempt at portraying the book. The acting, budget, and sets all seem fine. Things like staging, dialogue, character's appearances and the plot's movements seem very obvious and amateurish.
At first I played it off with rationale like, they have budget issues, or it's just harder to portray these complex scenes on television, or that they needed to shorten the storyline to fit it in a ten season show. Now I am starting to feel like the show's creators are really just amateurs. They are using the "best" books in the last two decades so of course the show is popular. But if someone without their rapey suckage had control, could it be that much better?
Please change my view so I can enjoy the show again.
**I think to accomplish this someone has to either just absolutely school me on film knowledge or make me feel good about the fact that they didn't have a choice for toning basically everything down. Maybe I'm asking too much, if so I apologize.
Translations of my words for clarity.
Rapey suckage - using sexual violence in ways that seem to be more geared towards shocking the audience than furthering the plot. I'm actually thinking more of the rape scenes for Dany and Cersi.
Staging - there is no subtly to the character's positioning in frames. As someone who is only a casual film observer I prefer a show like Breaking Bad where I have to watch it a second time to finally be able to see the importance of things like a character's positioning on camera. GOT seems amateurish when compared.
Dialouge - too many corny phrasings and catch phrases (especially when they use modern idioms). I am currently trying to find a script online so I don't have to transcribe scenes to give you examples. They also do a poor job introducing characters and have to make up for it by having character's say their own names all the time
Character's Appearance - Why can't people have the long hair and beards they are supposed to? Legolas had hair down to his waist and he was still a sex symbol. I know Tyrion can't really have his nose chopped off but their first casting or Daario left my head spinning.
Plot's Movement - Given that they are cutting half of the books out there shouldn't be so many complaints out of non-book readers that the show is boring. Or is the general public just that impatient?
Edit 3 - added a question mark
Edit 4 - Maybe this context will help someone to see another angle to change my view to. I have a cousin who watched the show and read all the books who insists the show is better than the books but never gives me reasons. What could his argument possibly be?
|
t3_6c9g5t | CMV: Islamic states will eventually take over the world | Firstly my views are tolerance of all views and religions to the extent of not imposing on others, this CMV is just what I consider might happen in the future.
The Salafi jihadist movement (apologies if any of the terms are wrong what I mean is the struggle to spread Islam, rather than outright war necessarily common today) which has spread throughout the middle east, north africa and into cells across the world, is totalitarian in its goals and has demonstrated the will and growing power to execute these goals.
Although we have seen the large-scale failure of similar totalitarian ideals like communism, which were previously feared as taking over the world, the tolerance and freedom championed by western nations, will eventually allow jihadist principles to flourish and gain more influence and the totalitarian nature of these principles will make any movement back to freedom much harder.
Given the recent voting victories across the western world for the far-right (or increasingly right), surely it will be a matter of time before a Islamist jihadist party wins influence and removes democracy.
| CMV: Islamic states will eventually take over the world. Firstly my views are tolerance of all views and religions to the extent of not imposing on others, this CMV is just what I consider might happen in the future.
The Salafi jihadist movement (apologies if any of the terms are wrong what I mean is the struggle to spread Islam, rather than outright war necessarily common today) which has spread throughout the middle east, north africa and into cells across the world, is totalitarian in its goals and has demonstrated the will and growing power to execute these goals.
Although we have seen the large-scale failure of similar totalitarian ideals like communism, which were previously feared as taking over the world, the tolerance and freedom championed by western nations, will eventually allow jihadist principles to flourish and gain more influence and the totalitarian nature of these principles will make any movement back to freedom much harder.
Given the recent voting victories across the western world for the far-right (or increasingly right), surely it will be a matter of time before a Islamist jihadist party wins influence and removes democracy.
|
t3_4u2lqo | CMV: people would only be able be able to buy 2 residential properties. | As the title suggests my argument is that individuals and for profit companies should only be able to own 2 residential properties. To clarify I am looking at this from a British veiw where housing is massively under supplied and rents are high. I belive this will apply to most countries aswell.
I define residential property as a house/flat ect that was built for the purpose to be lived in.
Properties used for business( such as hotels , shops ect. NOT BUY TO LET) can be bought by as many people as possible.
Not for profit and local government can own as many properties of either type as it requires as is not doing so for the purpose of profit and is doing so to support tenants .
At the moment the UK (where I am from) has a huge housing shortage, the average house prices is far above afordable on the average salery this is in part due to buy to let investors making profits off consumers driving up process. This costs is also passed to the government as alot of money is spent on housing benfits and mortgage payment support and is therfore a burden on the tax payer.
I feel residential property should be seen as a home and not just an investment and therefore has need to be afordable for all and should be protected. Similar to basic utilities which all have regulated bodies to ensure that consumers aren't over charged.
I have decided two properties as there will be case where it is needed to live across two city's for work ect. I considered no private or corporate letting of properties all together but felt this was a bit extreme.
Edited for clarity.
I have done no work at all today!! I will look at this in a few hours and reply to more comments if there is any. | CMV: people would only be able be able to buy 2 residential properties. As the title suggests my argument is that individuals and for profit companies should only be able to own 2 residential properties. To clarify I am looking at this from a British veiw where housing is massively under supplied and rents are high. I belive this will apply to most countries aswell.
I define residential property as a house/flat ect that was built for the purpose to be lived in.
Properties used for business( such as hotels , shops ect. NOT BUY TO LET) can be bought by as many people as possible.
Not for profit and local government can own as many properties of either type as it requires as is not doing so for the purpose of profit and is doing so to support tenants .
At the moment the UK (where I am from) has a huge housing shortage, the average house prices is far above afordable on the average salery this is in part due to buy to let investors making profits off consumers driving up process. This costs is also passed to the government as alot of money is spent on housing benfits and mortgage payment support and is therfore a burden on the tax payer.
I feel residential property should be seen as a home and not just an investment and therefore has need to be afordable for all and should be protected. Similar to basic utilities which all have regulated bodies to ensure that consumers aren't over charged.
I have decided two properties as there will be case where it is needed to live across two city's for work ect. I considered no private or corporate letting of properties all together but felt this was a bit extreme.
Edited for clarity.
I have done no work at all today!! I will look at this in a few hours and reply to more comments if there is any. |
t3_1m6rqt | I don't believe the civilians that died in the towers on 9/11 were heroes. CMV | The term "hero' is thrown around too liberally. The people that died in the tower - they were just at work that day. That doesn't make them a hero. It makes them people that were at the wrong place at the wrong time. If they died on the way to work that day they'd just be a statistic. The firefighters running up the stairs to help people? Heroic. The people that died in the planes? Not heroes. The people that took down Flight 93? Pretty heroic. What makes the victims of tragedy heroes?
A friend of mine sent me this exchange from The Simpsons:
Homer: That little Timmy is a real hero.
Lisa: What makes him a hero dad?
Homer: Well he fell down the well and ... can't get out.
Lisa: How does that make him a hero?
Homer: Well, it's more than you did! | I don't believe the civilians that died in the towers on 9/11 were heroes. CMV. The term "hero' is thrown around too liberally. The people that died in the tower - they were just at work that day. That doesn't make them a hero. It makes them people that were at the wrong place at the wrong time. If they died on the way to work that day they'd just be a statistic. The firefighters running up the stairs to help people? Heroic. The people that died in the planes? Not heroes. The people that took down Flight 93? Pretty heroic. What makes the victims of tragedy heroes?
A friend of mine sent me this exchange from The Simpsons:
Homer: That little Timmy is a real hero.
Lisa: What makes him a hero dad?
Homer: Well he fell down the well and ... can't get out.
Lisa: How does that make him a hero?
Homer: Well, it's more than you did! |
t3_5dmpqd | CMV: Only registered organ donors should be able to receive an organ transplant, or at the very least, get priority on the transplant waiting list. | There is an organ shortage in many countries around the world (at least, those where you aren't put on the organ donor list by default and must actively opt-out). I'm a Canadian and in Canada last year, there were only 500 organ donors. A country of 35 million. We have a severe shortage of organ donors, yet so many people that need an organ to live.
A lot of people--in fact, I feel the majority of people--take transplantation for granted. They don't give thought to the fact that, if they get injured or sick and need a transplant, that organ actually needs to come from *somewhere*, *someone*, who has given consent to donate their organ upon death. It's really only those who are unfortunate enough to require an organ, and are sitting on the waiting list, without the privilege of having a living matching donor in their life, that really understand how scarce and valuable a resource organ donation is. Despite receiving the form at each stage of acquiring your driver's license, many people just toss the form into the trash without much thought.
I think there needs to be more awareness, and information, and bluntness, around the issue. We *are* going to die. And we will have no use for our organs. At the very least, pass over your solid organs to one of the many, many people who can get new life from it. Keep your tissues. You can save up to 5 lives.
And so, I think that, as a solution to this issue, only registered organ donors should be allowed to receive an organ transplant, should they fall ill. Or, at the very least, registered organ donors should be given priority above non-registered individuals. Make it common knowledge, make it known, and there will be more people actively considering and signing up to become donors.
Change my view.
**EDIT**: I didn't realize I needed to include a common-sense clause. Those who are ill or who would otherwise not be eligible for organ donation, as well as those under the age of consent, would not be included in this. This is Change My View, not "try and find superficial loopholes in my argument". Argue the logic, argue the reasoning, argue the broad statement. | CMV: Only registered organ donors should be able to receive an organ transplant, or at the very least, get priority on the transplant waiting list. There is an organ shortage in many countries around the world (at least, those where you aren't put on the organ donor list by default and must actively opt-out). I'm a Canadian and in Canada last year, there were only 500 organ donors. A country of 35 million. We have a severe shortage of organ donors, yet so many people that need an organ to live.
A lot of people--in fact, I feel the majority of people--take transplantation for granted. They don't give thought to the fact that, if they get injured or sick and need a transplant, that organ actually needs to come from *somewhere*, *someone*, who has given consent to donate their organ upon death. It's really only those who are unfortunate enough to require an organ, and are sitting on the waiting list, without the privilege of having a living matching donor in their life, that really understand how scarce and valuable a resource organ donation is. Despite receiving the form at each stage of acquiring your driver's license, many people just toss the form into the trash without much thought.
I think there needs to be more awareness, and information, and bluntness, around the issue. We *are* going to die. And we will have no use for our organs. At the very least, pass over your solid organs to one of the many, many people who can get new life from it. Keep your tissues. You can save up to 5 lives.
And so, I think that, as a solution to this issue, only registered organ donors should be allowed to receive an organ transplant, should they fall ill. Or, at the very least, registered organ donors should be given priority above non-registered individuals. Make it common knowledge, make it known, and there will be more people actively considering and signing up to become donors.
Change my view.
**EDIT**: I didn't realize I needed to include a common-sense clause. Those who are ill or who would otherwise not be eligible for organ donation, as well as those under the age of consent, would not be included in this. This is Change My View, not "try and find superficial loopholes in my argument". Argue the logic, argue the reasoning, argue the broad statement. |
t3_2brfgr | CMV: Some methods of execution are clearly more humane than others, and if we're going to execute criminals, we should use only humane methods. | Here's what's humane: anything quick, relatively painless, and not very prone to error.
Humane methods:
- Firing squad. Really all you need is a single bullet to the head, but whatever. Firing squad does the trick. It's over in a second.
- Beheading. As in, guillotine style. Again, super quick.
- Blowing from a gun. That's where the person is stood in front of a cannon and blown to pieces. No longer in use, for various understandable reasons.
Not very humane methods:
- Lethal injection. Complicated process. Can be botched. If so, can be very painful. It's not quick.
- Hanging. Again, can be botched. Everything has to go right. And if it doesn't, very painful death.
- Electrocution. Are you kidding? Why this barbaric method is still in use in some places boggles the mind. Excrutiatingly painful *when done properly*, not quick, and yes, can be botched relatively easily.
You'll notice the humane methods have two things in common: they apply immense, swift, blunt force, and they're gory. The latter is key, I think, to why they're not universally used. Lethal injection *looks better*. It's not bloody. Hanging and electrocution aren't bloody. Thus the delicate sensibilities of those watching the execution are spared. The term "humane" as it's commonly thrown around is a euphemism for "stomachable for viewers".
_____
> *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: Some methods of execution are clearly more humane than others, and if we're going to execute criminals, we should use only humane methods. Here's what's humane: anything quick, relatively painless, and not very prone to error.
Humane methods:
- Firing squad. Really all you need is a single bullet to the head, but whatever. Firing squad does the trick. It's over in a second.
- Beheading. As in, guillotine style. Again, super quick.
- Blowing from a gun. That's where the person is stood in front of a cannon and blown to pieces. No longer in use, for various understandable reasons.
Not very humane methods:
- Lethal injection. Complicated process. Can be botched. If so, can be very painful. It's not quick.
- Hanging. Again, can be botched. Everything has to go right. And if it doesn't, very painful death.
- Electrocution. Are you kidding? Why this barbaric method is still in use in some places boggles the mind. Excrutiatingly painful *when done properly*, not quick, and yes, can be botched relatively easily.
You'll notice the humane methods have two things in common: they apply immense, swift, blunt force, and they're gory. The latter is key, I think, to why they're not universally used. Lethal injection *looks better*. It's not bloody. Hanging and electrocution aren't bloody. Thus the delicate sensibilities of those watching the execution are spared. The term "humane" as it's commonly thrown around is a euphemism for "stomachable for viewers". |
t3_27p2fu | CMV: I don't think Gotham can be saved. | *Note: My knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.*
Gotham is a cesspool of corruption, violence and greed. Criminals permeate every level of society, business and politics and manipulate it all for their benefit. Even the police force is filled with nothing but self-serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way. Jim Gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop - *the only good cop* - in a city wide department. Mobsters and petty criminals walk freely without fear of retribution due to the corruption.
There was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, Harvey Dent. But he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.
The city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease. No matter how the forces of Gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.
The people of Gotham are also apathetic to any of these issues. When Gotham is taken over by Bane they turn on each other, ransacking higher end properties and throwing people out on the street. When the city is under a bomb threat they curse their neighbours for the escape to safety before them; unlike Metropolis where, faced with a hugely destructive machine, people stayed behind to help save their fellow man.
Gotham citizens are as selfish as criminals above them, and given half the opportunity they would succumb to corruption themselves.
But not only is Gotham full of criminals, apathy or ignorance, but it's also constantly threatened by people wishing to destroy it. Shady organisations, activists, you name it, all want Gotham destroyed. With such an outside influence constantly barraging the city, I don't think it's possible to keep its defences.
However, I do agree that the city has its hopeful points. There are many charitable organisations to help children (such as the Thomas and Martha Wayne Foundation) and there is this strange Batman that's trying to sort out the city, but I don't believe that's enough. One man can't take down a criminal organisation, and it's not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in Gotham.
Gotham is doomed. Change my view.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I don't think Gotham can be saved. *Note: My knowledge here is based primarily on the recent films and videogames.*
Gotham is a cesspool of corruption, violence and greed. Criminals permeate every level of society, business and politics and manipulate it all for their benefit. Even the police force is filled with nothing but self-serving, crooked cops looking for extra money to look the other way. Jim Gordon is constantly touted as the only good cop - *the only good cop* - in a city wide department. Mobsters and petty criminals walk freely without fear of retribution due to the corruption.
There was hope when it came to their political and criminal saviour, Harvey Dent. But he is driven clinically insane by the injustices he is subjected to.
The city is plagued by psychotic villains who steal and kill constantly, who seem to manipulate or break their way out of prison with fearful ease. No matter how the forces of Gotham try and take them down, they end up causing more trouble and more havoc.
The people of Gotham are also apathetic to any of these issues. When Gotham is taken over by Bane they turn on each other, ransacking higher end properties and throwing people out on the street. When the city is under a bomb threat they curse their neighbours for the escape to safety before them; unlike Metropolis where, faced with a hugely destructive machine, people stayed behind to help save their fellow man.
Gotham citizens are as selfish as criminals above them, and given half the opportunity they would succumb to corruption themselves.
But not only is Gotham full of criminals, apathy or ignorance, but it's also constantly threatened by people wishing to destroy it. Shady organisations, activists, you name it, all want Gotham destroyed. With such an outside influence constantly barraging the city, I don't think it's possible to keep its defences.
However, I do agree that the city has its hopeful points. There are many charitable organisations to help children (such as the Thomas and Martha Wayne Foundation) and there is this strange Batman that's trying to sort out the city, but I don't believe that's enough. One man can't take down a criminal organisation, and it's not a good sign that someone has to resort in vigilantism in order to change things in Gotham.
Gotham is doomed. Change my view. |
t3_3dynmw | CMV: Isn't 'brigading' kind of... what Reddit does/is for? | when i first started using Reddit, it amazed me that it had the power to draw the public's attention to anything you could find on the internet. in an age where mainstream news is biased and groomed, things like the TPP, police brutality, corruption, and even small specific situations like the élan school were brought to the attention of Millions because people upvoted it on reddit.
When SOPA was on your front page, with senator's phone numbers in the top comment, they were most certainly 'brigaded'. because the necessary people were slammed with thousands of voicemails and millions of emails, a real difference was made. what about all the times we link to petitions, or laws that are being voted on? ever notice what happens to the comment section of a youtube video or news item that makes front page? this is all brigading, but it is not a bad thing.
it's a bad thing when a group of people specifically team up to harass. but we shouldn't lump harassment in with voting... under this one term, 'brigading'
i really enjoy browsing the debates on r/subredditdrama because they (usually) link to an argument without encouraging you to take a specific side or have a certain opinion about it. sometimes i'll read 30-50 responses in a thread and forget that i was linked to it from SRD and it really annoys me that if i cast a vote somewhere in there, i risk a ban.
i guess the whole point is, it's silly that we can't cast a vote on a debate we are linked to within Reddit. especially when 'brigading' (bringing people's attention to something) is how Reddit has helped make the world a better place, in small but significant ways.
_____
> *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!*
was i supposed to remove that? | CMV: Isn't 'brigading' kind of... what Reddit does/is for?. when i first started using Reddit, it amazed me that it had the power to draw the public's attention to anything you could find on the internet. in an age where mainstream news is biased and groomed, things like the TPP, police brutality, corruption, and even small specific situations like the élan school were brought to the attention of Millions because people upvoted it on reddit.
When SOPA was on your front page, with senator's phone numbers in the top comment, they were most certainly 'brigaded'. because the necessary people were slammed with thousands of voicemails and millions of emails, a real difference was made. what about all the times we link to petitions, or laws that are being voted on? ever notice what happens to the comment section of a youtube video or news item that makes front page? this is all brigading, but it is not a bad thing.
it's a bad thing when a group of people specifically team up to harass. but we shouldn't lump harassment in with voting... under this one term, 'brigading'
i really enjoy browsing the debates on r/subredditdrama because they (usually) link to an argument without encouraging you to take a specific side or have a certain opinion about it. sometimes i'll read 30-50 responses in a thread and forget that i was linked to it from SRD and it really annoys me that if i cast a vote somewhere in there, i risk a ban.
i guess the whole point is, it's silly that we can't cast a vote on a debate we are linked to within Reddit. especially when 'brigading' (bringing people's attention to something) is how Reddit has helped make the world a better place, in small but significant ways.
was i supposed to remove that? |
t3_4aegpc | CMV: Aside from personal matters, empathy/compassion is a terrible reason to do anything that has repercussions. | I think you should use empathy and compassion with family, friends, co-workers, etc... and even just to be nice to strangers on occasion. But, when it comes to policy, laws, international relations, "justice", etc..., empathy should be exempt from all deliberation. Sure, maybe in those situations because something something logic/pragmatism *and* empathy, but decisions should not be made just because something is "mean", "not nice", "others suffer", "give him a chance", or otherwise based solely on empathy. Empathy does not "make you human" - logic, reason, cunning, and high intelligence do. Empathy makes you dumb and slow paced when applied to decision making.
It's a rather useless thing outside of interpersonal relations. | CMV: Aside from personal matters, empathy/compassion is a terrible reason to do anything that has repercussions. I think you should use empathy and compassion with family, friends, co-workers, etc... and even just to be nice to strangers on occasion. But, when it comes to policy, laws, international relations, "justice", etc..., empathy should be exempt from all deliberation. Sure, maybe in those situations because something something logic/pragmatism *and* empathy, but decisions should not be made just because something is "mean", "not nice", "others suffer", "give him a chance", or otherwise based solely on empathy. Empathy does not "make you human" - logic, reason, cunning, and high intelligence do. Empathy makes you dumb and slow paced when applied to decision making.
It's a rather useless thing outside of interpersonal relations. |
t3_2tl98k | CMV: There is no point in going to a 4 year university instead of transferring from a counity college. | Hey CMV! I am currently a junior in high school, and trying to decide what to do for college. As of now, I believe that it is pointless to go to apply to any 4 year universities, when I could just transfer from a community college.
For one, there is the SAT. In order to get into any good university, it takes a solid 1900-2400 and rigorous preperation. Most people take it more than once, and each test costs about $52.50. None of this is required from a junior college, only an assessment the college offers.
Secondly, there's money. Going to a 4 year university for gen eds would require to shell out so much more money than a community college. Classes are always cheaper at a community college. There's also the fact that you don't have to pay for housing or food when you get the opportunity to stay at home.
One more benefit is that it is easier to transfer out to a university rather than applying to one as a high school senior. More colleges will accept you giving you a more broader choice.
I understand that I will miss out on things like dorm life and other things, but when you look at it, there seems to be no point in applying to anything as a senior. I just want to make the right choice as a senior, and hoping you guys can help. Thanks alot!! | CMV: There is no point in going to a 4 year university instead of transferring from a counity college. Hey CMV! I am currently a junior in high school, and trying to decide what to do for college. As of now, I believe that it is pointless to go to apply to any 4 year universities, when I could just transfer from a community college.
For one, there is the SAT. In order to get into any good university, it takes a solid 1900-2400 and rigorous preperation. Most people take it more than once, and each test costs about $52.50. None of this is required from a junior college, only an assessment the college offers.
Secondly, there's money. Going to a 4 year university for gen eds would require to shell out so much more money than a community college. Classes are always cheaper at a community college. There's also the fact that you don't have to pay for housing or food when you get the opportunity to stay at home.
One more benefit is that it is easier to transfer out to a university rather than applying to one as a high school senior. More colleges will accept you giving you a more broader choice.
I understand that I will miss out on things like dorm life and other things, but when you look at it, there seems to be no point in applying to anything as a senior. I just want to make the right choice as a senior, and hoping you guys can help. Thanks alot!! |
t3_3gap64 | CMV: Donald Trump Isn't That Bad | I've been hearing about how bad Trump is for the past few weeks, mostly from more liberal folks online. Now I agree he's very arrogant, especially in the most recent Republican debate that he participated in. I can't say I like his style, necessarily, but I recently watched this speech of his: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXjz3qLufv8
Suddenly I can see why people like this guy and why he's leading the Republicans. He's a fresh face, and he doesn't act like a politician. In that speech I linked to, a guy that stepped in for a minute said something along the lines of "Trump is already rich, he's already powerful, he doesn't need to run for President. He's doing this because he wants to make America a better place."
Anyway, you can skin this cat a bunch of ways, but it seems that a lot of the reasons people had for not liking Trump really fall to the wayside when you actually listen to the guy talk.
_____
> *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: Donald Trump Isn't That Bad. I've been hearing about how bad Trump is for the past few weeks, mostly from more liberal folks online. Now I agree he's very arrogant, especially in the most recent Republican debate that he participated in. I can't say I like his style, necessarily, but I recently watched this speech of his: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXjz3qLufv8
Suddenly I can see why people like this guy and why he's leading the Republicans. He's a fresh face, and he doesn't act like a politician. In that speech I linked to, a guy that stepped in for a minute said something along the lines of "Trump is already rich, he's already powerful, he doesn't need to run for President. He's doing this because he wants to make America a better place."
Anyway, you can skin this cat a bunch of ways, but it seems that a lot of the reasons people had for not liking Trump really fall to the wayside when you actually listen to the guy talk. |
t3_1ukab6 | CMV: I think the downvote function on reddit is a problem. It stifles conversation and creates both a sounding board for popular views and a hostile environment for unpopular or even new views. | First, I recognize the irony that downvoting this CMV would be tacitly agreeing with my argument.
Ok, to begin, I recognize there is definitely a good use for the downvote button - when people spam or write racial remarks, etc - a low score hides the comment / it eventually gets deleted by mods.
However, this could be fixed by a simple 'mark as spam/offensive' button that once received enough hits, would also be deleted.
Now, on to the main point: There's no need for a downvote button. Don't agree, think the point's uninteresting, then leave it alone - or better yet, respond as to why it's not a good point. "this has been discredited - see here" or "this has been asked before - see here"
The psychological problem is that new knowledge is threatening and people use the downvote button as an easy way of showing their disagreement without actually thinking about it.
Further, The problem with a downvote is that interesting but controversial points get low scores, when they really should be getting some of the highest ones.
Consider an example where you have 3 possible comments.
1) A good comment where everyone agrees
2) A bad comment where everyone agrees
3) A good comment where most people disagree.
Let's imagine 100 people voting: with the current system, the first comment will get the most (high upvotes, low downvotes). The second will get the second (few upvotes, but fewer downvotes). The third will get the worst score (some upvotes - more than #2, but many downvotes).
Given by how most people read reddit (and the psychological tendency for people to be influenced by what's popular) - these good, but new ideas will be ignored.
Now you may say: Just sort by controversial. While, I typically do - the problem is that the second type (bad but popular comments) also get stuck in the mix.
Lastly, early downvotes cause even larger problems. [First, an early downvote to a link, virtually erases a thread](http://technotes.iangreenleaf.com/posts/2013-12-09-reddits-empire-is-built-on-a-flawed-algorithm.html). In conjuction, as alluded people are more likely to downvote things that already have downvotes (and upvotes). Try it - the next few times you post something, make a new account and either upvote it or downvote it and see how well it does. Although, erasing the downvote doesn't get rid of this problem entirely it helps.
Ultimately - my view is that, although not the initial intention, the downvote serves as an implicit "I don't agree with this, but I don't feel like thinking about it, or explaining to the person why, so I'll just hit this button." Doing so keeps dissenting views and novel questions out of reddit, or at the very best - leaves people with the hanging question of why their thoughts are wrong. | CMV: I think the downvote function on reddit is a problem. It stifles conversation and creates both a sounding board for popular views and a hostile environment for unpopular or even new views. First, I recognize the irony that downvoting this CMV would be tacitly agreeing with my argument.
Ok, to begin, I recognize there is definitely a good use for the downvote button - when people spam or write racial remarks, etc - a low score hides the comment / it eventually gets deleted by mods.
However, this could be fixed by a simple 'mark as spam/offensive' button that once received enough hits, would also be deleted.
Now, on to the main point: There's no need for a downvote button. Don't agree, think the point's uninteresting, then leave it alone - or better yet, respond as to why it's not a good point. "this has been discredited - see here" or "this has been asked before - see here"
The psychological problem is that new knowledge is threatening and people use the downvote button as an easy way of showing their disagreement without actually thinking about it.
Further, The problem with a downvote is that interesting but controversial points get low scores, when they really should be getting some of the highest ones.
Consider an example where you have 3 possible comments.
1) A good comment where everyone agrees
2) A bad comment where everyone agrees
3) A good comment where most people disagree.
Let's imagine 100 people voting: with the current system, the first comment will get the most (high upvotes, low downvotes). The second will get the second (few upvotes, but fewer downvotes). The third will get the worst score (some upvotes - more than #2, but many downvotes).
Given by how most people read reddit (and the psychological tendency for people to be influenced by what's popular) - these good, but new ideas will be ignored.
Now you may say: Just sort by controversial. While, I typically do - the problem is that the second type (bad but popular comments) also get stuck in the mix.
Lastly, early downvotes cause even larger problems. [First, an early downvote to a link, virtually erases a thread](http://technotes.iangreenleaf.com/posts/2013-12-09-reddits-empire-is-built-on-a-flawed-algorithm.html). In conjuction, as alluded people are more likely to downvote things that already have downvotes (and upvotes). Try it - the next few times you post something, make a new account and either upvote it or downvote it and see how well it does. Although, erasing the downvote doesn't get rid of this problem entirely it helps.
Ultimately - my view is that, although not the initial intention, the downvote serves as an implicit "I don't agree with this, but I don't feel like thinking about it, or explaining to the person why, so I'll just hit this button." Doing so keeps dissenting views and novel questions out of reddit, or at the very best - leaves people with the hanging question of why their thoughts are wrong. |
t3_3s6t6s | CMV: Limiting freedom of speech is not acceptable. | With the latest southpark episode and the top post over at /r/videos and the lack of usefull CMV within the last year I like to address the topic of so called "safe spaces".
To make sure: Im not using this as a safe space I could have asked this question everywhere but the replys might not be of the same quality.
So why do people think safe Spaces are a good Idea?
1. your feelings are not hurt.
2. other peoples' hatred towards yourself is stopped.
I think these two reasons might be an incentive for the single person to favor safe spaces. But I dont see how anyone in the context of a community who has different views is able to preserve a safe space for everyone without running the risks of two opposite groups ending up in a conflict.
Why do I think safe spaces are a bad idea?
1. Limiting of freedom of speech is just not acceptable.
if you dont like what you hear, just leave.
We cannot build a foundation in which everyone is safe and free at the same time. You have to decide between freedom and safety. And you can only decide for yourself, not for anyone else.
2. The idea that some values or some topics are more important to not discriminate than others is descriminatory towards those issues.
3. Someone has to be a moral instance to decide the issues. Who you gonna call? You are not a moral instance for any issue you yourself are involved in. Its not on you to decide which is the right way to go.
4. The derived right to fullfill your own happyness (or even the true right "to pursuit your own happyness") is being violated by those who will not accept different views but battle the very fact that people can interact in a diverse and peacefull manner.
My view is based on those 4 ideas. It wont suffice to break one of them, unless you manage to break the first.
_____
> *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: Limiting freedom of speech is not acceptable. With the latest southpark episode and the top post over at /r/videos and the lack of usefull CMV within the last year I like to address the topic of so called "safe spaces".
To make sure: Im not using this as a safe space I could have asked this question everywhere but the replys might not be of the same quality.
So why do people think safe Spaces are a good Idea?
1. your feelings are not hurt.
2. other peoples' hatred towards yourself is stopped.
I think these two reasons might be an incentive for the single person to favor safe spaces. But I dont see how anyone in the context of a community who has different views is able to preserve a safe space for everyone without running the risks of two opposite groups ending up in a conflict.
Why do I think safe spaces are a bad idea?
1. Limiting of freedom of speech is just not acceptable.
if you dont like what you hear, just leave.
We cannot build a foundation in which everyone is safe and free at the same time. You have to decide between freedom and safety. And you can only decide for yourself, not for anyone else.
2. The idea that some values or some topics are more important to not discriminate than others is descriminatory towards those issues.
3. Someone has to be a moral instance to decide the issues. Who you gonna call? You are not a moral instance for any issue you yourself are involved in. Its not on you to decide which is the right way to go.
4. The derived right to fullfill your own happyness (or even the true right "to pursuit your own happyness") is being violated by those who will not accept different views but battle the very fact that people can interact in a diverse and peacefull manner.
My view is based on those 4 ideas. It wont suffice to break one of them, unless you manage to break the first.
|
t3_420jtw | CMV: Police power should never be "for hire" for private entities | I read about how NFL refs accidentally left the "K" balls used for kicking at their hotel prior to the Patriots - Chiefs playoff game. The balls were then given a state police escort to the stadium.
Even if the cost to the taxpayers was zero (I am assuming the NFL or team paid for the officer's time), it greatly bothers me that police authority can be used to support a private entity.
You most often see this when uniformed police officers are hired to handle security at an event or to manage traffic, using their authority to stop traffic so that people leaving private property can leave more quickly, rather than having to wait for the usual breaks in traffic. If you violate those officer's directions, you are subject to a normal traffic fine.
It seems that no private entity ought to be able to rent police authority for the benefit of themselves or their customers. If an officer is not on regular duty, serving the public, he should not be able to use his uniform, badge, or official vehicle to secure a benefit for himself or anyone else. (Obvious exception for trying to arrest someone actually breaking a law while he is off duty).
Obviously, police departments / lawmakers do not see this is an abuse of powers, so there must be some good reason why this should be allowed.
_____
> *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 power should never be "for hire" for private entities. I read about how NFL refs accidentally left the "K" balls used for kicking at their hotel prior to the Patriots - Chiefs playoff game. The balls were then given a state police escort to the stadium.
Even if the cost to the taxpayers was zero (I am assuming the NFL or team paid for the officer's time), it greatly bothers me that police authority can be used to support a private entity.
You most often see this when uniformed police officers are hired to handle security at an event or to manage traffic, using their authority to stop traffic so that people leaving private property can leave more quickly, rather than having to wait for the usual breaks in traffic. If you violate those officer's directions, you are subject to a normal traffic fine.
It seems that no private entity ought to be able to rent police authority for the benefit of themselves or their customers. If an officer is not on regular duty, serving the public, he should not be able to use his uniform, badge, or official vehicle to secure a benefit for himself or anyone else. (Obvious exception for trying to arrest someone actually breaking a law while he is off duty).
Obviously, police departments / lawmakers do not see this is an abuse of powers, so there must be some good reason why this should be allowed.
|
t3_58vye0 | CMV: Students should not be expelled for rape accusations until they are found guilty or unless there is significant evidence against them | Example & similar cases of this are [here](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-judge-ruling-1.3504250), [here](http://totalsororitymove.com/frat-guy-expelled-for-gray-rape-after-victim-sees-him-making-out-with-someone-else-sues-university/), [here](http://www.dailywire.com/news/5130/guy-just-got-expelled-college-not-raping-his-amanda-prestigiacomo) and [here](http://time.com/3621291/istandwithjackie-uva-rape/). For clarity, I am NOT going to assert or respond to any requests to defend any supposed false rape accusation statistics -- I wouldn't put fabrication and gullibility about this stuff beneath the MRA/MGTOW community (ironic given how I am a sympathizer of them). Now I am not saying this always happens, but I do believe it happens enough that it is worth addressing, hence this CMV.
Now it seems that when a male student is accused of rape, he, merely upon accusation, will be expelled. That's wrong to me. When a student is accused of rape, he should only be expelled -- or undergo *any* punishment -- if there is substantial, police-verified evidence that he was the rapist. If the only credible evidence against him is an accusation, then that is not enough to get him expelled, and it is not enough to get him arrested. He can be investigated if the investigation does not inconvenience or cost him; but cannot be the subject of any discipline or legal punishment.
And if he is expelled or suspended due to there being credible evidence at the time, and he is later found guilty or not criminally punishable, than any tuition fees he had wasted at that time should be 100% reimbursed to him. Was he expelled and later found innocent, but as a result of his groundless expulsion, wasted a few thousand dollars of tuition fees? 100% they should be reimbursed to him either as a refund, or as credit for a retake of that semester. And if he is expelled with no evidence, then he should not only get his wasted tuition returned, but he should also have grounds to sue for more money.
When police officers are accused of unjustly shooting a suspect, they get paid leave because you can't just suspend them without pay because you have then absolutely ruined their lives if they are later found innocent. Same deal here. Innocent until proven guilty. Trial by media is not justice at all. If there is strong evidence against a man, he can be detained, but if there is nothing more than an accusation than that is insufficient grounds for any legal punishment.
Also, it should be procedural that police cannot release or verify the name of an accused rapist/sexual assaulter until they are found guilty or unless there is *substantial* evidence against them at first.
So no. A student should not be expelled if he is merely accused. And this culture of this "we believe you" attitude towards women (that they will be believed & supported if they come forward about rape accusations) needs to end with it's "we will always believe you" rhetoric because it is a stain on innocent until proven guilty. You may say that women don't like being treated with skepticism for coming forward about rape, but they should, because guilty until proven innocent is not how our country, or any fair society, works. Is it unfortunate that some women are uncomfortable coming forward? Yes, and that needs to be changed culturally. BUT, it should not be changed by making all men guilty until proven innocent.
I know this view is kind of rough and a little edgy to talk about so I'm hoping it can be changed (or that I can get reaffirmation that I'm not alone in it). CMV
**EDIT**: One thing I forgot to mention. See, if the welfare of men who are the targets of false accusations isn't really moving to you, then consider this: false rape accusations hurt women as well. The backlash against people who claim to be raped is legitimized and justified by these false rape accusers and these unfair universities. So false rape accusers are doing serious damage to actual rape victims by legitimizing skepticism, disapproval and disliking of them. | CMV: Students should not be expelled for rape accusations until they are found guilty or unless there is significant evidence against them. Example & similar cases of this are [here](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-judge-ruling-1.3504250), [here](http://totalsororitymove.com/frat-guy-expelled-for-gray-rape-after-victim-sees-him-making-out-with-someone-else-sues-university/), [here](http://www.dailywire.com/news/5130/guy-just-got-expelled-college-not-raping-his-amanda-prestigiacomo) and [here](http://time.com/3621291/istandwithjackie-uva-rape/). For clarity, I am NOT going to assert or respond to any requests to defend any supposed false rape accusation statistics -- I wouldn't put fabrication and gullibility about this stuff beneath the MRA/MGTOW community (ironic given how I am a sympathizer of them). Now I am not saying this always happens, but I do believe it happens enough that it is worth addressing, hence this CMV.
Now it seems that when a male student is accused of rape, he, merely upon accusation, will be expelled. That's wrong to me. When a student is accused of rape, he should only be expelled -- or undergo *any* punishment -- if there is substantial, police-verified evidence that he was the rapist. If the only credible evidence against him is an accusation, then that is not enough to get him expelled, and it is not enough to get him arrested. He can be investigated if the investigation does not inconvenience or cost him; but cannot be the subject of any discipline or legal punishment.
And if he is expelled or suspended due to there being credible evidence at the time, and he is later found guilty or not criminally punishable, than any tuition fees he had wasted at that time should be 100% reimbursed to him. Was he expelled and later found innocent, but as a result of his groundless expulsion, wasted a few thousand dollars of tuition fees? 100% they should be reimbursed to him either as a refund, or as credit for a retake of that semester. And if he is expelled with no evidence, then he should not only get his wasted tuition returned, but he should also have grounds to sue for more money.
When police officers are accused of unjustly shooting a suspect, they get paid leave because you can't just suspend them without pay because you have then absolutely ruined their lives if they are later found innocent. Same deal here. Innocent until proven guilty. Trial by media is not justice at all. If there is strong evidence against a man, he can be detained, but if there is nothing more than an accusation than that is insufficient grounds for any legal punishment.
Also, it should be procedural that police cannot release or verify the name of an accused rapist/sexual assaulter until they are found guilty or unless there is *substantial* evidence against them at first.
So no. A student should not be expelled if he is merely accused. And this culture of this "we believe you" attitude towards women (that they will be believed & supported if they come forward about rape accusations) needs to end with it's "we will always believe you" rhetoric because it is a stain on innocent until proven guilty. You may say that women don't like being treated with skepticism for coming forward about rape, but they should, because guilty until proven innocent is not how our country, or any fair society, works. Is it unfortunate that some women are uncomfortable coming forward? Yes, and that needs to be changed culturally. BUT, it should not be changed by making all men guilty until proven innocent.
I know this view is kind of rough and a little edgy to talk about so I'm hoping it can be changed (or that I can get reaffirmation that I'm not alone in it). CMV
**EDIT**: One thing I forgot to mention. See, if the welfare of men who are the targets of false accusations isn't really moving to you, then consider this: false rape accusations hurt women as well. The backlash against people who claim to be raped is legitimized and justified by these false rape accusers and these unfair universities. So false rape accusers are doing serious damage to actual rape victims by legitimizing skepticism, disapproval and disliking of them. |
t3_2t0uwo | CMV: Artificial is better than natural, most the time | I'm not claiming everything artificial is better than natural, but I simply don't buy into the whole organic lifestyle. I don't believe that it's worse if we eat genetically modified food, and I don't believe derivatives of sugar are any worse. But think of some of the amazing things we've achieved:
* Making food last longer
* Making fruits and vegetables grow better
* Larger chickens that yield more
* Inexpensive food
Even if they're worse for your health, which hasn't been proven, at least to the level that it should bother anyone, I think the benefits seriously outweigh the negatives. I mean for god's sake, *engineers* have done this. We act, for the most part, like it came out of a horror film. I simply do not understand the phobia. However, keep in mind that this isn't a political post. I personally would, for example, support GMO-labeling. I'm all about knowing what's been done to my food, I just don't personally think it makes it worse.
In fact, I think it's better.
Have you ever heard of [Soylent](http://www.soylent.me/)? No, this isn't a Soylent ad. It's just an example of something considered artificial or at least containing "chemicals" or artificially obtained foods in it being what I consider better than food. You can get your complete daily values of food from it, and that way you're certain that you have the optimal amount of food for you every day. Of course, I don't do Soylent. It's disgusting. However, this is just an example. Imagine where genetically modified and artificial food can take us. In 100 years or so, I want all of our food to be artificial. I want to maximize yields, maximize efficiency, so we can actually feed the entire world. Imagine what this can do for a poor country with famine and starving people.
_____
> *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: Artificial is better than natural, most the time. I'm not claiming everything artificial is better than natural, but I simply don't buy into the whole organic lifestyle. I don't believe that it's worse if we eat genetically modified food, and I don't believe derivatives of sugar are any worse. But think of some of the amazing things we've achieved:
* Making food last longer
* Making fruits and vegetables grow better
* Larger chickens that yield more
* Inexpensive food
Even if they're worse for your health, which hasn't been proven, at least to the level that it should bother anyone, I think the benefits seriously outweigh the negatives. I mean for god's sake, *engineers* have done this. We act, for the most part, like it came out of a horror film. I simply do not understand the phobia. However, keep in mind that this isn't a political post. I personally would, for example, support GMO-labeling. I'm all about knowing what's been done to my food, I just don't personally think it makes it worse.
In fact, I think it's better.
Have you ever heard of [Soylent](http://www.soylent.me/)? No, this isn't a Soylent ad. It's just an example of something considered artificial or at least containing "chemicals" or artificially obtained foods in it being what I consider better than food. You can get your complete daily values of food from it, and that way you're certain that you have the optimal amount of food for you every day. Of course, I don't do Soylent. It's disgusting. However, this is just an example. Imagine where genetically modified and artificial food can take us. In 100 years or so, I want all of our food to be artificial. I want to maximize yields, maximize efficiency, so we can actually feed the entire world. Imagine what this can do for a poor country with famine and starving people. |
t3_1beii4 | I believe that those who don't vote in democracies have no right to complain about laws their government passes. CMV | I think my opinion is simple enough. I feel that those who do not vote during elections have no right to complain about the laws of their government. It seems to me that by not voting they remain silent and have no effect on the system. Therefore when the system does something they do not like, they have no right to complain.
One thing to clarify though, there is a difference between actively choosing not to vote, and voting due to laziness or indifference. It is the latter that I am talking about. Choosing not to vote because one dislikes all the candidates is valid in my opinion (Although personally I would prefer that they cast a blank ballot, but truthfully it doesn't matter all that much).
One thing to clarify though, | I believe that those who don't vote in democracies have no right to complain about laws their government passes. CMV. I think my opinion is simple enough. I feel that those who do not vote during elections have no right to complain about the laws of their government. It seems to me that by not voting they remain silent and have no effect on the system. Therefore when the system does something they do not like, they have no right to complain.
One thing to clarify though, there is a difference between actively choosing not to vote, and voting due to laziness or indifference. It is the latter that I am talking about. Choosing not to vote because one dislikes all the candidates is valid in my opinion (Although personally I would prefer that they cast a blank ballot, but truthfully it doesn't matter all that much).
One thing to clarify though, |
t3_2ljzme | CMV: With the rise of information sharing technologies, teachers and schools are obsolete | I want to preface by saying that I had the privilege of studying under brilliant and dedicated teachers who nurtured my talents into and through my adult life. I do not dismiss the positive impact teachers can have on a young persons' life, nor do I diminish the value of the sacrifice that these professionals make.
My argument is simply that we have entered a new paradigm of education. I believe this is the era of the autodidact.
Any topic that you could possibly wish to learn about is freely and widely available to modern students. We don't need schools to provide our kids with their books -- any text in print is available online. And we don't need teachers to give guided lectures on the material anymore -- there are millions of lectures freely available on YouTube discussing and dissecting any piece of material a child could possibly expect to encounter in his or her school curriculum.
Why are we continuing to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on an education system that peddles only material that our kids could access for pennies?
My view is that we need to radically rethink our approach to pedagogy on a societal scale, because the system we have in place is utterly obsolete. Change my view! | CMV: With the rise of information sharing technologies, teachers and schools are obsolete. I want to preface by saying that I had the privilege of studying under brilliant and dedicated teachers who nurtured my talents into and through my adult life. I do not dismiss the positive impact teachers can have on a young persons' life, nor do I diminish the value of the sacrifice that these professionals make.
My argument is simply that we have entered a new paradigm of education. I believe this is the era of the autodidact.
Any topic that you could possibly wish to learn about is freely and widely available to modern students. We don't need schools to provide our kids with their books -- any text in print is available online. And we don't need teachers to give guided lectures on the material anymore -- there are millions of lectures freely available on YouTube discussing and dissecting any piece of material a child could possibly expect to encounter in his or her school curriculum.
Why are we continuing to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on an education system that peddles only material that our kids could access for pennies?
My view is that we need to radically rethink our approach to pedagogy on a societal scale, because the system we have in place is utterly obsolete. Change my view! |
t3_2gu982 | CMV: There is nothing wrong with being a hypocrite. | As the title suggests, I believe that there is nothing wrong with being a hypocrite. Let's first look a couple examples:
* Say for example, that you a thief, but you are always telling your kids that stealing is bad. Typical example of a hypocrite, but although you are being a hypocrite, the idea that you are trying to convey is not a bad one, which brings me to another point: **What you do or say should not be judged based on who you are.**
* Gandhi was always represented as the epitome of morality, especially when talking about civil rights movements. However, there are many accounts of Gandhi being racist among many other things that would definitely change how most people view Gandhi. You can read more about this [here](http://www.gandhism.net/gandhiandblacks.php). Does that mean there is no value for what Gandhi did for the world? He was the role model of many influential people (MLK). If he was such a positive influence on our society, does it really matter what kind of person he was?
One argument against this I can see is: How do you expect someone else to follow what you preach, if you can't/won't follow it?
I think that this is the source of the problem: you think that everyone else are just characters, ie, they are not unique and complex human beings like you are. When you make a mistake, it's not because you want to, but when others make mistakes, it's their intention to. There's a term in psychology for this but I forgot what it's called. Anyways, the point is that, you see others as hypocrites because they are either good or bad, while when you make a mistake that goes against what you preach to others, it was not your fault.
Nobody can be perfect all the time. Even if they have an idea in their head of what a perfect person might be, they can't stick to that all the time. The point is that, we should not try to see hypocrites as bad people, because no one is just that; there are good and bad in everyone. If the idea they convey is good, then we have no reason to criticize what they do.
_____
> *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 being a hypocrite. As the title suggests, I believe that there is nothing wrong with being a hypocrite. Let's first look a couple examples:
* Say for example, that you a thief, but you are always telling your kids that stealing is bad. Typical example of a hypocrite, but although you are being a hypocrite, the idea that you are trying to convey is not a bad one, which brings me to another point: **What you do or say should not be judged based on who you are.**
* Gandhi was always represented as the epitome of morality, especially when talking about civil rights movements. However, there are many accounts of Gandhi being racist among many other things that would definitely change how most people view Gandhi. You can read more about this [here](http://www.gandhism.net/gandhiandblacks.php). Does that mean there is no value for what Gandhi did for the world? He was the role model of many influential people (MLK). If he was such a positive influence on our society, does it really matter what kind of person he was?
One argument against this I can see is: How do you expect someone else to follow what you preach, if you can't/won't follow it?
I think that this is the source of the problem: you think that everyone else are just characters, ie, they are not unique and complex human beings like you are. When you make a mistake, it's not because you want to, but when others make mistakes, it's their intention to. There's a term in psychology for this but I forgot what it's called. Anyways, the point is that, you see others as hypocrites because they are either good or bad, while when you make a mistake that goes against what you preach to others, it was not your fault.
Nobody can be perfect all the time. Even if they have an idea in their head of what a perfect person might be, they can't stick to that all the time. The point is that, we should not try to see hypocrites as bad people, because no one is just that; there are good and bad in everyone. If the idea they convey is good, then we have no reason to criticize what they do.
|
t3_25f98k | CMV: I believe that female attractiveness is not valid when compared to male attractiveness, as females only genetically inherit features - like large breasts, curvaceous figure, attractive facial features, et cetera. | Firstly, I am well aware that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every person has various preferences. However, when you compare the body of an average attractive female against that of an attractive male, it is blatantly obvious that for a male to achieve such attractiveness he must lift weights, jog most days, diet nutrients accordingly, take the correct supplements and structure his day around that progress – every day. However, for that of a female, she must only be careful of not consuming too many carbohydrates or fats and possibly jog every couple of days – if at all.
Females, as evidenced on /r/gonewild and numerous other subreddits, are only attractive by the means of their genetic inheritance, such as those features listed in the title. However, on male porn subreddits you constantly see men who usually carefully exercise to achieve ripped or semi-ripped bodies.
Some males do inherit genetic traits which make it easier for them to put on muscle or already have desirable bodily structure or lose weight easily.
I do not understand, on a personal and a logical level, why females should be praised for doing nothing but behaving and/or dressing in a sexually desirable manner. Female attractiveness is not as valid as a male attractiveness.
Please help me to CMV.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I believe that female attractiveness is not valid when compared to male attractiveness, as females only genetically inherit features - like large breasts, curvaceous figure, attractive facial features, et cetera. Firstly, I am well aware that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every person has various preferences. However, when you compare the body of an average attractive female against that of an attractive male, it is blatantly obvious that for a male to achieve such attractiveness he must lift weights, jog most days, diet nutrients accordingly, take the correct supplements and structure his day around that progress – every day. However, for that of a female, she must only be careful of not consuming too many carbohydrates or fats and possibly jog every couple of days – if at all.
Females, as evidenced on /r/gonewild and numerous other subreddits, are only attractive by the means of their genetic inheritance, such as those features listed in the title. However, on male porn subreddits you constantly see men who usually carefully exercise to achieve ripped or semi-ripped bodies.
Some males do inherit genetic traits which make it easier for them to put on muscle or already have desirable bodily structure or lose weight easily.
I do not understand, on a personal and a logical level, why females should be praised for doing nothing but behaving and/or dressing in a sexually desirable manner. Female attractiveness is not as valid as a male attractiveness.
Please help me to CMV.
|
t3_34up87 | CMV: Putting money into my 1994 Volvo is more financially efficient than buying a new-used car. | This post will be about saving money in the short, and long, run. Currently my 1994 Volvo has some issues with it. The A/C needs repair, there is a vac leak, the antifreeze is leaking(slightly) and there is minor cosmetic damage. I am constantly barraged with advice that I should buy a new-used car to save money instead of repairing the current, and future problems, of my car.
This seems like a terrible idea for many reasons.
* If I was to buy a new-used car, I would need to pay for full coverage on the new car. That would increase my bill by $70-100/mo.
* My current used car is paid off. I would have to start making payments of $250-$300/mo. on the new car.
* The new-used car is not immune to mechanical problems. I could always end up with the same A/C issue, leak, or cosmetic problem with the new car.
The repairs on my current old car would amount to about $1500. The cost of the new-used car after 4 months would amount to $1600. It just doesn't seem ideal for me to purchase a new-used car.
**UPDATE:**This is a daily driver for me. 25 miles a day, and sometime 50-90 miles on the weekends. I drive city and hwy. Currently at 124k mileage. 20MPG Average.
| CMV: Putting money into my 1994 Volvo is more financially efficient than buying a new-used car. This post will be about saving money in the short, and long, run. Currently my 1994 Volvo has some issues with it. The A/C needs repair, there is a vac leak, the antifreeze is leaking(slightly) and there is minor cosmetic damage. I am constantly barraged with advice that I should buy a new-used car to save money instead of repairing the current, and future problems, of my car.
This seems like a terrible idea for many reasons.
* If I was to buy a new-used car, I would need to pay for full coverage on the new car. That would increase my bill by $70-100/mo.
* My current used car is paid off. I would have to start making payments of $250-$300/mo. on the new car.
* The new-used car is not immune to mechanical problems. I could always end up with the same A/C issue, leak, or cosmetic problem with the new car.
The repairs on my current old car would amount to about $1500. The cost of the new-used car after 4 months would amount to $1600. It just doesn't seem ideal for me to purchase a new-used car.
**UPDATE:**This is a daily driver for me. 25 miles a day, and sometime 50-90 miles on the weekends. I drive city and hwy. Currently at 124k mileage. 20MPG Average.
|
t3_6fzpjj | CMV: I think the transgender movement is a conspiracy to ultimately shed humanities "biological" existence, as we should. | To start, I don't care if anyone's transgender or what bathroom, etc. this is not meant to be hateful. I just like thinking about the future and what is happening now that might shape it. So, I've been thinking about this for awhile, but when I began to see transgender topics and issues literally everywhere, something sort of clicked to me.
Let's start off by saying, not that many people are transgender. A very small amount, estimates are less than 1 percent of the population. So this begs the question, why all the exposure and corporations and everyone fighting for this? Many of you would say "trans rights are human rights" and what not, and sure that sounds good on the surface but I think there's more to it.
I basically believe technocrats (if you will) have unknowingly co-opted liberals on civil rights issues that are really human survival issues. The series of events to me goes like this:
After the massive explosion in population trends after WW2, scientists decided that the world was going to get to populated and societies wouldn't be able to improve their standard of living fast enough to slow the birth rate. Then the 1960s happened. This is where, sexual norms were beginning to be challenged. In short, this is where causal sex became widely accepted. Basically, fuck on your own terms, have a kid or don't. Then year after year being homosexual became more and more accepted to where it is now not seen as wrong by the vast majority of young people. So now we have a society where it is okay to have sex for pleasure and you don't even have to do it with the opposite sex. Now in comes gender, now this is where it gets tricky, but I believe that psychiatrists of the day were looking very closely at individuals with gender dysphoria. It was probably strange to them, no matter what these individuals truly did not "feel" like their biological sex. Fast forward to now and we can say a few things are true that are important to my final statement
1. Acceptance of LGBT people is at an all time high and seems to be increasing. Gender norms are being broken down, and new genders are being created.
2. Communication between humans is becoming increasing impersonal. Meaning you never see the person you're talking to.
3. AI is sure to make some amazing breakthroughs in the future.
4. Humanity has proven itself incapable of sustaining itself biologically, long term. Climate change and overpopulation are clear examples of this.
5. Humanity is giving more trust and tasks to technology everyday,
Now you might wonder where does the LGBT fit into this? Well what I postulate is this.
The only way for humans to survive, is to separate out consciousness from our bodies. In order to do that, the consciousness needs to not have preconceived notions about the roles of its former body parts. Basically, If the "mind" goes on thinking it's a male, with no body validating it, it will likely lead to a mind with a similar situation of gender dysphoria; distress of being "born wrong". All evidence points to humans becoming more and more in sync with our technology, why should I believe it wont mean eventually shedding our bodies? If the ultimate goal is to isolate human consciousness into a "computer" of some sort, it is imperative that we cleanse the mind of ideas that stem from our biological selves, gender and sex are the most significant of these ideas. If no one has to be as they're born to be, than that shows the brain is extremely pliable and could be conditioned to be genderless.
Change my view!
| CMV: I think the transgender movement is a conspiracy to ultimately shed humanities "biological" existence, as we should. To start, I don't care if anyone's transgender or what bathroom, etc. this is not meant to be hateful. I just like thinking about the future and what is happening now that might shape it. So, I've been thinking about this for awhile, but when I began to see transgender topics and issues literally everywhere, something sort of clicked to me.
Let's start off by saying, not that many people are transgender. A very small amount, estimates are less than 1 percent of the population. So this begs the question, why all the exposure and corporations and everyone fighting for this? Many of you would say "trans rights are human rights" and what not, and sure that sounds good on the surface but I think there's more to it.
I basically believe technocrats (if you will) have unknowingly co-opted liberals on civil rights issues that are really human survival issues. The series of events to me goes like this:
After the massive explosion in population trends after WW2, scientists decided that the world was going to get to populated and societies wouldn't be able to improve their standard of living fast enough to slow the birth rate. Then the 1960s happened. This is where, sexual norms were beginning to be challenged. In short, this is where causal sex became widely accepted. Basically, fuck on your own terms, have a kid or don't. Then year after year being homosexual became more and more accepted to where it is now not seen as wrong by the vast majority of young people. So now we have a society where it is okay to have sex for pleasure and you don't even have to do it with the opposite sex. Now in comes gender, now this is where it gets tricky, but I believe that psychiatrists of the day were looking very closely at individuals with gender dysphoria. It was probably strange to them, no matter what these individuals truly did not "feel" like their biological sex. Fast forward to now and we can say a few things are true that are important to my final statement
1. Acceptance of LGBT people is at an all time high and seems to be increasing. Gender norms are being broken down, and new genders are being created.
2. Communication between humans is becoming increasing impersonal. Meaning you never see the person you're talking to.
3. AI is sure to make some amazing breakthroughs in the future.
4. Humanity has proven itself incapable of sustaining itself biologically, long term. Climate change and overpopulation are clear examples of this.
5. Humanity is giving more trust and tasks to technology everyday,
Now you might wonder where does the LGBT fit into this? Well what I postulate is this.
The only way for humans to survive, is to separate out consciousness from our bodies. In order to do that, the consciousness needs to not have preconceived notions about the roles of its former body parts. Basically, If the "mind" goes on thinking it's a male, with no body validating it, it will likely lead to a mind with a similar situation of gender dysphoria; distress of being "born wrong". All evidence points to humans becoming more and more in sync with our technology, why should I believe it wont mean eventually shedding our bodies? If the ultimate goal is to isolate human consciousness into a "computer" of some sort, it is imperative that we cleanse the mind of ideas that stem from our biological selves, gender and sex are the most significant of these ideas. If no one has to be as they're born to be, than that shows the brain is extremely pliable and could be conditioned to be genderless.
Change my view!
|
t3_2x5flk | CMV: People walking around with guns is completely ridiculous and should require extensive training. | I see no reason why there should not be extensive requirements that need to be met before you own a gun. Free requirements, but you should at least need training. People get so mad at cops for shooting random people, then they think its totally ok for every citizen to be packing heat, and think that for some reason a bunch of untrained people with guns arent going to shoot people when they feel "threatened" just like cops to ALL THE TIME. If people arent trained extensively, them packing heat is going to escalate situations. I mean hell, [escalated arguments are the leading cause of homicide, above even gang violence](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2012.xls) and I see no reason why it should be considered ok, or that people should feel "safe" with everyone packing heat. Even if it did cut down on a few crimes, is it really going to be worth the amount of arguments that are escalated by Joe Schmoe feeling "threatened" and pulling out his .38? There should be extensive training before this is allowed. This lets people keep their freedom while making the situation safer.
Edit: wow, good thing you went through and downvoted all of my posts. Really changed my viewand contributed to intelligent discussion. Im talking about a happy medium of freedom and safety, such an ignorant anti freedom idea, right? Jesus...
_____
> *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 walking around with guns is completely ridiculous and should require extensive training. I see no reason why there should not be extensive requirements that need to be met before you own a gun. Free requirements, but you should at least need training. People get so mad at cops for shooting random people, then they think its totally ok for every citizen to be packing heat, and think that for some reason a bunch of untrained people with guns arent going to shoot people when they feel "threatened" just like cops to ALL THE TIME. If people arent trained extensively, them packing heat is going to escalate situations. I mean hell, [escalated arguments are the leading cause of homicide, above even gang violence](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2012.xls) and I see no reason why it should be considered ok, or that people should feel "safe" with everyone packing heat. Even if it did cut down on a few crimes, is it really going to be worth the amount of arguments that are escalated by Joe Schmoe feeling "threatened" and pulling out his .38? There should be extensive training before this is allowed. This lets people keep their freedom while making the situation safer.
Edit: wow, good thing you went through and downvoted all of my posts. Really changed my viewand contributed to intelligent discussion. Im talking about a happy medium of freedom and safety, such an ignorant anti freedom idea, right? Jesus... |
t3_51a2wn | CMV: The camerawoman in the "Hugh Mungus" video is not an SJW for what she was doing; she was just being crazy and overreacting. | Here, I have transcribed [The Hugh Mungus video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeNJFz-WCZs):
>The news is interviewing a person whose daughter was a heroin addict...and he's pro bunker, he's pro cops, and so he's the one getting interviewed and there are like a million people who've spoken about how they've been abused by the cops that they're not being spoken to. Only the person who's pro bunker who's also a person of color so they've got their token, and that's the person they're using.
>...
>
Hugh: You want my name?
>Woman: Yeah, sure.
>Hugh: It's Hugh Mungus
>Woman: Hugh Mungus what?
>...
> Woman: He's sexually harassing me!
Now here's what an SJW is/does
From UrbanDictionary (Definition #3):
>People who are basically overly in defense of whatever the popular beliefs portray as the greater victim of discrimination (usually SJWs would be defending women, african americans, homosexuals, etc).
She's not any general minorities. She's not saying "Men are always sexually harassing women." She's saying "This man is sexually harassing me!"
>A SJW against sexism might think that since women are so much moreso discriminated against than men, they should get special treatment.
She's not asking for special treatment. She's asking that the man (Who she thinks is sexually harassing her) should be brought to justice.
>They might also say that people who say that men are discriminated against should realize that since women are so much moreso discriminated against than men, that it's wrong/rude to defend men.
This has no relevance to the video whatsoever. | CMV: The camerawoman in the "Hugh Mungus" video is not an SJW for what she was doing; she was just being crazy and overreacting. Here, I have transcribed [The Hugh Mungus video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeNJFz-WCZs):
>The news is interviewing a person whose daughter was a heroin addict...and he's pro bunker, he's pro cops, and so he's the one getting interviewed and there are like a million people who've spoken about how they've been abused by the cops that they're not being spoken to. Only the person who's pro bunker who's also a person of color so they've got their token, and that's the person they're using.
>...
>
Hugh: You want my name?
>Woman: Yeah, sure.
>Hugh: It's Hugh Mungus
>Woman: Hugh Mungus what?
>...
> Woman: He's sexually harassing me!
Now here's what an SJW is/does
From UrbanDictionary (Definition #3):
>People who are basically overly in defense of whatever the popular beliefs portray as the greater victim of discrimination (usually SJWs would be defending women, african americans, homosexuals, etc).
She's not any general minorities. She's not saying "Men are always sexually harassing women." She's saying "This man is sexually harassing me!"
>A SJW against sexism might think that since women are so much moreso discriminated against than men, they should get special treatment.
She's not asking for special treatment. She's asking that the man (Who she thinks is sexually harassing her) should be brought to justice.
>They might also say that people who say that men are discriminated against should realize that since women are so much moreso discriminated against than men, that it's wrong/rude to defend men.
This has no relevance to the video whatsoever. |
t3_62exjq | CMV: Prison and the death penalty are a joke and it needs to be revamped. | I think we can all agree that in the United States, the current prison system is a joke and I think if you find it perfect or good, you are pro government.
The better alternative is to get rid of the death penalty and change the current system. There are two scenarios here and it will make everything much more simple:
The first scenario is when you are undoubtebly proven guilty you are put to death with euthanasia. Instead of having the prisoner suffer in a cell and be put on death row or wait to die, I am sure they would rather be put to sleep. The death penalty contradicts the 8th amendment and it is cruel and unusual punishment to have someone wait to die. Most people feel that the death penalty isn't harsh enough but in my opinion if you truly hated someone, you would want them to die quickly and disregard their existence. Having them suffer and wait for the death penalty or wait a decade or more shows you at least care for them as you are acknowledging them. The fact is, having them be put to sleep with euthanasia not only benefits our society in making taxes be dumped or used for useful things, but it also benefitd the prisoner who no longer has to suffer and wait. Utilitarianism is the closest thing to justice and morality is subjective. True justice is about the greater good and maximum utility that benefits us all. Why play by the rules if they don't? Why should we dump our taxes on pieces of shits that don't care about and take advantage of us? Not only that, what if the prisoner escapes? That makes all of our taxes spent there useless! You also can't fix someone that refuses to change. There are more useful things for taxes to be spent on and the fact that more money is spent on prisons than education is one of the reasons my country (The United States) is a laughing stock.
The second scenario is for those that may have been falsely accused and there is not enough evidence to determine the verdict. If they are guilty, they are put to sleep with euthanasia. If they are innocent, then some of that tax money can go to them in order to get their life back together. This can be the new prison system. Less prisoners = less money spent and the verdict or result on whether they are guilty or not determines their fate.
As you can see, this system may be flawed but it is better than the one we have now. I shouldn't have to waste taxes to some murderer, rapist, or a child molester. Prison should be a trial on whether you are guilty of a crime or not. It shouldn't be some tax dump for freaks. I will even argue that these prisoners have an easier life than a homeless person and surrounding pieces of garbage with other pieces of garbage is a negative environment for themselves as they won't be able to improve themselves.
Please attempt to change my view. Don't give me any prolife arguments. Explain to me why my view is wrong.
EDIT: These two scenarios both coexist. The reason I made two scenarios is to show what happens when someone is proven to be absolutely guilty with evidence or someone who claims to be innocent but there is no evidence to support it. There are 3 trials in court to prove their case. After those three unsuccessful trials, they are put to death with euthanasia. | CMV: Prison and the death penalty are a joke and it needs to be revamped. I think we can all agree that in the United States, the current prison system is a joke and I think if you find it perfect or good, you are pro government.
The better alternative is to get rid of the death penalty and change the current system. There are two scenarios here and it will make everything much more simple:
The first scenario is when you are undoubtebly proven guilty you are put to death with euthanasia. Instead of having the prisoner suffer in a cell and be put on death row or wait to die, I am sure they would rather be put to sleep. The death penalty contradicts the 8th amendment and it is cruel and unusual punishment to have someone wait to die. Most people feel that the death penalty isn't harsh enough but in my opinion if you truly hated someone, you would want them to die quickly and disregard their existence. Having them suffer and wait for the death penalty or wait a decade or more shows you at least care for them as you are acknowledging them. The fact is, having them be put to sleep with euthanasia not only benefits our society in making taxes be dumped or used for useful things, but it also benefitd the prisoner who no longer has to suffer and wait. Utilitarianism is the closest thing to justice and morality is subjective. True justice is about the greater good and maximum utility that benefits us all. Why play by the rules if they don't? Why should we dump our taxes on pieces of shits that don't care about and take advantage of us? Not only that, what if the prisoner escapes? That makes all of our taxes spent there useless! You also can't fix someone that refuses to change. There are more useful things for taxes to be spent on and the fact that more money is spent on prisons than education is one of the reasons my country (The United States) is a laughing stock.
The second scenario is for those that may have been falsely accused and there is not enough evidence to determine the verdict. If they are guilty, they are put to sleep with euthanasia. If they are innocent, then some of that tax money can go to them in order to get their life back together. This can be the new prison system. Less prisoners = less money spent and the verdict or result on whether they are guilty or not determines their fate.
As you can see, this system may be flawed but it is better than the one we have now. I shouldn't have to waste taxes to some murderer, rapist, or a child molester. Prison should be a trial on whether you are guilty of a crime or not. It shouldn't be some tax dump for freaks. I will even argue that these prisoners have an easier life than a homeless person and surrounding pieces of garbage with other pieces of garbage is a negative environment for themselves as they won't be able to improve themselves.
Please attempt to change my view. Don't give me any prolife arguments. Explain to me why my view is wrong.
EDIT: These two scenarios both coexist. The reason I made two scenarios is to show what happens when someone is proven to be absolutely guilty with evidence or someone who claims to be innocent but there is no evidence to support it. There are 3 trials in court to prove their case. After those three unsuccessful trials, they are put to death with euthanasia. |
t3_1edv8n | I feel overpopulation of the world and climate change will lead to catastrophic events this century CMV | This is in the back of my mind and, although interested in it, I am not a 'prepper' and do not think the end of the world is a certainty.
Going on figures that I have in my head, world population may reach 11 billion in 2025 and then doubling by 2050 and again by 2075. As well as some possible consequences of climate change such as expanding deserts, raising sea levels, less fresh water, less habitable areas, natural disasters.
I just can't help but think that there will be some serious disasters, displacing lots of people and creating refugees moving to areas who cant already support themselves as well as wars being fought for land and resources etc. Obviously this is nothing new but with a huge population and globalisation it will knock on around the world.
Basically i think that in a few generations we will have too many people in the world and not enough resources to support and shit will get real. CMV
(Im not too happy with how i worded this, ive rewritten it a couple times and so just going to keep it brief, i imagine people will understand my point) | I feel overpopulation of the world and climate change will lead to catastrophic events this century CMV. This is in the back of my mind and, although interested in it, I am not a 'prepper' and do not think the end of the world is a certainty.
Going on figures that I have in my head, world population may reach 11 billion in 2025 and then doubling by 2050 and again by 2075. As well as some possible consequences of climate change such as expanding deserts, raising sea levels, less fresh water, less habitable areas, natural disasters.
I just can't help but think that there will be some serious disasters, displacing lots of people and creating refugees moving to areas who cant already support themselves as well as wars being fought for land and resources etc. Obviously this is nothing new but with a huge population and globalisation it will knock on around the world.
Basically i think that in a few generations we will have too many people in the world and not enough resources to support and shit will get real. CMV
(Im not too happy with how i worded this, ive rewritten it a couple times and so just going to keep it brief, i imagine people will understand my point) |
t3_20sd7r | Humans got the short end of the stick, CMV | Out of all organisms on earth, humans are the worst off. We are burdened by our own intelligence. Our perception of time puts us in constant fear of running out while our desire to gain knowledge is ultimately useless. Sure it would be great if we had a slight intellectual advantage over other animals but we are now in a class of our own. It has come to the extent where we can no longer realistically live as part of the animal kingdom but only observe it. Many would say our creation of the modern world is a great achievement and is concrete evidence of how amazing the human race is, but would it not be better if we were on a more even playing ground with the rest of the animal kingdom considering we would be ignorant to all the possibilities of creation and just as happy if not more happy without it? | Humans got the short end of the stick, CMV. Out of all organisms on earth, humans are the worst off. We are burdened by our own intelligence. Our perception of time puts us in constant fear of running out while our desire to gain knowledge is ultimately useless. Sure it would be great if we had a slight intellectual advantage over other animals but we are now in a class of our own. It has come to the extent where we can no longer realistically live as part of the animal kingdom but only observe it. Many would say our creation of the modern world is a great achievement and is concrete evidence of how amazing the human race is, but would it not be better if we were on a more even playing ground with the rest of the animal kingdom considering we would be ignorant to all the possibilities of creation and just as happy if not more happy without it? |
t3_1rl5sm | A person who feels suicidal only because of mental illness is still perfectly valid in their feelings. CMV | Let me just explain my feelings. I know I only feel like I want to die because of my depression. I know if I was mentally healthy I probably wouldn't feel this way, but that doesn't change the fact that I am completely miserable and this probably won't change.
I've had depression ever since I was 9 years old at least, and was put on Paxil at age 10-11, and am now 24 years old. It takes the edge off and I've had some happy moments but overall, living is exhausting and I've yet to see how it's worth experiencing.
Right now I'm in college for history. I know job prospects in that area are pretty much nil, but it's one of the few things I enjoy. Despite liking history, I hate college. I'm doing it because without it I'll likely be working fast food the rest of my life (which might happen anyway). Despite loving history, I hate going to college. It just makes me more depressed and exhausted. Throw in having to work at the same time, and I'm failing to see the point in my continued existence. I have to do something I hate for years in order to try to secure a better future that I don't think will be worth living anyway?
I guess my point is that when I mention this, people just say, "Well, you only feel that way because you have depression." Yeah, that's probably true. But so what? If I decide to live my life and die a miserable old woman, at the end of the day, I was completely miserable my whole life. Does it really make a difference that I was miserable because of a mental illness? I don't think so.
Please understand, I'm not typing this on the edge of a 5 story building about to throw myself off. I intend to finish college since I've already worked so hard at it. I just think it's unfair to say someone is "only" feeling suicidal because of a mental illness. Those feelings are still very real and I don't see the point of a continued existence if that person is through being miserable and wants to die, even if it is caused by mental illness.
One final argument: Yes, mental illness can be treated, but not often cured. Even if it's being treated, it's still there and still having an affect. | A person who feels suicidal only because of mental illness is still perfectly valid in their feelings. CMV. Let me just explain my feelings. I know I only feel like I want to die because of my depression. I know if I was mentally healthy I probably wouldn't feel this way, but that doesn't change the fact that I am completely miserable and this probably won't change.
I've had depression ever since I was 9 years old at least, and was put on Paxil at age 10-11, and am now 24 years old. It takes the edge off and I've had some happy moments but overall, living is exhausting and I've yet to see how it's worth experiencing.
Right now I'm in college for history. I know job prospects in that area are pretty much nil, but it's one of the few things I enjoy. Despite liking history, I hate college. I'm doing it because without it I'll likely be working fast food the rest of my life (which might happen anyway). Despite loving history, I hate going to college. It just makes me more depressed and exhausted. Throw in having to work at the same time, and I'm failing to see the point in my continued existence. I have to do something I hate for years in order to try to secure a better future that I don't think will be worth living anyway?
I guess my point is that when I mention this, people just say, "Well, you only feel that way because you have depression." Yeah, that's probably true. But so what? If I decide to live my life and die a miserable old woman, at the end of the day, I was completely miserable my whole life. Does it really make a difference that I was miserable because of a mental illness? I don't think so.
Please understand, I'm not typing this on the edge of a 5 story building about to throw myself off. I intend to finish college since I've already worked so hard at it. I just think it's unfair to say someone is "only" feeling suicidal because of a mental illness. Those feelings are still very real and I don't see the point of a continued existence if that person is through being miserable and wants to die, even if it is caused by mental illness.
One final argument: Yes, mental illness can be treated, but not often cured. Even if it's being treated, it's still there and still having an affect. |
t3_29lpr0 | CMV: Now that the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, there is no reason that gasoline prices have not decreased -- except avarice and corruption. | In 2004 gas prices were below $2.00, but then quickly shot up to nearly twice that much -- from which they have not ever completely returned. We were told by the Oil companies the reason for these high prices was OPEC decreasing supply and resulting shortages from issues in the middle east and speculation on future prices in relation to the shortages. Meanwhile, when Americans were paying record prices at the pump, oil companies were making record profits.
Now the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, but the prices are at even higher record levels.
CMV -- the prices then and now were not caused by supply shortage but by greedy corporations that have a huge influence over the government organizations that are supposed to regulate these businesses and protect consumers.
_____
> *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: Now that the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, there is no reason that gasoline prices have not decreased -- except avarice and corruption. In 2004 gas prices were below $2.00, but then quickly shot up to nearly twice that much -- from which they have not ever completely returned. We were told by the Oil companies the reason for these high prices was OPEC decreasing supply and resulting shortages from issues in the middle east and speculation on future prices in relation to the shortages. Meanwhile, when Americans were paying record prices at the pump, oil companies were making record profits.
Now the U.S. is a net exporter of oil, but the prices are at even higher record levels.
CMV -- the prices then and now were not caused by supply shortage but by greedy corporations that have a huge influence over the government organizations that are supposed to regulate these businesses and protect consumers.
|
t3_1hmzhl | I think that the reason behind religion was to help people maintain a sense of humility and to submit to a higher power CMV | I feel like the true meaning of religion has been lost and the whole point of religion was to help people maintain a sense of humility and to accept that there is always some larger power. However, now people use religion to ask that higher power to fulfill their desires, and by praying and following the rituals that a religion has, people believe that they will get what they want.
I feel a need to assert the fact that I am a religious person, I just think that I don’t believe in religion for the same reason that many other people do. I probably don’t know enough about how people feel about religion to make an assumption like this so yeah, CMV.
| I think that the reason behind religion was to help people maintain a sense of humility and to submit to a higher power CMV. I feel like the true meaning of religion has been lost and the whole point of religion was to help people maintain a sense of humility and to accept that there is always some larger power. However, now people use religion to ask that higher power to fulfill their desires, and by praying and following the rituals that a religion has, people believe that they will get what they want.
I feel a need to assert the fact that I am a religious person, I just think that I don’t believe in religion for the same reason that many other people do. I probably don’t know enough about how people feel about religion to make an assumption like this so yeah, CMV.
|
t3_25w8cq | CMV: CEOs of major charities generally aren't overpaid. | There seems to be a general consensus or at least a strong opinion from many that CEOs of major charities shouldn't be paid as much as they are and that the majority of their salaries should be put back into the charities themselves. I disagree with this. Being the CEO of a charity is just as much work as being the CEO of a major company as both operate in a similar manner, with the difference being that charities don't make a profit by selling goods/services but rather take in money from donors or fundraisers and use it for a certain cause. CEOs of major charities have huge responsibilities and must put in a ton of effort to keep these charities running smoothly. Why shouldn't CEOs be compensated for this work?
_____
> *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: CEOs of major charities generally aren't overpaid. There seems to be a general consensus or at least a strong opinion from many that CEOs of major charities shouldn't be paid as much as they are and that the majority of their salaries should be put back into the charities themselves. I disagree with this. Being the CEO of a charity is just as much work as being the CEO of a major company as both operate in a similar manner, with the difference being that charities don't make a profit by selling goods/services but rather take in money from donors or fundraisers and use it for a certain cause. CEOs of major charities have huge responsibilities and must put in a ton of effort to keep these charities running smoothly. Why shouldn't CEOs be compensated for this work? |
t3_2s19xm | CMV: If you've seen one game of football (or any sport), you've basically seen them all | To start with what's probably obvious: I don't like watching sports. I don't get the appeal at all and I've come to realize that part of my problem with it is that every game seems exactly the same to me.
I was in marching band in high school and saw literally every football game for four years and each one may well have been the same game imo. Sure, in one game my school lost dramatically (8 - 72 yikes) and some games my school won, but the core of each game was the same. People running at each other and trying to move a ball under the same rules each time. Any differences were trivial. Oh, player 33 swerved left and ran a bit further this game or player 44 got sacked big time...why do these differences matter and why are they interesting? When you go to the game there are only two possibilities: your team wins or it doesn't. Why do you want to spend hours watching to find out what happens when you can just read who wins after the game?
I get the appeal of *playing* sports, but I've never enjoyed watching them.
To summarize a few of my points:
- The rules don't generally change. As a result, there is nothing radically different, exciting, or surprising that can happen. Maybe you'll say that an underdog team winning would be a surprise - well, maybe a little, but it's a totally foreseeable possibility. There are only two options after all.
- Any deviations between games that fall within the rules are trivial. If you were watching a recording of a game and at halftime someone switched it to a different game with the same score by halftime and players on the field, unless you were told this, it would not be clear that it was a different game. What happened previously would have no real visible impact on the second half of the game.
Note: I do think there's something mildly worthwhile about seeing a game *live* because you do get the whole group spirit feeling while cheering, but that doesn't negate the fact that each time you are cheering the same things to the same people trying to achieve the same goal.
Edit 1: I've conceded that it may take a few games to get a full grasp of how a sport works. Once you reach that point though, there is no reason to watch further games.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: If you've seen one game of football (or any sport), you've basically seen them all. To start with what's probably obvious: I don't like watching sports. I don't get the appeal at all and I've come to realize that part of my problem with it is that every game seems exactly the same to me.
I was in marching band in high school and saw literally every football game for four years and each one may well have been the same game imo. Sure, in one game my school lost dramatically (8 - 72 yikes) and some games my school won, but the core of each game was the same. People running at each other and trying to move a ball under the same rules each time. Any differences were trivial. Oh, player 33 swerved left and ran a bit further this game or player 44 got sacked big time...why do these differences matter and why are they interesting? When you go to the game there are only two possibilities: your team wins or it doesn't. Why do you want to spend hours watching to find out what happens when you can just read who wins after the game?
I get the appeal of *playing* sports, but I've never enjoyed watching them.
To summarize a few of my points:
- The rules don't generally change. As a result, there is nothing radically different, exciting, or surprising that can happen. Maybe you'll say that an underdog team winning would be a surprise - well, maybe a little, but it's a totally foreseeable possibility. There are only two options after all.
- Any deviations between games that fall within the rules are trivial. If you were watching a recording of a game and at halftime someone switched it to a different game with the same score by halftime and players on the field, unless you were told this, it would not be clear that it was a different game. What happened previously would have no real visible impact on the second half of the game.
Note: I do think there's something mildly worthwhile about seeing a game *live* because you do get the whole group spirit feeling while cheering, but that doesn't negate the fact that each time you are cheering the same things to the same people trying to achieve the same goal.
Edit 1: I've conceded that it may take a few games to get a full grasp of how a sport works. Once you reach that point though, there is no reason to watch further games. |
t3_1bcgtr | I don't believe that any human has free will, CMV | We have brains, in our brains are chemicals. I believe that we do not actually have any free will, and every decision that we make is based exclusively on the chemical/electric reaction occurring there.
I.E. If we have enough information about a specific person and control enough factors, we could predict every single action that person would ever make if we controlled enough aspects of the life.
Free will is an illusion and you are just chemically reacting to reading these words. While what your reply might be unique today from yesterday, but your brain is radically different today from yesterday, but if I cloned you ( or a hundred/million/trillion) places you in the exact same life and you read this comment you would always reply the same. | I don't believe that any human has free will, CMV. We have brains, in our brains are chemicals. I believe that we do not actually have any free will, and every decision that we make is based exclusively on the chemical/electric reaction occurring there.
I.E. If we have enough information about a specific person and control enough factors, we could predict every single action that person would ever make if we controlled enough aspects of the life.
Free will is an illusion and you are just chemically reacting to reading these words. While what your reply might be unique today from yesterday, but your brain is radically different today from yesterday, but if I cloned you ( or a hundred/million/trillion) places you in the exact same life and you read this comment you would always reply the same. |
t3_3t8nxy | CMV: Trigger warnings in college courses have little importance because the core curriculum is so diluted by students' ability to choose their own courses. | My thesis for this post is that trigger warnings attached to college courses have little value outside of being an "ideological litmus test" in online discussion. That is, people's reactions to them strongly aligns with their views on culture in general, and the trigger warnings' main function is to help us categorize others based on their opinions on those trigger warnings.
Students in modern colleges have a great deal of choice in their course selections. Any argument based on student's discomfort with "core" material is weak because this choice means that there truly is no core material in the first place. Students who are uncomfortable with a particular set of ideas are going to avoid that class entirely and instead choose courses which a priori align with their world views and interests.
For example, I had a race and ethnicity requirement at my college, and instead of taking a course on women's studies or African American studies, I choose a film course which focused on Eastern Europe. I wanted to watch movies, and I thought the course would be easier and more tolerable than taking a women's studies course. What's important here is that the broad scope of courses available allowed me to avoid material that I thought would be unpleasant or challenge my worldview.
Similarly, someone with a vested interest in multiculturalism who believes in the presence of profound institutional racism/sexism is likely to avoid a several-semester sequence which focuses on the development and history of Western civilization.
There no longer remains a core selection of courses or ideas in most colleges that all students are forced to study. If there was a time where carefully thought out core material was forced on students due to its value, that time is long gone. Students choose their path of study, and the volume of courses most universities offer means that students are able to avoid courses that do not fit in their interests or ideology. | CMV: Trigger warnings in college courses have little importance because the core curriculum is so diluted by students' ability to choose their own courses. My thesis for this post is that trigger warnings attached to college courses have little value outside of being an "ideological litmus test" in online discussion. That is, people's reactions to them strongly aligns with their views on culture in general, and the trigger warnings' main function is to help us categorize others based on their opinions on those trigger warnings.
Students in modern colleges have a great deal of choice in their course selections. Any argument based on student's discomfort with "core" material is weak because this choice means that there truly is no core material in the first place. Students who are uncomfortable with a particular set of ideas are going to avoid that class entirely and instead choose courses which a priori align with their world views and interests.
For example, I had a race and ethnicity requirement at my college, and instead of taking a course on women's studies or African American studies, I choose a film course which focused on Eastern Europe. I wanted to watch movies, and I thought the course would be easier and more tolerable than taking a women's studies course. What's important here is that the broad scope of courses available allowed me to avoid material that I thought would be unpleasant or challenge my worldview.
Similarly, someone with a vested interest in multiculturalism who believes in the presence of profound institutional racism/sexism is likely to avoid a several-semester sequence which focuses on the development and history of Western civilization.
There no longer remains a core selection of courses or ideas in most colleges that all students are forced to study. If there was a time where carefully thought out core material was forced on students due to its value, that time is long gone. Students choose their path of study, and the volume of courses most universities offer means that students are able to avoid courses that do not fit in their interests or ideology. |
t3_65cvcr | CMV: A sub that you are banned from should not appear on your /r/all | I was recently banned from a sub. This is a sub that is constantly on /r/all. While I occasionally liked some of the things posted there, I mostly derived joy from pointing out incorrect things they would post.
I get why they banned me (even though, I disagree with the reason they gave) I get why a sub doesn't like people who disagree with them posting/commenting there.
But now that I can no longer post or comment on the sub, I no longer want to see it when I go to /r/all.
I know that on alien blue/RES you could block subs from appearing on your /r/all, but I'm a mobile user and there's no way for me to do this on the Reddit app.
Outside of that, I shouldn't have to take active measures to stop seeing content from a sub that banned me.
As I can no longer post/comment there, for me, there's nothing but negativity that I could get out of seeing their posts on /r/all.
CMV and show me that there's a legitimate reason why Reddit would have subs show up on /r/all that the user seeing it can't actively participate in
Edit: so, I just got PM'd by someone who was banned from CMV. Not that this changes much, but it does add something to the discussion? Maybe? I don't know what it implies though.
| CMV: A sub that you are banned from should not appear on your /r/all. I was recently banned from a sub. This is a sub that is constantly on /r/all. While I occasionally liked some of the things posted there, I mostly derived joy from pointing out incorrect things they would post.
I get why they banned me (even though, I disagree with the reason they gave) I get why a sub doesn't like people who disagree with them posting/commenting there.
But now that I can no longer post or comment on the sub, I no longer want to see it when I go to /r/all.
I know that on alien blue/RES you could block subs from appearing on your /r/all, but I'm a mobile user and there's no way for me to do this on the Reddit app.
Outside of that, I shouldn't have to take active measures to stop seeing content from a sub that banned me.
As I can no longer post/comment there, for me, there's nothing but negativity that I could get out of seeing their posts on /r/all.
CMV and show me that there's a legitimate reason why Reddit would have subs show up on /r/all that the user seeing it can't actively participate in
Edit: so, I just got PM'd by someone who was banned from CMV. Not that this changes much, but it does add something to the discussion? Maybe? I don't know what it implies though.
|
t3_1dajb8 | I believe in free immigration without border restrictions | My understanding of what we call "human rights" is that each individual possesses these rights regardless of place of origin. The right to live where you want and the ability of mobility to any territory should not be restricted because of nation-state borders which, it seems to me, are artificial. No one chooses where they are born and what nationality they inherit and it seems to be deeply unjust that certain nationalities have an easier access to others ( think swedish vs senegalese). If the nation-state is just a social construct then restricting peoples ability of this choice is as ridiculous as religious laws that forbid conversion etc.
The only argument that i can see being a counter argument is merely a functional one but not based on a moral principle of individual human rights but rather some sort of utilitarian view.
Sorry for the grammar or if I am unclear. swedish is my first language. | I believe in free immigration without border restrictions. My understanding of what we call "human rights" is that each individual possesses these rights regardless of place of origin. The right to live where you want and the ability of mobility to any territory should not be restricted because of nation-state borders which, it seems to me, are artificial. No one chooses where they are born and what nationality they inherit and it seems to be deeply unjust that certain nationalities have an easier access to others ( think swedish vs senegalese). If the nation-state is just a social construct then restricting peoples ability of this choice is as ridiculous as religious laws that forbid conversion etc.
The only argument that i can see being a counter argument is merely a functional one but not based on a moral principle of individual human rights but rather some sort of utilitarian view.
Sorry for the grammar or if I am unclear. swedish is my first language. |
t3_54stiu | CMV:I'm never going to turn vegan(different to the normal arguments) | honestly this is very interesting to me because my argument for eating meat is different than most people's.
I don't hide behind the all animals kill animals argument although I do believe this. I do workout and I do use meat as my main protein source. Although i do believe meat is better for building muscle I do know that it's possible to build muscle on a vegan diet and although I don't think it's as good I don't eat meat for this reason and would probably not even worry about the affects being vegan would have on my performance in the gym if I wanted to go vegan.
Here's the real reason I'm not vegan that very few meat eaters are honest enough to admit to themselves. I just don't care. Meats delicious and I'm selfish and I guess i show signs of being a sociopasociopath seeing as though I'm more than happy to let animals suffer for my happiness.
I don't feel empathy for animals unless it's my dog. Now I know your all gonna try and latch on to this but here's the thing I completely accept that I'm a hypocrite and don't care. But I will say I also only empathise with a very small number of people. This isn't to say I don't feel empathy for my friends it's just that I don't really care I only feel true empathy where it makes me act in a way to avoid causing them pain or bring them happiness for my closest family and those I love. A good example of what I mean is if my mother had a heart attack I'd be devastated and do anything possible to help her no matter how selfless I have to be however if I find a stranger or celebrity or some shit has died or is seriously ill I couldn't give less of a fuck because it dousnt concern me.
I know it's bad for the environment but again I don't care. The environments going to shit anyway and it's not gonna get real bad till I'm dead so it's not my problem.
I don't know if it's bad for my health but I don't care. First of all humans was made to eat meat so I seriously doubt it's that bad although I know overindulgence is bad for me. But again even if I find out it's slowly killing me I don't care I'm gonna die anyway and don't really want to live to such old age my balls hang past my knees.
Anyway the usual reasons for going vegan would usually be Moral reasons but that dousnt bother me if hells real I'm going vegan or not, health reasons but I don't really believe meats killing me and even if it is I don't care, environmental reasons but fuck the environment and I guess people think it's cool.
So to convince me your going to have to come up with a completely selfish reason that benefits me and I haven't already covered. I'm sure there's something but I really can't think of a selfish reason to become vegan.
Also would like to add that when it comes to animal welfare and the environment one person going vegan means nothing it's not gonna bring a cow back to life or stop people killing them. | CMV:I'm never going to turn vegan(different to the normal arguments). honestly this is very interesting to me because my argument for eating meat is different than most people's.
I don't hide behind the all animals kill animals argument although I do believe this. I do workout and I do use meat as my main protein source. Although i do believe meat is better for building muscle I do know that it's possible to build muscle on a vegan diet and although I don't think it's as good I don't eat meat for this reason and would probably not even worry about the affects being vegan would have on my performance in the gym if I wanted to go vegan.
Here's the real reason I'm not vegan that very few meat eaters are honest enough to admit to themselves. I just don't care. Meats delicious and I'm selfish and I guess i show signs of being a sociopasociopath seeing as though I'm more than happy to let animals suffer for my happiness.
I don't feel empathy for animals unless it's my dog. Now I know your all gonna try and latch on to this but here's the thing I completely accept that I'm a hypocrite and don't care. But I will say I also only empathise with a very small number of people. This isn't to say I don't feel empathy for my friends it's just that I don't really care I only feel true empathy where it makes me act in a way to avoid causing them pain or bring them happiness for my closest family and those I love. A good example of what I mean is if my mother had a heart attack I'd be devastated and do anything possible to help her no matter how selfless I have to be however if I find a stranger or celebrity or some shit has died or is seriously ill I couldn't give less of a fuck because it dousnt concern me.
I know it's bad for the environment but again I don't care. The environments going to shit anyway and it's not gonna get real bad till I'm dead so it's not my problem.
I don't know if it's bad for my health but I don't care. First of all humans was made to eat meat so I seriously doubt it's that bad although I know overindulgence is bad for me. But again even if I find out it's slowly killing me I don't care I'm gonna die anyway and don't really want to live to such old age my balls hang past my knees.
Anyway the usual reasons for going vegan would usually be Moral reasons but that dousnt bother me if hells real I'm going vegan or not, health reasons but I don't really believe meats killing me and even if it is I don't care, environmental reasons but fuck the environment and I guess people think it's cool.
So to convince me your going to have to come up with a completely selfish reason that benefits me and I haven't already covered. I'm sure there's something but I really can't think of a selfish reason to become vegan.
Also would like to add that when it comes to animal welfare and the environment one person going vegan means nothing it's not gonna bring a cow back to life or stop people killing them. |
t3_3yenre | CMV: From an economic perspective, conscription is a good thing. | I'm for conscription. I think it will make the USA a better place, but whenever I suggest it they always counter with 'freedom' and 'the right not to be drafted' or 'I don't want to fight for something I believe in'. Whatever, I can't argue that.
Here is what my plan looks like:
Everyone at age 18 will be conscripted for two years.
They will go through basic training and tech school like a normal military. Tech school will give them a trade.
They have some discretion over what job they choose, but women are barred from combat positions.
They will receive normal pay, and rank up normally.
At they end of the two years they are discharged, if they wish to continue a military career, or peruse officer hood they are free to do so.
The sick and disabled will do civil service.
For doing their two years they would be entitled to partial GI Bill. Those who serve more earn more.
**Argument** (From an economic perspective):
Going off the above.
It will initially be expensive, fair enough, however that is offset by several things down the road.
First and foremost you have a lot of young people with trades who can contribute to the economy after their service (instead of a barista with an English degree).
Secondly, there is now a massive work force, that is relatively cheap (in contrast to government contracts) to fix infrastructure, and build public works.
Thirdly, giving these kids a pay check, and a trade decreases the likelihood that they'll need to live off govt benefits once they've been discharged.
That's about all I can think of from an economic perspective, and that is the argument, below are some other pro's that are not related to the economy:
It'll bring people together, the rich boy from Manhattan will get to meet the farmer boy from Alabama or the surfer from California, and will help create a national identity and perhaps decrease racial and ethnic tensions.
It will make people more politically active, when it's their ass on the line.
Well change my view.
| CMV: From an economic perspective, conscription is a good thing. I'm for conscription. I think it will make the USA a better place, but whenever I suggest it they always counter with 'freedom' and 'the right not to be drafted' or 'I don't want to fight for something I believe in'. Whatever, I can't argue that.
Here is what my plan looks like:
Everyone at age 18 will be conscripted for two years.
They will go through basic training and tech school like a normal military. Tech school will give them a trade.
They have some discretion over what job they choose, but women are barred from combat positions.
They will receive normal pay, and rank up normally.
At they end of the two years they are discharged, if they wish to continue a military career, or peruse officer hood they are free to do so.
The sick and disabled will do civil service.
For doing their two years they would be entitled to partial GI Bill. Those who serve more earn more.
**Argument** (From an economic perspective):
Going off the above.
It will initially be expensive, fair enough, however that is offset by several things down the road.
First and foremost you have a lot of young people with trades who can contribute to the economy after their service (instead of a barista with an English degree).
Secondly, there is now a massive work force, that is relatively cheap (in contrast to government contracts) to fix infrastructure, and build public works.
Thirdly, giving these kids a pay check, and a trade decreases the likelihood that they'll need to live off govt benefits once they've been discharged.
That's about all I can think of from an economic perspective, and that is the argument, below are some other pro's that are not related to the economy:
It'll bring people together, the rich boy from Manhattan will get to meet the farmer boy from Alabama or the surfer from California, and will help create a national identity and perhaps decrease racial and ethnic tensions.
It will make people more politically active, when it's their ass on the line.
Well change my view.
|
t3_2hc5xi | CMV: It is unfair to young girls to praise them on their appearance. | So we always tell little girls that they 'look so pretty in that' or 'what a lovely dress' etc etc. It seems unfair to me as this gives them from a very young and impressionable age the idea that their appearance is a crucial aspect of their personality. It helps perpetuate the idea that women's bodies are for other people's enjoyment and will hurt their self esteem later. It seems like if we didn't do this, we wouldn't have as much of a problem with girls worrying massively about how they look in their teenage years and onwards.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: It is unfair to young girls to praise them on their appearance. So we always tell little girls that they 'look so pretty in that' or 'what a lovely dress' etc etc. It seems unfair to me as this gives them from a very young and impressionable age the idea that their appearance is a crucial aspect of their personality. It helps perpetuate the idea that women's bodies are for other people's enjoyment and will hurt their self esteem later. It seems like if we didn't do this, we wouldn't have as much of a problem with girls worrying massively about how they look in their teenage years and onwards.
|
t3_3xrtp8 | CMV: What we think of as "equality" isn't really equality. | I believe that in our society's effort to make all people (black, women, etc.) equal, it has simply substituted one type of inequality for another. I will start by talking about black people. Obviously, we have come a long way from the days of slavery and segregation, but have we really made black people equal? Rules regarding employment make it more difficult for employers to fire black people on the grounds that it would likely be considered discrimination if they did. It is very easy for a black person to sue a former employer over discrimination when they get fired. It then stands to reason that a potential employer would hesitate to hire a black person because they think that they will not be able to fire them easily. Another point of inequality is the current environment about the police. If a police officer shoots a black man, he will likely be accused of murder and excessive force. This has caused police to work in neighborhoods that are known to have a high crime rate less. I think that the culmination of all these things has led to an environment that is considered to be "equal" but truly is not.
I will also talk about women. Many of the same issues apply, however a key different one applies to divorce. For a couple that gets divorced, the man (or whoever is the primary wage earner, often it is the man) often needs to pay the other up to 50% of their income under the logic that the woman sacrificed her career to advance yours or raise kids. I think that just because a woman has not worked does not mean that she cannot work. I want to be clear, in many cases I do think the woman needs to get some money, but the whole environment has created an inequality that is "politically correct".
Try to change my view, I am interested to hear what you all have to say!
**And let me be very clear, I am in no way prejudiced, I just think that we need true equality, not what we have now. I fully support the advancement of all minority groups as well as women!**
Edit:
I would like to say that political correctness has taken a path toward inequality as well because true equality would take away certain privileges from these groups, making it impossible for PC people to stomach.
> *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: What we think of as "equality" isn't really equality. I believe that in our society's effort to make all people (black, women, etc.) equal, it has simply substituted one type of inequality for another. I will start by talking about black people. Obviously, we have come a long way from the days of slavery and segregation, but have we really made black people equal? Rules regarding employment make it more difficult for employers to fire black people on the grounds that it would likely be considered discrimination if they did. It is very easy for a black person to sue a former employer over discrimination when they get fired. It then stands to reason that a potential employer would hesitate to hire a black person because they think that they will not be able to fire them easily. Another point of inequality is the current environment about the police. If a police officer shoots a black man, he will likely be accused of murder and excessive force. This has caused police to work in neighborhoods that are known to have a high crime rate less. I think that the culmination of all these things has led to an environment that is considered to be "equal" but truly is not.
I will also talk about women. Many of the same issues apply, however a key different one applies to divorce. For a couple that gets divorced, the man (or whoever is the primary wage earner, often it is the man) often needs to pay the other up to 50% of their income under the logic that the woman sacrificed her career to advance yours or raise kids. I think that just because a woman has not worked does not mean that she cannot work. I want to be clear, in many cases I do think the woman needs to get some money, but the whole environment has created an inequality that is "politically correct".
Try to change my view, I am interested to hear what you all have to say!
**And let me be very clear, I am in no way prejudiced, I just think that we need true equality, not what we have now. I fully support the advancement of all minority groups as well as women!**
Edit:
I would like to say that political correctness has taken a path toward inequality as well because true equality would take away certain privileges from these groups, making it impossible for PC people to stomach.
> *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_1m3ytp | I believe men shouldn't cry. CMV | I've been emotionally constipated for like a decade now. I've got depression and I'm working with a therapist to face feelings and thoughts, (I want to get my shit straight). Lately I'm digging bad memories out of the mental box I had to put them in so I can take them one at a time. When processing one and facing those emotions head on, I got tears in my eyes, but they won't leave.
This habit of not allowing myself to cry developed around the time when my parents divorced. I realized I couldn't be crying every single time I missed one of them, so I got good at choking back the lump in my throat. Once in a great while in the privacy of my home,in my room I could cry (when I knew no one would see or hear me). By the time I was a teen though, I only cried maybe once a year, no matter how depressed I got. I drank and smoked dope through high school to keep my emotions out, but a lot of things (mostly girls I liked and the dudes they got with) pissed me off and I wasn't afraid to show it. I whupped the shit out of at least two guys who got with this girl I liked and was going to do the same to another who my girlfriend (of one week) cheated on me with. I feel like girls can get sad, but guys need to get mad.
I'm sober now and realized my emotional constipation is causing most of my problems, and I need to be able to face feelings instead of living in fear of them. So change my view that guys can't cry.
EDIT: Thanks for the help everyone!! I haven't cried today, (mainly because I had stuff to do) but I think I'll be less hesitant to face all the feelings I'm supposed to when the time comes.
UPDATE: I was able to go back and cry in my therapy session today, when I considered all of the input I received, it really helped. It felt kind of like when you hold in your poop for half a day while you're in school or whatever and then get home and unload. Huge weight lifted and I feel more alive somehow. Thanks again for all the help. | I believe men shouldn't cry. CMV. I've been emotionally constipated for like a decade now. I've got depression and I'm working with a therapist to face feelings and thoughts, (I want to get my shit straight). Lately I'm digging bad memories out of the mental box I had to put them in so I can take them one at a time. When processing one and facing those emotions head on, I got tears in my eyes, but they won't leave.
This habit of not allowing myself to cry developed around the time when my parents divorced. I realized I couldn't be crying every single time I missed one of them, so I got good at choking back the lump in my throat. Once in a great while in the privacy of my home,in my room I could cry (when I knew no one would see or hear me). By the time I was a teen though, I only cried maybe once a year, no matter how depressed I got. I drank and smoked dope through high school to keep my emotions out, but a lot of things (mostly girls I liked and the dudes they got with) pissed me off and I wasn't afraid to show it. I whupped the shit out of at least two guys who got with this girl I liked and was going to do the same to another who my girlfriend (of one week) cheated on me with. I feel like girls can get sad, but guys need to get mad.
I'm sober now and realized my emotional constipation is causing most of my problems, and I need to be able to face feelings instead of living in fear of them. So change my view that guys can't cry.
EDIT: Thanks for the help everyone!! I haven't cried today, (mainly because I had stuff to do) but I think I'll be less hesitant to face all the feelings I'm supposed to when the time comes.
UPDATE: I was able to go back and cry in my therapy session today, when I considered all of the input I received, it really helped. It felt kind of like when you hold in your poop for half a day while you're in school or whatever and then get home and unload. Huge weight lifted and I feel more alive somehow. Thanks again for all the help. |
t3_252xaj | CMV: Fair use policies on internet usage are the best option for consumers | There's been a lot of debate about fair use policies in internet data packages that are advertised as "unlimited". A lot of people are angry that they can still hit a soft "fair use" cap in data usage under an unlimited policy.
People also hate hard, advertised data limits on their internet plans.
Once you consider that having truly unlimited data is physically impossible, that only leaves 2 options:
1. A fair use policy where the a small amount of very high data users hit a "soft" data cap.
2. A hard data cap for every user.
Complaining about fair use policies will simply drive companies to institute hard data caps since they cannot possibly provide unlimited data.
I think the fair use policy is better than a hard data cap since it can be managed more elastically.
As an analogy, lots of restaurants advertise "all-you-can-eat" buffets, but that doesn't mean you can literally eat everything in the store. If people started complaining that they are not able to literally eat everything in the store, it would drive restaurants to remove buffets instead of driving them to provide truly unlimited food. | CMV: Fair use policies on internet usage are the best option for consumers. There's been a lot of debate about fair use policies in internet data packages that are advertised as "unlimited". A lot of people are angry that they can still hit a soft "fair use" cap in data usage under an unlimited policy.
People also hate hard, advertised data limits on their internet plans.
Once you consider that having truly unlimited data is physically impossible, that only leaves 2 options:
1. A fair use policy where the a small amount of very high data users hit a "soft" data cap.
2. A hard data cap for every user.
Complaining about fair use policies will simply drive companies to institute hard data caps since they cannot possibly provide unlimited data.
I think the fair use policy is better than a hard data cap since it can be managed more elastically.
As an analogy, lots of restaurants advertise "all-you-can-eat" buffets, but that doesn't mean you can literally eat everything in the store. If people started complaining that they are not able to literally eat everything in the store, it would drive restaurants to remove buffets instead of driving them to provide truly unlimited food. |
t3_4fbl8s | CMV: Music is completely subjective. There is no possible way to prove that one piece of music is better than any other, this will always lead to subjective opinions or extra-musical ideas. | If music WERE objective this would be fantastic for musicians. I would have a concrete set of guidelines to refer back to when composing, I could then measure these qualities in my own music as a standard for how 'good' my piece is.
This is clearly not possible. Any judgement on what makes music good can always be contradicted with a piece of music that doesn't fit that standard.
'Good music must be catchy' 'Good music must be emotional' 'Good music must be melodic'
There will always be musical examples of things generally considered 'good' that don't follow these guidelines.
So if anybody can tell me what objectively makes music good, it would be very useful for me to know! Everybody always acts like they know. | CMV: Music is completely subjective. There is no possible way to prove that one piece of music is better than any other, this will always lead to subjective opinions or extra-musical ideas. If music WERE objective this would be fantastic for musicians. I would have a concrete set of guidelines to refer back to when composing, I could then measure these qualities in my own music as a standard for how 'good' my piece is.
This is clearly not possible. Any judgement on what makes music good can always be contradicted with a piece of music that doesn't fit that standard.
'Good music must be catchy' 'Good music must be emotional' 'Good music must be melodic'
There will always be musical examples of things generally considered 'good' that don't follow these guidelines.
So if anybody can tell me what objectively makes music good, it would be very useful for me to know! Everybody always acts like they know. |
t3_5f8fpz | CMV: I dont believe most current and proposed gun control measures in the US are/will be effectivr | I don't see how the current gun control measures in the US are effective in any meaningful way, or how most proposed ones would be effective. All current ones do is make it much harder for normal honest citizens to acquire firearms, and slightly harder for criminals. Most guns used in crime are already illegal, making the various gun control acts moot, and you cant make them disappear overnight with new legislation. I have a few rifles which are more than a century old, and a few hundred rounds from korea proving the point that guns last a whilr. And while there will be guns taken out of the system due to people being caught with them, ect. , there will always be illegal 1911 clones coming out of countries such as the philippines and pakistan to replenish the market. So, Change My View
Remember the downvote button isnt a "I disagree" button.
_____
> *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 dont believe most current and proposed gun control measures in the US are/will be effectivr. I don't see how the current gun control measures in the US are effective in any meaningful way, or how most proposed ones would be effective. All current ones do is make it much harder for normal honest citizens to acquire firearms, and slightly harder for criminals. Most guns used in crime are already illegal, making the various gun control acts moot, and you cant make them disappear overnight with new legislation. I have a few rifles which are more than a century old, and a few hundred rounds from korea proving the point that guns last a whilr. And while there will be guns taken out of the system due to people being caught with them, ect. , there will always be illegal 1911 clones coming out of countries such as the philippines and pakistan to replenish the market. So, Change My View
Remember the downvote button isnt a "I disagree" button.
|
t3_1z1yov | I think people take to much offence from things not meant to be offensive. CMV | People seem to take too much offence or take it for other people, even when its not meant to be offensive. This causes people to avoid talking about topics because someone may be offended.
An example of this is: Me and my friends were sitting at a table talking in the pub, and he was talking about his experinces with women, and he said in a jokey tone "and that would get me all the bitches" and then laughed. Causing a women (who was in our conversation) to get angry and start shouting at him. However he did not mean it offensively at all, and many other women did not care.
*I realise this is a pretty bad example as it is sexist, but i cant think of a better one.*
I think people need to be less offended by what people say, and take it less to heart, or just deal with it. Especially if its said in a jokey tone, to noone in particular.
[This is steve hughes(comedian) talking about it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fHMoDt3nSHs#t=200) Probably what spawned this thinking in my head.
Edit: Made things clearer. | I think people take to much offence from things not meant to be offensive. CMV. People seem to take too much offence or take it for other people, even when its not meant to be offensive. This causes people to avoid talking about topics because someone may be offended.
An example of this is: Me and my friends were sitting at a table talking in the pub, and he was talking about his experinces with women, and he said in a jokey tone "and that would get me all the bitches" and then laughed. Causing a women (who was in our conversation) to get angry and start shouting at him. However he did not mean it offensively at all, and many other women did not care.
*I realise this is a pretty bad example as it is sexist, but i cant think of a better one.*
I think people need to be less offended by what people say, and take it less to heart, or just deal with it. Especially if its said in a jokey tone, to noone in particular.
[This is steve hughes(comedian) talking about it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fHMoDt3nSHs#t=200) Probably what spawned this thinking in my head.
Edit: Made things clearer. |
t3_6a2fj1 | CMV: Water is not wet, but instead is the cause of wetness. | The definition of "wet" per Google:
>*adj.* covered or saturated with water or another liquid
Wetness is a physical condition of an object defined by being covered or saturated with water or another liquid. It is a state of being. Wetness necessitates saturation with some sort of liquid, be it water or any other. A liquid cannot be saturated or covered with itself, therefore it is not wet, but rather induces wetness upon physical contact.
A shirt becomes wet because the space between fibers becomes saturated with water. The water is trapped by physical compression and electrostatic means, suspended within the porous matrix of the cloth.
The hydrogen bonds between water molecules and those of other objects are the cause of wetness. Water, in the absence of any other molecules, is not wet. It is only through contact and thus electrostatic bonding that water causes wetness.
Water is not wet, it wets.
Update: I've been corrected. | CMV: Water is not wet, but instead is the cause of wetness. The definition of "wet" per Google:
>*adj.* covered or saturated with water or another liquid
Wetness is a physical condition of an object defined by being covered or saturated with water or another liquid. It is a state of being. Wetness necessitates saturation with some sort of liquid, be it water or any other. A liquid cannot be saturated or covered with itself, therefore it is not wet, but rather induces wetness upon physical contact.
A shirt becomes wet because the space between fibers becomes saturated with water. The water is trapped by physical compression and electrostatic means, suspended within the porous matrix of the cloth.
The hydrogen bonds between water molecules and those of other objects are the cause of wetness. Water, in the absence of any other molecules, is not wet. It is only through contact and thus electrostatic bonding that water causes wetness.
Water is not wet, it wets.
Update: I've been corrected. |
t3_1h4vfd | People say my computer addiction is "ruining" my life but I don't think it's a problem. CMV | I am almost 20, been a computer addict for more than 5 years.
I am good at making friends but don't like being around people for longer periods of time. I consider myself to be an introvert, I have never had a girlfriend and only have a few "closer" friends. I enjoy the time spent playing, reading reddit and watching netflix. I enjoy my life as it is. I am studying CS at a uni, and my grades are above avg. My family are afraid that I will not succeed in life without having connections and knowing people. CMV. | People say my computer addiction is "ruining" my life but I don't think it's a problem. CMV. I am almost 20, been a computer addict for more than 5 years.
I am good at making friends but don't like being around people for longer periods of time. I consider myself to be an introvert, I have never had a girlfriend and only have a few "closer" friends. I enjoy the time spent playing, reading reddit and watching netflix. I enjoy my life as it is. I am studying CS at a uni, and my grades are above avg. My family are afraid that I will not succeed in life without having connections and knowing people. CMV. |
t3_21ndc1 | CMV: I believe the military should be treated and funded the same as any other branch of the federal government. | The Pay Our Military Act was passed unanimously, to ensure that--unlike other "essential" federal employees--military employees will get paid for the work they do. I realize I'm about to become even less popular, but here it goes: I support our troops, just like I support elder healthcare, prisons, libraries and roads. It's called taxes. What makes me tired are the seemingly limitless military exceptions, exemptions, and dispensations, or being guilted into feeling like I'm an awful person for criticizing someone for doing something who happens to have a deployed spouse, etc. I don't see the difference. In this day of a voluntary service, military service is a job (I understand the individual may see it as more than that, but that holds true for a lot of other people as well). It happens to be more dangerous than most jobs, but they knew that going in. The thanks they get is their salary and, what I consider to be, an unbelievable pension. If they have to go to work, like other essential federal employees, without getting paid--welcome to government service under this Congress. Surely there is one Congressperson or Senator that feels the same way? Apparently not. (And I don't hate America.) | CMV: I believe the military should be treated and funded the same as any other branch of the federal government. The Pay Our Military Act was passed unanimously, to ensure that--unlike other "essential" federal employees--military employees will get paid for the work they do. I realize I'm about to become even less popular, but here it goes: I support our troops, just like I support elder healthcare, prisons, libraries and roads. It's called taxes. What makes me tired are the seemingly limitless military exceptions, exemptions, and dispensations, or being guilted into feeling like I'm an awful person for criticizing someone for doing something who happens to have a deployed spouse, etc. I don't see the difference. In this day of a voluntary service, military service is a job (I understand the individual may see it as more than that, but that holds true for a lot of other people as well). It happens to be more dangerous than most jobs, but they knew that going in. The thanks they get is their salary and, what I consider to be, an unbelievable pension. If they have to go to work, like other essential federal employees, without getting paid--welcome to government service under this Congress. Surely there is one Congressperson or Senator that feels the same way? Apparently not. (And I don't hate America.) |
t3_2ahdyc | CMV: Golf is a game of skill, not a sport. | Golf is not a game that requires any physical prowess. This is why it can be played easily by senior citizens and overweight people. It is no different than billiards, bowling, darts, or any other game of skill. It does not require any physical athleticism or physical dexterity. It doesn't require major strength, cardio-vascular fitness, major flexibility, endurance, but simply hand-eye coordination. I know that there's a semantic definition of what a sport is, and I am not arguing that it doesn't meet the semantic definition that society has made for a sport, but I don't believe that it should be considered a sport alongside others. Phil Mickelson should not be considered "an athlete." He is just a professional golfer.
_____
> *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: Golf is a game of skill, not a sport. Golf is not a game that requires any physical prowess. This is why it can be played easily by senior citizens and overweight people. It is no different than billiards, bowling, darts, or any other game of skill. It does not require any physical athleticism or physical dexterity. It doesn't require major strength, cardio-vascular fitness, major flexibility, endurance, but simply hand-eye coordination. I know that there's a semantic definition of what a sport is, and I am not arguing that it doesn't meet the semantic definition that society has made for a sport, but I don't believe that it should be considered a sport alongside others. Phil Mickelson should not be considered "an athlete." He is just a professional golfer.
|
t3_1jod7d | I Cannot Accept That I Will Eventually Die, CMV. | I am solipsistic (the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist). I therefore cannot believe that I will die, because if I die, then everyone else ceases to exist with me and my thoughts. I do not understand how I can die when everything relies on me, even if it is just in my head. I also believe that once someone leaves my sight, they no longer exist, much like a video game rendering system. Once an object leaves the view of the player, the computer no longer renders it and as far as the computer is concerned, it is no longer there until the player looks at it again. The evidence for this theory is almost non-existent as you cannot prove or disprove solipsism, my goal here is to change my view so that I can live a happier life and stop thinking about death all the time. | I Cannot Accept That I Will Eventually Die, CMV. I am solipsistic (the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist). I therefore cannot believe that I will die, because if I die, then everyone else ceases to exist with me and my thoughts. I do not understand how I can die when everything relies on me, even if it is just in my head. I also believe that once someone leaves my sight, they no longer exist, much like a video game rendering system. Once an object leaves the view of the player, the computer no longer renders it and as far as the computer is concerned, it is no longer there until the player looks at it again. The evidence for this theory is almost non-existent as you cannot prove or disprove solipsism, my goal here is to change my view so that I can live a happier life and stop thinking about death all the time. |
t3_2r82dn | CMV: Human nature makes Communism impossible | Communism with no social classes, private property or money.
But this is why I am a communist-skeptic. 'Money'. If it is gone then people surely do things for the survival and improvement of the human race, rather than profit.
But it is never gone, because money is anything that is exchanged for something else, or gives you leverage over another. Even social capital is currency. As soon as anyone has a bit more respect, bam, that person has more currency than you.
The issue comes because it is human nature to take, and with billions of people, there will always people who will take more. They will use that social capital to raise themselves and their supportive few above the rest and TAKE more. The only way to quell this would be through the rest of the 'equals' at that moment in time, removing them from society, through imprisonment, banishment, or even killing. But by my current day ethics, communism surely then doesn't work?
We are capitalist by nature, thus communism is impossible. Whilst capitalism is rough at best, socialism is a cushion for the inevitable ups and downs of a monetary system...
We learn the most when we listen to those who disagree. so...change my view.
UPDATE: Thank you all for your time and your replies, unfortunately my view has not been changed; thank you :)
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: Human nature makes Communism impossible. Communism with no social classes, private property or money.
But this is why I am a communist-skeptic. 'Money'. If it is gone then people surely do things for the survival and improvement of the human race, rather than profit.
But it is never gone, because money is anything that is exchanged for something else, or gives you leverage over another. Even social capital is currency. As soon as anyone has a bit more respect, bam, that person has more currency than you.
The issue comes because it is human nature to take, and with billions of people, there will always people who will take more. They will use that social capital to raise themselves and their supportive few above the rest and TAKE more. The only way to quell this would be through the rest of the 'equals' at that moment in time, removing them from society, through imprisonment, banishment, or even killing. But by my current day ethics, communism surely then doesn't work?
We are capitalist by nature, thus communism is impossible. Whilst capitalism is rough at best, socialism is a cushion for the inevitable ups and downs of a monetary system...
We learn the most when we listen to those who disagree. so...change my view.
UPDATE: Thank you all for your time and your replies, unfortunately my view has not been changed; thank you :)
|
t3_1k1ppl | I don't think that knowing how to code is going to give you a job in 10 years time. CMV | Today *a lot* of "experts" and ministers of education talk about the importance of teaching kids / youth to code because they estimate something like 1.5mill-2million jobs will need these skills in the near future.
And so obviously people think that this is a "guaranteed job oppourtunity"
But I don't think this is how it'll pan out.
Programming only requires a simple computer you can buy for $30 in India.
So I am 100% sure that the big companies will outsource these jobs to India/China.
It'll simply cost way too much to pay full wage in US/Europe when you can have just as hard working people do it for 1/10 of the price and there is literaly no bi-costs since it's all software. No shipping or material needed. | I don't think that knowing how to code is going to give you a job in 10 years time. CMV. Today *a lot* of "experts" and ministers of education talk about the importance of teaching kids / youth to code because they estimate something like 1.5mill-2million jobs will need these skills in the near future.
And so obviously people think that this is a "guaranteed job oppourtunity"
But I don't think this is how it'll pan out.
Programming only requires a simple computer you can buy for $30 in India.
So I am 100% sure that the big companies will outsource these jobs to India/China.
It'll simply cost way too much to pay full wage in US/Europe when you can have just as hard working people do it for 1/10 of the price and there is literaly no bi-costs since it's all software. No shipping or material needed. |
t3_3y0jt5 | CMV: People with serious genetic diseases/disabilities should not be allowed to have kids | I know it seems harsh, but it seems to me like having kids knowing that they will probably be disabled or seriously sick is no different than deliberately hurting them. It's extremely unfair to the child who has to live with this condition just because his parents wanted to have a kid. I know the police can't just go into people's bedrooms and stop them from having sex and getting pregnant, but you know, there should be some something that stops people from knowingly putting a kid through that life.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: People with serious genetic diseases/disabilities should not be allowed to have kids. I know it seems harsh, but it seems to me like having kids knowing that they will probably be disabled or seriously sick is no different than deliberately hurting them. It's extremely unfair to the child who has to live with this condition just because his parents wanted to have a kid. I know the police can't just go into people's bedrooms and stop them from having sex and getting pregnant, but you know, there should be some something that stops people from knowingly putting a kid through that life. |
t3_1ucj9u | I feel that the majority of arguments offered by people on CMV and any forum of debate in general exist in an imaginary abstract space with little application to the real world and are thus mostly a waste of time. CMV. | This feeling has occurred to me as a result of my participation in another thread here today. It will be easiest for me to explain what I mean by making reference to a couple of the arguments posted there.
>I feel if that was the case, the 90% should get bitchslapped upside the head with some knowledge. I don't think we should necessarily punish the ignorant, but we shouldn't indulge it either.
(^ This was in response to the fact that over 90% of pollees support mandatory GMO labeling.)
>This "freedom of determination" that you speak of is exactly what's wrong with the world, if we have to restrict the information of GM food so that people will eat them, so be it. Your "freedom of determination" will always lead to long term negative impacts.
These two posts display pretty clearly what I am driving at. In the real world, things are the way they are because *that's what works*. It is my experience that any time I find myself getting involved in political discussions, people get caught up in their argument without actually going into or even considering how that argument might be enacted or applied in the real world.
A fine example of this is the entire Occupy Wall Street movement. The core statement of that entire movement was basically, "Things are this way, but they **SHOULD** be *that* way--so we're gonna sit around until they are."
"Should" is the bane of meaningful discussion. Anytime someone says things "should" be a certain way, in your head you can replace the word with "can", and you quickly find that the statement is false. Yeah, great, everyone *should* have all their basic needs met, everyone *should* be fed and healthy and happy. But not everyone *can* be, because there is no **working** way fathomable to get there and sustain it. Until there is, until you actually have that method and system figured out, it is completely useless to bring it up at all.
The two posts I quoted above show a shocking failure to understand actual reality, because if you try to imagine either as being actually implemented in the real world, you can only get there by eradicating democracy and leaving decisions up to a select group, ***and that has never worked out in all of history***. You can't have everything be democratic except this one decision, or that one decision. It's all or nothing. Therefore, bringing up **anything** that isn't "90% of the people want it and so they must have it" requires you to put an oligarchy in place. Just because the thing 90% of people want might be negative doesn't mean the alternative is better. You *have* to accept the bad with the good, because that's the real world, that's what democracy is, and that's the only way things *work*.
Am I making my point clear? | I feel that the majority of arguments offered by people on CMV and any forum of debate in general exist in an imaginary abstract space with little application to the real world and are thus mostly a waste of time. CMV. This feeling has occurred to me as a result of my participation in another thread here today. It will be easiest for me to explain what I mean by making reference to a couple of the arguments posted there.
>I feel if that was the case, the 90% should get bitchslapped upside the head with some knowledge. I don't think we should necessarily punish the ignorant, but we shouldn't indulge it either.
(^ This was in response to the fact that over 90% of pollees support mandatory GMO labeling.)
>This "freedom of determination" that you speak of is exactly what's wrong with the world, if we have to restrict the information of GM food so that people will eat them, so be it. Your "freedom of determination" will always lead to long term negative impacts.
These two posts display pretty clearly what I am driving at. In the real world, things are the way they are because *that's what works*. It is my experience that any time I find myself getting involved in political discussions, people get caught up in their argument without actually going into or even considering how that argument might be enacted or applied in the real world.
A fine example of this is the entire Occupy Wall Street movement. The core statement of that entire movement was basically, "Things are this way, but they **SHOULD** be *that* way--so we're gonna sit around until they are."
"Should" is the bane of meaningful discussion. Anytime someone says things "should" be a certain way, in your head you can replace the word with "can", and you quickly find that the statement is false. Yeah, great, everyone *should* have all their basic needs met, everyone *should* be fed and healthy and happy. But not everyone *can* be, because there is no **working** way fathomable to get there and sustain it. Until there is, until you actually have that method and system figured out, it is completely useless to bring it up at all.
The two posts I quoted above show a shocking failure to understand actual reality, because if you try to imagine either as being actually implemented in the real world, you can only get there by eradicating democracy and leaving decisions up to a select group, ***and that has never worked out in all of history***. You can't have everything be democratic except this one decision, or that one decision. It's all or nothing. Therefore, bringing up **anything** that isn't "90% of the people want it and so they must have it" requires you to put an oligarchy in place. Just because the thing 90% of people want might be negative doesn't mean the alternative is better. You *have* to accept the bad with the good, because that's the real world, that's what democracy is, and that's the only way things *work*.
Am I making my point clear? |
t3_1n5trr | I believe iran is (currently) more peaceful than Israel. CMV. | **edit:**
it's been pointed out that "peaceful" is probably the wrong word.
It probably should have been "less aggressive" or "more mature", "more interested in resolving problems" or something.
----
For starters, the newly elected Iranian president seems to be very modest an on a mission to fix relationship with the west, even though the Iranian people would have every reason to be pissed at the US for the foreseeable future.
You can clearly see that he is serious about it, by looking at how and with who he set up government official positions. The devastating economical situation makes it a necessity, too. You will find that US experts agree to this.
Now, this modest President gives a very speech...and the only thing the Israeli delegation can think of is leaving the room. What kind of message does that send?
A day later, the official twitter account of the Israeli embassy sends out this goodie:
[https://twitter.com/IsraelinUSA/status/382281992701607938/photo/1](https://twitter.com/IsraelinUSA/status/382281992701607938/photo/1)
which can only be described as the cheapest of propaganda. And again: what kind of message does this send?
Sure, "the iran will be judged by its deeds, not by its word". Yes. I get it. But there is nothing wrong with encouraging the words with your own words, right?
No one is talking about lifting the sanctions, or anything. And it doesn't have to be words. Just staying in the room while he talks would be a start, too.
But certainly, no **rebuffing** is in order?
**the wiping off the map thing**
this is a common argument. Ama*chad supposedly claimed Israel needed to be wiped off the map. Firstly, there was a translation mistake and if you read the fixed version, you fill find it's much less evil. Second, A*chad was just a complete nut job. One cannot use everything he ever said forever against the entire Iran under a new government.
**the nuclear program**
Israel claims (for how many decades now?) that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. to be honest: if i was an Iranian politician, i'd want to be a nuclear power, too. Friend kimjong shows what kind of shit you can then afford to pull of.
But US intelligence reports suggest that the Iran is either very far away from a bomb, or not working at it at all.
Unlike Israel, Iran signed the anti-nuclear weapons treaty. The treaty, however, also guarantees the Iran the right to do nuclear research for civil purposes. Stopping the entire program would be a breach of international law. (as is bombing of sovereign state...)
Also note that the sanctions came **before** Iran denied international inspectors access to its nuclear facilities. It was a response **to** the sanctions, **not** the other way around.
**israel**
it is obvious, that Iran wont and cant attack a nuclear power like Israel. Therefore, i see no major threat there.
On the other side, Israel repeatedly toys with the thought of bombing Iran (knowing they cant strike back). However, as mentioned above, this would be illegal, as its purpose would be to stop the entire nuclear program.
Also: remember when Mossad assassins shot and bombed key Iranian nuclear scientists? Didnt exactly help the situation either.
Think about what the world would say when Iranian secret service started to shoot israeli civilians in broad daylight in Tel Aviv.
----
I'd like to stress that i only address Israel-Iran, not at all the situation with the Palestinians. That is a different story.
Also note that i lived in Israel for two years. | I believe iran is (currently) more peaceful than Israel. CMV. **edit:**
it's been pointed out that "peaceful" is probably the wrong word.
It probably should have been "less aggressive" or "more mature", "more interested in resolving problems" or something.
----
For starters, the newly elected Iranian president seems to be very modest an on a mission to fix relationship with the west, even though the Iranian people would have every reason to be pissed at the US for the foreseeable future.
You can clearly see that he is serious about it, by looking at how and with who he set up government official positions. The devastating economical situation makes it a necessity, too. You will find that US experts agree to this.
Now, this modest President gives a very speech...and the only thing the Israeli delegation can think of is leaving the room. What kind of message does that send?
A day later, the official twitter account of the Israeli embassy sends out this goodie:
[https://twitter.com/IsraelinUSA/status/382281992701607938/photo/1](https://twitter.com/IsraelinUSA/status/382281992701607938/photo/1)
which can only be described as the cheapest of propaganda. And again: what kind of message does this send?
Sure, "the iran will be judged by its deeds, not by its word". Yes. I get it. But there is nothing wrong with encouraging the words with your own words, right?
No one is talking about lifting the sanctions, or anything. And it doesn't have to be words. Just staying in the room while he talks would be a start, too.
But certainly, no **rebuffing** is in order?
**the wiping off the map thing**
this is a common argument. Ama*chad supposedly claimed Israel needed to be wiped off the map. Firstly, there was a translation mistake and if you read the fixed version, you fill find it's much less evil. Second, A*chad was just a complete nut job. One cannot use everything he ever said forever against the entire Iran under a new government.
**the nuclear program**
Israel claims (for how many decades now?) that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. to be honest: if i was an Iranian politician, i'd want to be a nuclear power, too. Friend kimjong shows what kind of shit you can then afford to pull of.
But US intelligence reports suggest that the Iran is either very far away from a bomb, or not working at it at all.
Unlike Israel, Iran signed the anti-nuclear weapons treaty. The treaty, however, also guarantees the Iran the right to do nuclear research for civil purposes. Stopping the entire program would be a breach of international law. (as is bombing of sovereign state...)
Also note that the sanctions came **before** Iran denied international inspectors access to its nuclear facilities. It was a response **to** the sanctions, **not** the other way around.
**israel**
it is obvious, that Iran wont and cant attack a nuclear power like Israel. Therefore, i see no major threat there.
On the other side, Israel repeatedly toys with the thought of bombing Iran (knowing they cant strike back). However, as mentioned above, this would be illegal, as its purpose would be to stop the entire nuclear program.
Also: remember when Mossad assassins shot and bombed key Iranian nuclear scientists? Didnt exactly help the situation either.
Think about what the world would say when Iranian secret service started to shoot israeli civilians in broad daylight in Tel Aviv.
----
I'd like to stress that i only address Israel-Iran, not at all the situation with the Palestinians. That is a different story.
Also note that i lived in Israel for two years. |
t3_1telg2 | I Believe That High Schoolers (Mainly 16 and Up) Are Babied Far Too Much. CMV | Yes, I'm a high school senior. I take school seriously and don't do any of things I think kids are babied for. Just some observations
I believe that if you can drop out of school at 16, then if you elect to stay in, the school should not be babying you.
Examples
-If someone wants to use their cellphone quietly in class, provided that it doesn't distract others (making sounds, etc) its stupid for the teacher to intervene.
-If someone wants to not hand in homework, etc, there should be no consequences. Their consequence is that they fail/do poorly.
-If someone wants to do work from another class and/or not pay attention, that's their prerogative.
-Gym is a ridiculous requirement. Kids should be preparing for college/work in their last years of high school, and gym does ZERO toward either.
-If they want to skip classes, they should be able to pass the classes provided that they pass by doing well on homework, tests, etc, and skipping shouldn't be a factor.
I believe that it is fair though to have teachers decide these policies for their individual classes. But these would be my policies if I were a teacher. I just think that school wide policies against skipping and cell phones are ridiculous. People 16 and above are not required to be in school, so its time to treat them like adults.
I don't know. It might just be my high school (which is a public school) but I hear other schools have similar policies.
Oh, and oddly enough, I am a very liberal progressive guy. I still believe schools should provide a good education and should receive a lot of funding, I just think at a certain point its time to treat young people like adults.
EDIT: Here's a study I've observed
Both Classes I'm Describing Are Honors/AP classes, so the same type of student is in both. These are both real-life classes I'm taking right now.
HISTORY CLASS:
As an example, my history teacher this year has this philosophy. He has sort of communicated that he turns a blind eye to cellphones if they're not distracting, in contrast with the policy. He won't force you to do well in the class.
And this teacher is one of the best that I've had in recent memory. No one ever uses their cellphones, or doesn't pay attention, or anything like that. I believe that its not just because he's a good teacher. I think its also because he treats students as adults, and that has created a sense of respect between the teacher and students.
MATH CLASS:
This teacher has the direct opposite policy of my history teacher. She takes away cellphones on the first offense, and will call you out for not doing your work, not paying attention, or doing other work in her class. As a result, I constantly see people doing these things. I believe that its partially because of the fact that she doesn't treat students as adults.
| I Believe That High Schoolers (Mainly 16 and Up) Are Babied Far Too Much. CMV. Yes, I'm a high school senior. I take school seriously and don't do any of things I think kids are babied for. Just some observations
I believe that if you can drop out of school at 16, then if you elect to stay in, the school should not be babying you.
Examples
-If someone wants to use their cellphone quietly in class, provided that it doesn't distract others (making sounds, etc) its stupid for the teacher to intervene.
-If someone wants to not hand in homework, etc, there should be no consequences. Their consequence is that they fail/do poorly.
-If someone wants to do work from another class and/or not pay attention, that's their prerogative.
-Gym is a ridiculous requirement. Kids should be preparing for college/work in their last years of high school, and gym does ZERO toward either.
-If they want to skip classes, they should be able to pass the classes provided that they pass by doing well on homework, tests, etc, and skipping shouldn't be a factor.
I believe that it is fair though to have teachers decide these policies for their individual classes. But these would be my policies if I were a teacher. I just think that school wide policies against skipping and cell phones are ridiculous. People 16 and above are not required to be in school, so its time to treat them like adults.
I don't know. It might just be my high school (which is a public school) but I hear other schools have similar policies.
Oh, and oddly enough, I am a very liberal progressive guy. I still believe schools should provide a good education and should receive a lot of funding, I just think at a certain point its time to treat young people like adults.
EDIT: Here's a study I've observed
Both Classes I'm Describing Are Honors/AP classes, so the same type of student is in both. These are both real-life classes I'm taking right now.
HISTORY CLASS:
As an example, my history teacher this year has this philosophy. He has sort of communicated that he turns a blind eye to cellphones if they're not distracting, in contrast with the policy. He won't force you to do well in the class.
And this teacher is one of the best that I've had in recent memory. No one ever uses their cellphones, or doesn't pay attention, or anything like that. I believe that its not just because he's a good teacher. I think its also because he treats students as adults, and that has created a sense of respect between the teacher and students.
MATH CLASS:
This teacher has the direct opposite policy of my history teacher. She takes away cellphones on the first offense, and will call you out for not doing your work, not paying attention, or doing other work in her class. As a result, I constantly see people doing these things. I believe that its partially because of the fact that she doesn't treat students as adults.
|
t3_1ps084 | I believe that it is wrong and untrue to call people who commit suicide by rail "selfish". CMV. | To give you some context I am a commuter in the United Kingdom and every once in a while a dreaded announcement will say that there are delays (these are usually ranging from around 30min-3hours) due to a person being hit by a train. This inevitably leads to many other commuters muttering to themselves or complaining loudly to others about how such people are "selfish". I believe this is wrong as many of these commuters will most likely (thankfully as well) feel the way that person did when he stood in front of that train and can therefore not comment on such events with any kind of understanding of what truly went on. I also understand that there are further consequences of this persons actions such as the effect on the driver's mental health, however if you are in the position of taking your life I do not believe you are making rational decisions.
Edit: Having thought about your comments over the day I have concluded to myself that the people who commit suicide are by definition selfish, as in they do not consider the consequences of their actions on others. Yet I still hold the belief that is not the fault of the person but the situation that drove them there. | I believe that it is wrong and untrue to call people who commit suicide by rail "selfish". CMV. To give you some context I am a commuter in the United Kingdom and every once in a while a dreaded announcement will say that there are delays (these are usually ranging from around 30min-3hours) due to a person being hit by a train. This inevitably leads to many other commuters muttering to themselves or complaining loudly to others about how such people are "selfish". I believe this is wrong as many of these commuters will most likely (thankfully as well) feel the way that person did when he stood in front of that train and can therefore not comment on such events with any kind of understanding of what truly went on. I also understand that there are further consequences of this persons actions such as the effect on the driver's mental health, however if you are in the position of taking your life I do not believe you are making rational decisions.
Edit: Having thought about your comments over the day I have concluded to myself that the people who commit suicide are by definition selfish, as in they do not consider the consequences of their actions on others. Yet I still hold the belief that is not the fault of the person but the situation that drove them there. |
t3_1tno9c | I think that outside of a select few protections, government intervention in the way companies run their own businesses is wrong. CMV | The few protections are child labor laws and enforcement of contracts.
Everyone seems to turn to government and rally around the ideas of a higher minimum wage, more vacation time, etc etc etc. I think its wrong for the government to tell anyone how to run their business. If I am an employer, and an employee doesn't like the way I run things, he can quit, a union can strike, or he can negotiate a compromise. The government coming in and trying to micromanage things only makes things worse and greatly restricts freedom.
I do believe in Child Labor laws only because children are by definition not adults, and I feel they're not mature enough to be able to make decisions of this nature well enough.
The enforcement of contracts are essentially there to keep companies from screwing employees out of time already worked.
But yeah - a company has a policy you don't like? Quit, unionize, or deal with it. The government bossing people around is just restricting liberty and has no place in private business | I think that outside of a select few protections, government intervention in the way companies run their own businesses is wrong. CMV. The few protections are child labor laws and enforcement of contracts.
Everyone seems to turn to government and rally around the ideas of a higher minimum wage, more vacation time, etc etc etc. I think its wrong for the government to tell anyone how to run their business. If I am an employer, and an employee doesn't like the way I run things, he can quit, a union can strike, or he can negotiate a compromise. The government coming in and trying to micromanage things only makes things worse and greatly restricts freedom.
I do believe in Child Labor laws only because children are by definition not adults, and I feel they're not mature enough to be able to make decisions of this nature well enough.
The enforcement of contracts are essentially there to keep companies from screwing employees out of time already worked.
But yeah - a company has a policy you don't like? Quit, unionize, or deal with it. The government bossing people around is just restricting liberty and has no place in private business |
t3_1bc9zc | CMV. I can't justify the amount of money I, and everyon else, spend on stupid useless luxuries like xbox games and bongs while the same money could go to feed a starving person. | Are we all just kidding ourselves thinking we're halfway decent people, or is there some philosophical/ethical justification why this disparity in how the world's resources are distributed is fair? | CMV. I can't justify the amount of money I, and everyon else, spend on stupid useless luxuries like xbox games and bongs while the same money could go to feed a starving person. Are we all just kidding ourselves thinking we're halfway decent people, or is there some philosophical/ethical justification why this disparity in how the world's resources are distributed is fair? |
t3_6mj530 | CMV: I should just live large(er) now rather than aggressively focus on saving for retirement because 401Ks and IRAs will be taxed heavily in the future. |
I am a millennial trying to save for retirement. I don't have a 401K, but I have been putting money into a Roth IRA. I have become discouraged, though. I think that there is little hope I can count on having a comfortable retirement and large nest-egg when I want to retire, because I believe that in the future, 401Ks and IRAs will be heavily taxed. I also have 0 faith I will get *any* Social Security. That program is *going* to go under well before I retire.
Why do I think this? My generation is really struggling breaking into the workforce. There is rampant unemployment in my age group. What does this mean? Very, very few millennials are saving for retirement. What is going to happen when we all grow old and 80% of us don't have 401Ks, IRAs, and Social Security is broken? They will *gladly* tax my IRA and 401K that I diligently built up over the years, perhaps to put funds in a new national retirement program.
I know I am very lucky to have a job at my age, and have the ability to save for retirement. But I really think that my generation is screwed, and taxing 401Ks is something they will gladly support as a means of income redistribution.
So given that, I think, fuck it. Why make myself live such a spartan existence trying to save for retirement. I should probably save enough for emergency funds, and a only 20% of what I am saving now for retirement and just live large and enjoy my good years while I still can.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | CMV: I should just live large(er) now rather than aggressively focus on saving for retirement because 401Ks and IRAs will be taxed heavily in the future.
I am a millennial trying to save for retirement. I don't have a 401K, but I have been putting money into a Roth IRA. I have become discouraged, though. I think that there is little hope I can count on having a comfortable retirement and large nest-egg when I want to retire, because I believe that in the future, 401Ks and IRAs will be heavily taxed. I also have 0 faith I will get *any* Social Security. That program is *going* to go under well before I retire.
Why do I think this? My generation is really struggling breaking into the workforce. There is rampant unemployment in my age group. What does this mean? Very, very few millennials are saving for retirement. What is going to happen when we all grow old and 80% of us don't have 401Ks, IRAs, and Social Security is broken? They will *gladly* tax my IRA and 401K that I diligently built up over the years, perhaps to put funds in a new national retirement program.
I know I am very lucky to have a job at my age, and have the ability to save for retirement. But I really think that my generation is screwed, and taxing 401Ks is something they will gladly support as a means of income redistribution.
So given that, I think, fuck it. Why make myself live such a spartan existence trying to save for retirement. I should probably save enough for emergency funds, and a only 20% of what I am saving now for retirement and just live large and enjoy my good years while I still can.
|
t3_4r9nvl | CMV:Brock Turner's punishment was not too lenient | I know I'm a bit too late, but I was thinking about it rationally. Would giving him a harsher punishment really solve the problem?
1)Prisons in the US are generally known to make people worse because of what bad environments they are. It is doubtful that a harsher punishment would rehabilitate him with a system like in the US.
2)He's listed as a sex offender, that alone is harsh enough punishment. He's basically stigmatized for life.
3)It was his first offense, he was not a serial offender.
4)It is unlikely that "lenient punishments" like that will encourage other rapists, simply because I don't think his punishment was lenient. Think about the stigma that comes from him being listed as a sex offender+ being all over the media. Will this guy ever have a chance to a normal life? His life is essentially ruined forever. Rapists know the punishment that comes with their actions will be harsh, they do it anyway because they think they will get away with it. Giving him 6 months in prison, or 10 years makes no difference when you're stigmatized forever.
Please, read the details of the case before replying. Do not reply, if you don't know exactly what happened.
| CMV:Brock Turner's punishment was not too lenient. I know I'm a bit too late, but I was thinking about it rationally. Would giving him a harsher punishment really solve the problem?
1)Prisons in the US are generally known to make people worse because of what bad environments they are. It is doubtful that a harsher punishment would rehabilitate him with a system like in the US.
2)He's listed as a sex offender, that alone is harsh enough punishment. He's basically stigmatized for life.
3)It was his first offense, he was not a serial offender.
4)It is unlikely that "lenient punishments" like that will encourage other rapists, simply because I don't think his punishment was lenient. Think about the stigma that comes from him being listed as a sex offender+ being all over the media. Will this guy ever have a chance to a normal life? His life is essentially ruined forever. Rapists know the punishment that comes with their actions will be harsh, they do it anyway because they think they will get away with it. Giving him 6 months in prison, or 10 years makes no difference when you're stigmatized forever.
Please, read the details of the case before replying. Do not reply, if you don't know exactly what happened.
|
t3_30r7tq | CMV: It Should Be A Practice To Regularly Repost The Best Content From /r/pics To /r/pic In An Effort To Make That Sub The Default For High Quality Pictures. | I like the idea of starting /r/pic as a way to offer an option for people who want a tightly focused sub about high quality pictures. But the problem seems to be that really great pictures will still get posted to /r/pics on a regular basis because it has all of the momentum. So I find I still need to subscribe to both anyways. And secondly, /r/pic also seems to suffer from being too conservative. It seems people are almost afraid to post or upvote any picture that isn't life-changingly impressive, because they are all afraid of tainting /r/pic with the same disease they were running from.
I think this could be solved by making it a practice for users to regularly repost the best from /r/pics to /r/pic. That would make it much easier for those of us who want a well-modded sub for pictures to migrate over to /r/pic alone.
Or they could just update the rules for /r/pics and enforce the subject matter better... | CMV: It Should Be A Practice To Regularly Repost The Best Content From /r/pics To /r/pic In An Effort To Make That Sub The Default For High Quality Pictures. I like the idea of starting /r/pic as a way to offer an option for people who want a tightly focused sub about high quality pictures. But the problem seems to be that really great pictures will still get posted to /r/pics on a regular basis because it has all of the momentum. So I find I still need to subscribe to both anyways. And secondly, /r/pic also seems to suffer from being too conservative. It seems people are almost afraid to post or upvote any picture that isn't life-changingly impressive, because they are all afraid of tainting /r/pic with the same disease they were running from.
I think this could be solved by making it a practice for users to regularly repost the best from /r/pics to /r/pic. That would make it much easier for those of us who want a well-modded sub for pictures to migrate over to /r/pic alone.
Or they could just update the rules for /r/pics and enforce the subject matter better... |
t3_2dcw2w | CMV: I think if you do not vote in elections, you have no right complaining about current affairs | [Note that I do of course believe you have a literal RIGHT to complain without voting]
I think it's wrong of you if you're a student complaining about student debt and you don't vote. Even if neither party is trying to stop this problem, because if students are making up a larger proportion of the voters, then the parties will be encouraged to do things that encourage students to vote for them.
I understand that individual votes are unlikely to affect the outcome, but it can still have an affect. If parties see that a certain group of people are voting, they're encouraged to have policies supporting that group.
_____
> *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 if you do not vote in elections, you have no right complaining about current affairs. [Note that I do of course believe you have a literal RIGHT to complain without voting]
I think it's wrong of you if you're a student complaining about student debt and you don't vote. Even if neither party is trying to stop this problem, because if students are making up a larger proportion of the voters, then the parties will be encouraged to do things that encourage students to vote for them.
I understand that individual votes are unlikely to affect the outcome, but it can still have an affect. If parties see that a certain group of people are voting, they're encouraged to have policies supporting that group.
|
t3_3zx2md | CMV: There's no reason to not allow students calculators/formula sheets. | Bit of background, I'm in university, taking a introductory calculus course, where calculators and formula sheets aren't allowed. I'm also a tech head, so I see this as moving backwards.
I can understand the 4th grade teacher's argument for mental math. Basic addition/multiplication is great for finding deals at supermarkets. Even when you have a calculator on you. However, I do not see this reasoning carrying over to advanced math. You just don't use it enough in daily life to memorise it. And on the off chance you do end up using it a lot, you will just end up memorising it anyways. The need to memorise it while learning though, serves no purpose for those that just need their math credit to move on. We live in a society where calculators can be on watches, let alone our phones. Advanced math just isn't used enough in most fields of study to justify the memorisation of everything. Hell, I can even have formulas on my watch without issue. | CMV: There's no reason to not allow students calculators/formula sheets. Bit of background, I'm in university, taking a introductory calculus course, where calculators and formula sheets aren't allowed. I'm also a tech head, so I see this as moving backwards.
I can understand the 4th grade teacher's argument for mental math. Basic addition/multiplication is great for finding deals at supermarkets. Even when you have a calculator on you. However, I do not see this reasoning carrying over to advanced math. You just don't use it enough in daily life to memorise it. And on the off chance you do end up using it a lot, you will just end up memorising it anyways. The need to memorise it while learning though, serves no purpose for those that just need their math credit to move on. We live in a society where calculators can be on watches, let alone our phones. Advanced math just isn't used enough in most fields of study to justify the memorisation of everything. Hell, I can even have formulas on my watch without issue. |
t3_1jxv4y | I'm not comfortable giving my friends rides to their houses and such, I feel like they then owe me a favor or a ride in return. CMV. | It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Please change my view.
~~It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.~~
| I'm not comfortable giving my friends rides to their houses and such, I feel like they then owe me a favor or a ride in return. CMV. It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Please change my view.
~~It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.
It makes me feel terrible when I go out of my way to give someone a ride, I feel like I'm taking money out of my pocket (for gas) and I should be angry them for it. I even tell myself that I don't need them as a friend if I have to go so far out of my way to do it. I guess because I'm frugal but I hate being like this. Plllease change my view.~~
|
t3_3oqejx | CMV: Zero Tolerance policies in schools are a necessary part of keeping our children safe during school hours. | So I am posting this because I have had many debates with friends and family about this topic. I view Zero Tolerance as a necessary part of schools rules. This should keep kids safe during school and keep them away from anything "distracting" at school. Mostly what I am talking about is the Zero Tolerance for drugs, guns, fighting, bullying, and alcohol. Most people I know think that this system is flawed, but I think that it is the way it is for a specific purpose. Should we change this policy or keep it the same?
_____
> *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: Zero Tolerance policies in schools are a necessary part of keeping our children safe during school hours. So I am posting this because I have had many debates with friends and family about this topic. I view Zero Tolerance as a necessary part of schools rules. This should keep kids safe during school and keep them away from anything "distracting" at school. Mostly what I am talking about is the Zero Tolerance for drugs, guns, fighting, bullying, and alcohol. Most people I know think that this system is flawed, but I think that it is the way it is for a specific purpose. Should we change this policy or keep it the same? |
t3_1no8bj | I think there are no such things as company culture or brand values CMV | I belief the only purpose a company has is to make profit and grow. There are no such things as Brand values or company culture which serve as a higher purpose for the employees to work for and with which customers can identify.
What is considered as company culture or brand values are merely certain images a company uses to make more money.
Examples for brand values can be found all around the clothing and food industry with big corporations owning a variety of brands which advertise different "values" in order to sell more stuff to more people.
One Example for company culture would be Google, which as often been cited to have an awesome culture with employees working not just for profit but for a purpose. I think this is merely the result of a shortage of good engineers, and developers in the industry and because Google needed (wanted) the best they had to create an image and certain office surroundings to get the attention of those people to ultimately make more money.
**Update**
I understood that a company culture is a property any company has and describes the way they work together and how the working environment is like.
However I still belief that the driving force behind companies decisions, including how the company culture is built, is not culture, certain values or a higher purpose, but usually profit and growth. (This may not be true for certain niche companies) | I think there are no such things as company culture or brand values CMV. I belief the only purpose a company has is to make profit and grow. There are no such things as Brand values or company culture which serve as a higher purpose for the employees to work for and with which customers can identify.
What is considered as company culture or brand values are merely certain images a company uses to make more money.
Examples for brand values can be found all around the clothing and food industry with big corporations owning a variety of brands which advertise different "values" in order to sell more stuff to more people.
One Example for company culture would be Google, which as often been cited to have an awesome culture with employees working not just for profit but for a purpose. I think this is merely the result of a shortage of good engineers, and developers in the industry and because Google needed (wanted) the best they had to create an image and certain office surroundings to get the attention of those people to ultimately make more money.
**Update**
I understood that a company culture is a property any company has and describes the way they work together and how the working environment is like.
However I still belief that the driving force behind companies decisions, including how the company culture is built, is not culture, certain values or a higher purpose, but usually profit and growth. (This may not be true for certain niche companies) |
t3_1f7vit | I believe polygamy is repressive to the multiple sexed partners. CMV. | I'm totally for gay marriage and the like. I even think that open marriages can work great for certain couples. But the main point of contention I have with polygamy, is that from the little bit that I have seen, the single sexed partner (lets say one man), appears to in some sense own the multiple sexed partners (a couple women). Even if the sexes were reversed, I can't help but see that the multiple partners are essentially owned by the head of the house.
With an open marriage, I feel like there's (at least ideally) equal chances for each partner to fulfill any sexual or emotional needs their partner can't fill. However with polygamy, it seems like only the single sexed individual is in control of everyone's sexuality and emotional needs. It just doesn't seem fair to me.
I know my personal preferences shouldn't affect other people's lives, but it makes me wonder if the multiple partners aren't just being taking advantage of in a sense?
Side note- I know polygamy could also happen with same sexed couples, but as long as it's one person controlling the rest of the "harem" I still find it repressive.
I admittedly know very little on this topic, so I'm more than open to having someone CMV! | I believe polygamy is repressive to the multiple sexed partners. CMV. I'm totally for gay marriage and the like. I even think that open marriages can work great for certain couples. But the main point of contention I have with polygamy, is that from the little bit that I have seen, the single sexed partner (lets say one man), appears to in some sense own the multiple sexed partners (a couple women). Even if the sexes were reversed, I can't help but see that the multiple partners are essentially owned by the head of the house.
With an open marriage, I feel like there's (at least ideally) equal chances for each partner to fulfill any sexual or emotional needs their partner can't fill. However with polygamy, it seems like only the single sexed individual is in control of everyone's sexuality and emotional needs. It just doesn't seem fair to me.
I know my personal preferences shouldn't affect other people's lives, but it makes me wonder if the multiple partners aren't just being taking advantage of in a sense?
Side note- I know polygamy could also happen with same sexed couples, but as long as it's one person controlling the rest of the "harem" I still find it repressive.
I admittedly know very little on this topic, so I'm more than open to having someone CMV! |
t3_1gn0hc | I believe that the United States is now a fully functioning police state | Your government (over several presidents) has morphed the terrorist/police/state "bargain" into a full blown big brother police state. The reason for this is that the government and all it's "state protection agencies" (note the titles) are armed and searching for threats to the State itself.. not treats to the citizens, In fact it is scouring & categorizing the citizens to find the threats against it.. note the targets.. Patriots, Anti-tax crowd.. constitutionalist, certainly the Prepper crowd (always been on the radar. Historically It is very rare for an outside "terrorist" uprising to overthrow a country, But is more common and more successful when done from within , And that is why you now live in a FULL police state.. CMV..
EDIT 2) now even left wing digital Rag.. Huff-po admits it to be true.. [(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/welcome-to-the-police-ind_n_3415442.html)]
EDIT 1) So many responders think that they are free.. because of the things they think they can do.. but actually IMHO freedom is defined by the things YOU CAN'T do.. here is an interesting link to a book that outlines some of the things that are now FELONIES in the US of A .
[(http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx)] | I believe that the United States is now a fully functioning police state. Your government (over several presidents) has morphed the terrorist/police/state "bargain" into a full blown big brother police state. The reason for this is that the government and all it's "state protection agencies" (note the titles) are armed and searching for threats to the State itself.. not treats to the citizens, In fact it is scouring & categorizing the citizens to find the threats against it.. note the targets.. Patriots, Anti-tax crowd.. constitutionalist, certainly the Prepper crowd (always been on the radar. Historically It is very rare for an outside "terrorist" uprising to overthrow a country, But is more common and more successful when done from within , And that is why you now live in a FULL police state.. CMV..
EDIT 2) now even left wing digital Rag.. Huff-po admits it to be true.. [(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/welcome-to-the-police-ind_n_3415442.html)]
EDIT 1) So many responders think that they are free.. because of the things they think they can do.. but actually IMHO freedom is defined by the things YOU CAN'T do.. here is an interesting link to a book that outlines some of the things that are now FELONIES in the US of A .
[(http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx)] |
t3_1fduh0 | I believe, rephrasing Sophocles slightly, that to never have been born is the greatest boon of all. CMV | "To never have been born may be the greatest boon of all" - Sophocles.
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain.
I can completely relate to these sentiments and as a result, I don't think it's my place to bring another life into this planet and put it through the trials and tribulations of life. I'm not sure I want this CMV to be about whether to have children or not. I mainly want people to CMV that being alive is such a bane. I don't know why, even though I've had some really great moments in life, the idea that there was a time when I never knew about any of these brings me so much more joy than being here. And I do look forward to death. I believe, of course, that there's nothing after life. Not that I'm suicidal at the moment or anything either. I'm basically of the mindset that I'm already here, might as well make the most of it before I go. | I believe, rephrasing Sophocles slightly, that to never have been born is the greatest boon of all. CMV. "To never have been born may be the greatest boon of all" - Sophocles.
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain.
I can completely relate to these sentiments and as a result, I don't think it's my place to bring another life into this planet and put it through the trials and tribulations of life. I'm not sure I want this CMV to be about whether to have children or not. I mainly want people to CMV that being alive is such a bane. I don't know why, even though I've had some really great moments in life, the idea that there was a time when I never knew about any of these brings me so much more joy than being here. And I do look forward to death. I believe, of course, that there's nothing after life. Not that I'm suicidal at the moment or anything either. I'm basically of the mindset that I'm already here, might as well make the most of it before I go. |