Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova

/

cmv_op_10k

like 0

t3_1gycgc

America should make an official declaration to the international community that it isn't a democracy. CMV

If the will of the people does exist as manifested by official political procedures, then citizens are responsible for the government's actions, including foreign policy. *" ... the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want."* - Osama bin Laden, "[Letter to the American People](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver)", 2002 If the will of the people does *not* exist as manifested by official political procedures, then it is not a democracy. Furthermore, America should make this known to the rest of the world to avoid giving aggrieved states or organisations any reason to target American civilians. In other words, it is a *national security* issue of grave importance. Living in an oligarchy or plutocracy is not necessarily that bad - it is the shame of admitting it *now, after so long* that stops the discussion from progressing honestly. But, once it has been admitted, the discussion can be very blatant: *should* America be a democracy? If so, *why*? etc. CMV

America should make an official declaration to the international community that it isn't a democracy. CMV. If the will of the people does exist as manifested by official political procedures, then citizens are responsible for the government's actions, including foreign policy. *" ... the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want."* - Osama bin Laden, "[Letter to the American People](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver)", 2002 If the will of the people does *not* exist as manifested by official political procedures, then it is not a democracy. Furthermore, America should make this known to the rest of the world to avoid giving aggrieved states or organisations any reason to target American civilians. In other words, it is a *national security* issue of grave importance. Living in an oligarchy or plutocracy is not necessarily that bad - it is the shame of admitting it *now, after so long* that stops the discussion from progressing honestly. But, once it has been admitted, the discussion can be very blatant: *should* America be a democracy? If so, *why*? etc. CMV

t3_290i64

CMV: New York City is overrated.

I've been to New York City many times, and I've never enjoyed it. I love big bustling cities, but NYC is dirty, cramped, and overly commercialized compared to cities like London and Paris that have ample green spaces and beautiful architecture. NYC is known for culture and the performing arts, yet some of the most successful music organizations and theater scenes are in other cities in the US. Plus, tickets to a Broadway show are out of reach for most people because of the ridiculous costs. Still, many of my peers in their 20s and 30s want to move there (in a notoriously bad rental/ real estate market, too) but I can't seem to understand why. I've concluded that NYC is just overrated. I don't want to feel this way, though, because I have so many friends that love it there. Help 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: New York City is overrated. I've been to New York City many times, and I've never enjoyed it. I love big bustling cities, but NYC is dirty, cramped, and overly commercialized compared to cities like London and Paris that have ample green spaces and beautiful architecture. NYC is known for culture and the performing arts, yet some of the most successful music organizations and theater scenes are in other cities in the US. Plus, tickets to a Broadway show are out of reach for most people because of the ridiculous costs. Still, many of my peers in their 20s and 30s want to move there (in a notoriously bad rental/ real estate market, too) but I can't seem to understand why. I've concluded that NYC is just overrated. I don't want to feel this way, though, because I have so many friends that love it there. Help CMV!

t3_72i3lu

CMV: CMV: As someone who is pro-choice, I don't think being pro-life is inherently anti-woman.

Don't get me wrong, I think abortion should be legal. But I don't think all or even most pro-lifers are misogynists. After all, there's nearly as many women who are pro-life as there are men. There seems to be this idea that people who want to make abortion illegal or restricted are composed primarily of men who take pleasure in controlling women's bodies and denying them their human rights, which totally ignores the fact that many religious people view fetuses as possessing a soul and human nature. There's also a minority of atheists that consider the unborn to be human. I think you can honestly believe that the fetus has more of a right to live than the woman has the right to get an abortion, without having a negative opinion of women or believing they are inferior to men. I don't agree with that, but I think it's a respectable position. I think accusing pro-lifers of misogyny in a knee-jerk fashion is just as moralizing and self-righteous as pro lifers calling women who get abortions murderers. _____ > *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: CMV: As someone who is pro-choice, I don't think being pro-life is inherently anti-woman. Don't get me wrong, I think abortion should be legal. But I don't think all or even most pro-lifers are misogynists. After all, there's nearly as many women who are pro-life as there are men. There seems to be this idea that people who want to make abortion illegal or restricted are composed primarily of men who take pleasure in controlling women's bodies and denying them their human rights, which totally ignores the fact that many religious people view fetuses as possessing a soul and human nature. There's also a minority of atheists that consider the unborn to be human. I think you can honestly believe that the fetus has more of a right to live than the woman has the right to get an abortion, without having a negative opinion of women or believing they are inferior to men. I don't agree with that, but I think it's a respectable position. I think accusing pro-lifers of misogyny in a knee-jerk fashion is just as moralizing and self-righteous as pro lifers calling women who get abortions murderers.

t3_1fxlti

True privacy has always been imagined. Our only concern should be right to due process; everyting else is a distraction. CMV

Most of us aren't as sneaky as we think. So, our concept of "privacy" has always been more of a feigned ignorance by our peers, dependents, and authority figures. Restated, it is more likely than not, that in the chaos of our lives, we've let slip each of our dirty little secrets at one point or another. Therefore, perceived violations of privacy are a violation of our imagination. The judiciary has been tasked with declaring what facts can be brought in support of our guilt or innocence. So, our primary concern should not be keeping secrets but rather, ensuring our right to a fair trial. Outrage over privacy violations feels good but it serves nothing. Please change my view.

True privacy has always been imagined. Our only concern should be right to due process; everyting else is a distraction. CMV. Most of us aren't as sneaky as we think. So, our concept of "privacy" has always been more of a feigned ignorance by our peers, dependents, and authority figures. Restated, it is more likely than not, that in the chaos of our lives, we've let slip each of our dirty little secrets at one point or another. Therefore, perceived violations of privacy are a violation of our imagination. The judiciary has been tasked with declaring what facts can be brought in support of our guilt or innocence. So, our primary concern should not be keeping secrets but rather, ensuring our right to a fair trial. Outrage over privacy violations feels good but it serves nothing. Please change my view.

t3_6e2wv0

CMV: Cultural appropriation criticisms are uni-directions by ignoring all aspects of the western culture which were appropriated by non-westerners.

Cultures interact and "borrow" from each other. In my options non-western cultures borrowed quite a large an important amount of western cultural aspects. Some examples: - Science and mathematics: students all over the world study calculus (which was "developed" in the West). - Music: western classical music is perform all over the world. Moreover, many religiously (christian) inspired classical compositions are performed by non-christians (which, I think, it's quite relevant in the context of cultural appropriation) - Medicine: western medicine improved the life of most people which have access to it. - Christmas is celebrated by non-christians and ignores all its spiritual meanings. _____ > *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: Cultural appropriation criticisms are uni-directions by ignoring all aspects of the western culture which were appropriated by non-westerners. Cultures interact and "borrow" from each other. In my options non-western cultures borrowed quite a large an important amount of western cultural aspects. Some examples: - Science and mathematics: students all over the world study calculus (which was "developed" in the West). - Music: western classical music is perform all over the world. Moreover, many religiously (christian) inspired classical compositions are performed by non-christians (which, I think, it's quite relevant in the context of cultural appropriation) - Medicine: western medicine improved the life of most people which have access to it. - Christmas is celebrated by non-christians and ignores all its spiritual meanings.

t3_1g93y3

I believe celebrities owe the public nothing more than a performance. CMV.

“The only thing that you owe the public is a good performance.” - Humphrey Bogart If a person spends money to see a movie just because an actor/actress he/she likes is in it, then that is their problem. This unwritten law that celebrities owe people is ridiculous, and said people seem to have a sense of self-entitlement if they think they should get what they want from their target. I know the main argument: without the public, celebrities would not have the millions they possess. To that I say "celebrities do not perform a public service. They are in the entertainment industry because they have passion for their career. You pay money to be entertained. Autographs/pictures should cost extra." Performers have a right to privacy, but thanks to the people who pick up gossip rags like US Weekly (and thereby keeping the paparazzi employed), most celebs cannot enjoy a day out with their kids. It's not enough to know every detail of someones personal life, but certain people have to label anyone with an inkling of fame an asshole beyond redemption, simply because the famous person refused to sign something or take a picture? And then they say "I'll never watch/listen to anything of theirs ever again!" Now, I think Bret Easton Ellis is a major douchebag, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying American Psycho and Lunar Park. He is a good writer, regardless of his arrogance and controversial comments. Why is it so hard to realize that talent is not equal to personality?

I believe celebrities owe the public nothing more than a performance. CMV. “The only thing that you owe the public is a good performance.” - Humphrey Bogart If a person spends money to see a movie just because an actor/actress he/she likes is in it, then that is their problem. This unwritten law that celebrities owe people is ridiculous, and said people seem to have a sense of self-entitlement if they think they should get what they want from their target. I know the main argument: without the public, celebrities would not have the millions they possess. To that I say "celebrities do not perform a public service. They are in the entertainment industry because they have passion for their career. You pay money to be entertained. Autographs/pictures should cost extra." Performers have a right to privacy, but thanks to the people who pick up gossip rags like US Weekly (and thereby keeping the paparazzi employed), most celebs cannot enjoy a day out with their kids. It's not enough to know every detail of someones personal life, but certain people have to label anyone with an inkling of fame an asshole beyond redemption, simply because the famous person refused to sign something or take a picture? And then they say "I'll never watch/listen to anything of theirs ever again!" Now, I think Bret Easton Ellis is a major douchebag, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying American Psycho and Lunar Park. He is a good writer, regardless of his arrogance and controversial comments. Why is it so hard to realize that talent is not equal to personality?

t3_18lp57

I don't think women are equal to men CMW?

I have many "fucked up" viewpoints on some things. Different view than "normal" One of those things is, that I don't think of man and women as equals. 1. They always complain about everything. 2. Everything offends them. Are just weaker, but think they are so smart and awesome. (There are always some exceptions) Anyone want to try and change my view?

I don't think women are equal to men CMW?. I have many "fucked up" viewpoints on some things. Different view than "normal" One of those things is, that I don't think of man and women as equals. 1. They always complain about everything. 2. Everything offends them. Are just weaker, but think they are so smart and awesome. (There are always some exceptions) Anyone want to try and change my view?

t3_72e8ot

CMV : advertisements, data mining and targeted marketing isn’t unethical

With all these posts on the front page and comments on the measures people undergo to avoid targeted advertisements and data mining I was curious as to why there is such a strong opposition to this. The way I’ve always seen it is that google / amazon etc are providing a service, and instead of paying 20 cents every google search you let google use your data so that they can be profitable. I’m curious as to why people seem so against this as opposed to paying every time to use the service. Also as a sidenote, aren’t targeted advertisements a good thing? Instead of being shown silly ads that don’t do anything good for you your getting things that are actually relevant towards your interests.

CMV : advertisements, data mining and targeted marketing isn’t unethical. With all these posts on the front page and comments on the measures people undergo to avoid targeted advertisements and data mining I was curious as to why there is such a strong opposition to this. The way I’ve always seen it is that google / amazon etc are providing a service, and instead of paying 20 cents every google search you let google use your data so that they can be profitable. I’m curious as to why people seem so against this as opposed to paying every time to use the service. Also as a sidenote, aren’t targeted advertisements a good thing? Instead of being shown silly ads that don’t do anything good for you your getting things that are actually relevant towards your interests.

t3_1hnhm9

I think it is okay that the NSA is spying on us. CMV

As many know, after the NSA scandal, many people were up in arms about how much of our information was being tracked, supossedly in violation of our fourth amendment rights. Let me quote our constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So, even though we may consider this "unreasonable" as we are doing nothing, yet we are being logged, where is the trade off? If the NSA did not emplement this program, could the attack on wall street potentially happened? Furthermore, now that all this information is out, the governement in general has to shift their tactics, now that the people that acutally DO want to harm us are currenly avoiding using google, yahoo and the like. Also, I do not understand why people are angry that search engine information is being taken. When you agree to the terms of service, you subsequently relenquish your "term" put in google to basically be apart of the company, therefore it is not technically yours anymore. The government requested this information, but if you are a corporation, would you cite this as an "unreasonable" search and seizure? Could you consider probable cause "terrorism"? I mean, they are only looking for key words. As for e-mails, are e-mails uploaded to yahoo, google, etc still technically our property, even though it is labeled with our name on it? Do e-mails have the same authority as a piece of mail addressed to our house as protected under the fourth amendment? As for freedom vs security, If we give too much freedom, security is out the window. if we give too much security, freedom is gone. Where do we draw the line? I know it is a bit long, but I am curious as to why I should care about the government watching me. CMV

I think it is okay that the NSA is spying on us. CMV. As many know, after the NSA scandal, many people were up in arms about how much of our information was being tracked, supossedly in violation of our fourth amendment rights. Let me quote our constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So, even though we may consider this "unreasonable" as we are doing nothing, yet we are being logged, where is the trade off? If the NSA did not emplement this program, could the attack on wall street potentially happened? Furthermore, now that all this information is out, the governement in general has to shift their tactics, now that the people that acutally DO want to harm us are currenly avoiding using google, yahoo and the like. Also, I do not understand why people are angry that search engine information is being taken. When you agree to the terms of service, you subsequently relenquish your "term" put in google to basically be apart of the company, therefore it is not technically yours anymore. The government requested this information, but if you are a corporation, would you cite this as an "unreasonable" search and seizure? Could you consider probable cause "terrorism"? I mean, they are only looking for key words. As for e-mails, are e-mails uploaded to yahoo, google, etc still technically our property, even though it is labeled with our name on it? Do e-mails have the same authority as a piece of mail addressed to our house as protected under the fourth amendment? As for freedom vs security, If we give too much freedom, security is out the window. if we give too much security, freedom is gone. Where do we draw the line? I know it is a bit long, but I am curious as to why I should care about the government watching me. CMV

t3_6sbti5

CMV: People only say things like "no one has a perfect life" and "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" because they're trying to give people false hope. The reality is that many people do genuinely have perfect lives and many people's situations are genuinely better than your own.

[removed]

CMV: People only say things like "no one has a perfect life" and "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" because they're trying to give people false hope. The reality is that many people do genuinely have perfect lives and many people's situations are genuinely better than your own. [removed]

t3_2vdlp2

CMV: I am nervous about sleeping on my back.

For at least a few months now, I have been uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping on my back. I feel like if I do, I'll experience sleep paralysis, and I'm honestly afraid of experiencing that phenomenon after hearing horrifying encounters here on Reddit. I feel comfortable lying on my back, but I just feel anxious about sleeping in that position. I want to be able to actually fall asleep at night without any anxiety whatsoever. I don't want to experience sleep paralysis, though, either. I finally am telling someone about this, because its been bothering me for a while.

CMV: I am nervous about sleeping on my back. For at least a few months now, I have been uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping on my back. I feel like if I do, I'll experience sleep paralysis, and I'm honestly afraid of experiencing that phenomenon after hearing horrifying encounters here on Reddit. I feel comfortable lying on my back, but I just feel anxious about sleeping in that position. I want to be able to actually fall asleep at night without any anxiety whatsoever. I don't want to experience sleep paralysis, though, either. I finally am telling someone about this, because its been bothering me for a while.

t3_3kp63w

CMV: Capitalist politics makes more sense because everyone benefits

The poor people in western countries have fridges, TV, smartphones, etc, all a product of innovation and a "survival of the fittest" competitive business mindset. They live longer than ever before. Even if you are at the bottom rung of society your life has gotten greatly better because of the innovations and the relatively free market of the 20th century. Left wing politicians are there simply because today's poor (including the new overly-educated underclass) want more. Always more. Average lives are better than they've ever been, but people aren't satisfied. Basically for no reason that makes sense. _____ > *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: Capitalist politics makes more sense because everyone benefits. The poor people in western countries have fridges, TV, smartphones, etc, all a product of innovation and a "survival of the fittest" competitive business mindset. They live longer than ever before. Even if you are at the bottom rung of society your life has gotten greatly better because of the innovations and the relatively free market of the 20th century. Left wing politicians are there simply because today's poor (including the new overly-educated underclass) want more. Always more. Average lives are better than they've ever been, but people aren't satisfied. Basically for no reason that makes sense.

t3_67quom

CMV: Most contracts and terms of conditions should be rendered null, and regulation taken over by the government.

"By using this service you give up the right to sue." "This product is licensed to you, not sold." "We reserve the right to brick your device at any time." Companies make a lot of silly terms of conditions (beyond normal money transfers which are fine) which they send to huge number of people. Sometimes they're binding, sometimes not People rarely read these long terms of conditions, and they often use complex language which is not accessible to average readers. They hurt consumers and grant excess power to large corporations, and are generally not negotiable. As such, I feel they should be mostly banned. Companies should still be able to make agreements among themselves with lawyers and I'd be happy about this law not applying/ applying less to small companies or individuals, but in general, a company making you sign 50 pages of legalese shouldn't mean anything signifigant. The government should make general laws for selling and buying things so there is no general need for complex contracts. Something like, you can't sue them for making a crappy product, you can return it for x time, you own said product, you're free to cut off abusive users. I'm British and the UK government already does a lot of this. We have a lot of laws and rules on selling that override contracts. I feel this should go further. Things that are likely to change my view- evidence that terms of service from large faceless corporations are helpful for users. If they are super useful for us, if they make the world a better place, yay them. Evidence that companies would largely avoid countries where this law was enacted. I wouldn't want to push valuable businesses out of companies. Evidence that this causes some vast wrong. Is there some unavoidable wrong that this would generally cause in countries that would hurt many? Stuff that won't change my view. Saying "If you don't like it don't buy it." I believe it's important to encourage an active and fair economy for the poor, disabled, and less literate. Saying that companies/ individuals need to make x contracts rarely. I said that it should be fine if you both hire a lawyer/ are small organizations or individuals. If you know what you're getting into go ahead. Super technical details why my implementation wouldn't work. I'd expect an actual law to be crafted the government in consulation with businesses, users and lawyers. General principle stands. I look forward to view changing. _____ > *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: Most contracts and terms of conditions should be rendered null, and regulation taken over by the government. "By using this service you give up the right to sue." "This product is licensed to you, not sold." "We reserve the right to brick your device at any time." Companies make a lot of silly terms of conditions (beyond normal money transfers which are fine) which they send to huge number of people. Sometimes they're binding, sometimes not People rarely read these long terms of conditions, and they often use complex language which is not accessible to average readers. They hurt consumers and grant excess power to large corporations, and are generally not negotiable. As such, I feel they should be mostly banned. Companies should still be able to make agreements among themselves with lawyers and I'd be happy about this law not applying/ applying less to small companies or individuals, but in general, a company making you sign 50 pages of legalese shouldn't mean anything signifigant. The government should make general laws for selling and buying things so there is no general need for complex contracts. Something like, you can't sue them for making a crappy product, you can return it for x time, you own said product, you're free to cut off abusive users. I'm British and the UK government already does a lot of this. We have a lot of laws and rules on selling that override contracts. I feel this should go further. Things that are likely to change my view- evidence that terms of service from large faceless corporations are helpful for users. If they are super useful for us, if they make the world a better place, yay them. Evidence that companies would largely avoid countries where this law was enacted. I wouldn't want to push valuable businesses out of companies. Evidence that this causes some vast wrong. Is there some unavoidable wrong that this would generally cause in countries that would hurt many? Stuff that won't change my view. Saying "If you don't like it don't buy it." I believe it's important to encourage an active and fair economy for the poor, disabled, and less literate. Saying that companies/ individuals need to make x contracts rarely. I said that it should be fine if you both hire a lawyer/ are small organizations or individuals. If you know what you're getting into go ahead. Super technical details why my implementation wouldn't work. I'd expect an actual law to be crafted the government in consulation with businesses, users and lawyers. General principle stands. I look forward to view changing.

t3_2j9esz

CMV: i think the united states and the world should put ground troops back on iraq and fight ISIS.

Personally, I think it's appalling that the world is basically "enabling" ISIS troops into getting stronger from taking over more cities and gaining more oil and wealth and killing and beheading aincient Christian communities and yazidis, and the fact the even neighboring countries to Iraq and Syria are offering little to no help to stopping this is bad enough, I fear that if Islamic State continues to takeover more territory and gain access to more weapons and oil and wealth it could potentially lead to a very disasterous web of events, if they eventually take all of Syria and Iraq, who's to say that they won't take Iran next and take their oil and weapons and wealth? What about Jordan? Or Saudi Arabia or any bordering country that ISIS sees as an asset for a non stop territorial expansion. Do you really think hitler was going to stop expanding his territory only just at europe? Or Japan under Hirohito to stop only at China? Germany and Japan would've kept expanding to the world and very likely eventually fought each other for the whole world if countries enabled them to take over, if it weren't for the United States and (moreover) the Soviet Union that stopped Germany and Japan we might have a different world today, how is the Islamic state any different? They're treating Assyrians (the indigenous people of Iraq before Muhammad) in the very same if not similar to how Jews were treated under nazi Germany's or the people of nanking under Japanese occupation, and raping women and killing anyone who disagrees with their ideology.

CMV: i think the united states and the world should put ground troops back on iraq and fight ISIS. Personally, I think it's appalling that the world is basically "enabling" ISIS troops into getting stronger from taking over more cities and gaining more oil and wealth and killing and beheading aincient Christian communities and yazidis, and the fact the even neighboring countries to Iraq and Syria are offering little to no help to stopping this is bad enough, I fear that if Islamic State continues to takeover more territory and gain access to more weapons and oil and wealth it could potentially lead to a very disasterous web of events, if they eventually take all of Syria and Iraq, who's to say that they won't take Iran next and take their oil and weapons and wealth? What about Jordan? Or Saudi Arabia or any bordering country that ISIS sees as an asset for a non stop territorial expansion. Do you really think hitler was going to stop expanding his territory only just at europe? Or Japan under Hirohito to stop only at China? Germany and Japan would've kept expanding to the world and very likely eventually fought each other for the whole world if countries enabled them to take over, if it weren't for the United States and (moreover) the Soviet Union that stopped Germany and Japan we might have a different world today, how is the Islamic state any different? They're treating Assyrians (the indigenous people of Iraq before Muhammad) in the very same if not similar to how Jews were treated under nazi Germany's or the people of nanking under Japanese occupation, and raping women and killing anyone who disagrees with their ideology.

t3_1i7yrz

I think there's no disease that isn't curable. CMV.

I think that the reason why there isn't a cure for diseases such as Rabies, Malaria, HIV, West Nile Virus, Ebola, and the common cold is because of Big Pharma wanting to keep profits over people. They don't want a cure for any disease. The cure for Polio screwed over big Pharma and their profits too. Big Pharma doesn't want another cure for any disease because if any cure is released, it will not just wipe out the disease it cures, but also the profits of Big Pharma. We need to end Big Pharma, once and for all, because sooner or later, an deadly epidemic will happen and that will turn into a pandemic because Big Pharma is worried about profits, not people.

I think there's no disease that isn't curable. CMV. I think that the reason why there isn't a cure for diseases such as Rabies, Malaria, HIV, West Nile Virus, Ebola, and the common cold is because of Big Pharma wanting to keep profits over people. They don't want a cure for any disease. The cure for Polio screwed over big Pharma and their profits too. Big Pharma doesn't want another cure for any disease because if any cure is released, it will not just wipe out the disease it cures, but also the profits of Big Pharma. We need to end Big Pharma, once and for all, because sooner or later, an deadly epidemic will happen and that will turn into a pandemic because Big Pharma is worried about profits, not people.

t3_4qt3rr

CMV: I think it's fine to ride the exit lane when there's traffic

I live in one of the worst cities in the US for traffic. The traffic is always there, making 5 mile commutes last upwards of 45 minutes. My current view is that it's fine to ride the exit lanes until the last few feet, at which point I zipper-merge back into traffic *without* being an aggressive asshole about it (I agree that abruptly forcing your way back in is fucked up). This routinely makes what *would be* a 45 minute drive take approximately 20 minutes instead. My position is based on two points that will both have to be successfully rebutted for me to CMV: 1) Traffic will exist whether or not people (including myself) perform this "cheat". The infrastructure simply does not support the number of cars and trucks on the roads in my city. Whether it's 10AM on a Monday or 2:30PM on a Wednesday, there is always traffic. On top of that, others will still do this *even if I do not.* 2) It is *not* virtuous or honorable to enter traffic and stay in your spot without trying to get ahead. Most people have no issue changing lanes and passing slower drivers when it benefits them, but they get upset if you use the exit lane to do this exact same thing. Your subjective feeling of personal pride in sitting in traffic is no more or less valid than my subjective feeling of personal pride in getting out of traffic as soon as possible. CMV _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think it's fine to ride the exit lane when there's traffic. I live in one of the worst cities in the US for traffic. The traffic is always there, making 5 mile commutes last upwards of 45 minutes. My current view is that it's fine to ride the exit lanes until the last few feet, at which point I zipper-merge back into traffic *without* being an aggressive asshole about it (I agree that abruptly forcing your way back in is fucked up). This routinely makes what *would be* a 45 minute drive take approximately 20 minutes instead. My position is based on two points that will both have to be successfully rebutted for me to CMV: 1) Traffic will exist whether or not people (including myself) perform this "cheat". The infrastructure simply does not support the number of cars and trucks on the roads in my city. Whether it's 10AM on a Monday or 2:30PM on a Wednesday, there is always traffic. On top of that, others will still do this *even if I do not.* 2) It is *not* virtuous or honorable to enter traffic and stay in your spot without trying to get ahead. Most people have no issue changing lanes and passing slower drivers when it benefits them, but they get upset if you use the exit lane to do this exact same thing. Your subjective feeling of personal pride in sitting in traffic is no more or less valid than my subjective feeling of personal pride in getting out of traffic as soon as possible. CMV

t3_3iq4vy

CMV: Al Qaeda perpetrated 911

I'm pretty cynical. I know the government have done a bunch of 'bad stuff'- Tuskegee Syphillis trials, Iran Contra, Watergate, My Lai, MK ultra, etc. But I'm also pretty skeptical- I see *a lot* of kooky conspiracy stuff that people seem to believe first, and look at evidence second; that's not me. I don't think it's *impossible* that 911 was "false flag", but its a pretty big claim, and I'm yet to see good, solid evidence. I watched "loose change" (a while back now), and didn't find it very convincing. I watched 911 on tv as it was happening, and it looked pretty "real" to me. Am I one of the 'sheeple'? _____ > *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: Al Qaeda perpetrated 911. I'm pretty cynical. I know the government have done a bunch of 'bad stuff'- Tuskegee Syphillis trials, Iran Contra, Watergate, My Lai, MK ultra, etc. But I'm also pretty skeptical- I see *a lot* of kooky conspiracy stuff that people seem to believe first, and look at evidence second; that's not me. I don't think it's *impossible* that 911 was "false flag", but its a pretty big claim, and I'm yet to see good, solid evidence. I watched "loose change" (a while back now), and didn't find it very convincing. I watched 911 on tv as it was happening, and it looked pretty "real" to me. Am I one of the 'sheeple'?

t3_3raiog

CMV: I think SRS plays an important role on Reddit.

Hi all. I'm using my secondary account just because I anticipate a heated discussion and I don't really want my normal account to be dragged in. I will still be actively participating though, so I hope that's ok! Ok, so I've been an active Redditor for over 5 years. I have a love/hate relationship with this website. Over the past year, that relationship has gradually shifted more to the hate side. When I first joined Reddit, it was a much smaller community. Discussion was more intimate. People were much more familiar with Reddiquette and seemed more willing to have genuine conversations with people. Posts by celebrities and politicians and businesses were practically nonexistent. As the site has expanded, we've experienced a flood of users. This site has gone through something that I like to call the "YouTube Effect." If you've ever read the comments on a YouTube video, you know what I mean. Comments here have gotten more hateful, more racist, more sexist, more xenophobic, more transphobic, and more extreme in general. Now, I like to think that I'm a fairly cautious and open-minded individual. I occasionally engage in political conversation about various topics, although recently I've started to back away from having these conversations because the discussion is not as stimulating as it once was. I have been accused of being a misogynist, a misandrist, a racist, and a skeleton warrior. In reality, I am none of these things. I am a normal person who is interested in engaging in conversation with people who think differently than I do. This has become more and more difficult to do as subreddits, particularly large ones, have become inundated by hate speech. Anyone who tries to chime in with a dissenting opinion is immediately labeled a Tumblrina or Skeleton Warrior or Feminazi or any number of useless labels. This is where my CMV post comes in. SRS, which stands for Shit Reddit Says, is a subreddit dedicated to exposing and denouncing hate speech on this site. I myself have never actually posted there, and I rarely read it (mostly because reading hate speech makes me sad and angry.) But anytime I do visit that subreddit, I don't see any of the "ridiculous" posts that many Redditors claim to exist there. People get really angry and upset whenever SRS calls out a sexist or racist or otherwise hateful comment/post -- Why? I fully support freedom of speech, no matter how crazy or hateful one's opinion is. However, too many people think "freedom of speech" means "freedom to not be criticized by anyone." I find it refreshing to see a subreddit dedicated to calling out hate speech on a website that is increasingly being flooded by ignorant, hateful ideas, and I think it's ironic that so many people get offended by SRS. 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 think SRS plays an important role on Reddit. Hi all. I'm using my secondary account just because I anticipate a heated discussion and I don't really want my normal account to be dragged in. I will still be actively participating though, so I hope that's ok! Ok, so I've been an active Redditor for over 5 years. I have a love/hate relationship with this website. Over the past year, that relationship has gradually shifted more to the hate side. When I first joined Reddit, it was a much smaller community. Discussion was more intimate. People were much more familiar with Reddiquette and seemed more willing to have genuine conversations with people. Posts by celebrities and politicians and businesses were practically nonexistent. As the site has expanded, we've experienced a flood of users. This site has gone through something that I like to call the "YouTube Effect." If you've ever read the comments on a YouTube video, you know what I mean. Comments here have gotten more hateful, more racist, more sexist, more xenophobic, more transphobic, and more extreme in general. Now, I like to think that I'm a fairly cautious and open-minded individual. I occasionally engage in political conversation about various topics, although recently I've started to back away from having these conversations because the discussion is not as stimulating as it once was. I have been accused of being a misogynist, a misandrist, a racist, and a skeleton warrior. In reality, I am none of these things. I am a normal person who is interested in engaging in conversation with people who think differently than I do. This has become more and more difficult to do as subreddits, particularly large ones, have become inundated by hate speech. Anyone who tries to chime in with a dissenting opinion is immediately labeled a Tumblrina or Skeleton Warrior or Feminazi or any number of useless labels. This is where my CMV post comes in. SRS, which stands for Shit Reddit Says, is a subreddit dedicated to exposing and denouncing hate speech on this site. I myself have never actually posted there, and I rarely read it (mostly because reading hate speech makes me sad and angry.) But anytime I do visit that subreddit, I don't see any of the "ridiculous" posts that many Redditors claim to exist there. People get really angry and upset whenever SRS calls out a sexist or racist or otherwise hateful comment/post -- Why? I fully support freedom of speech, no matter how crazy or hateful one's opinion is. However, too many people think "freedom of speech" means "freedom to not be criticized by anyone." I find it refreshing to see a subreddit dedicated to calling out hate speech on a website that is increasingly being flooded by ignorant, hateful ideas, and I think it's ironic that so many people get offended by SRS. Change My View?

t3_1vx4ir

CMV: If suffering brings you closer to God/enlightenment/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, then does that mean people who cause suffering are actually good?

The more suffering you go through, the less attached you become to life and the less you fear death. When you don't fear death, you are truly free. Therefore it seems that people who cause suffering are only doing it to themselves. They're freeing other people by making them less attached to life, while they're becoming more attached to something so fleeting and meaningless through hedonistic actions... So then by being an "evil/selfish" person by causing suffering, you're actually being a "good/selfless" person...?

CMV: If suffering brings you closer to God/enlightenment/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, then does that mean people who cause suffering are actually good?. The more suffering you go through, the less attached you become to life and the less you fear death. When you don't fear death, you are truly free. Therefore it seems that people who cause suffering are only doing it to themselves. They're freeing other people by making them less attached to life, while they're becoming more attached to something so fleeting and meaningless through hedonistic actions... So then by being an "evil/selfish" person by causing suffering, you're actually being a "good/selfless" person...?

t3_6ss9nc

CMV: The Martial Law in the Philippines by Ferdinand Marcos was a great decision

The way he led the country was amazing and achieved way more than any president before him. I believe that he did the correct thing by allowing himself to be president for as long as possible. No other president could have achieved that. Despite the violence he commited, I believe that he was just and extremely patriotic to the Philippines. He was successful and advanced the Philippines in a very efficient way. Strict rules that should be followed but weren't was the only result of violence from the government's side.

CMV: The Martial Law in the Philippines by Ferdinand Marcos was a great decision. The way he led the country was amazing and achieved way more than any president before him. I believe that he did the correct thing by allowing himself to be president for as long as possible. No other president could have achieved that. Despite the violence he commited, I believe that he was just and extremely patriotic to the Philippines. He was successful and advanced the Philippines in a very efficient way. Strict rules that should be followed but weren't was the only result of violence from the government's side.

t3_1yaj31

I don't believe that white girls, on average, have smaller butts than black girls. CMV

I'm a black guy with family from both the States and the Caribbean. In addition to this, as a child, I was surrounded by many different ethnic groups, especially different groups from the African continent. So in all of this time, I have heard that black girls have "booty", but it wasn't until recently that I bothered to question this. In my experience, I have found that no matter the ethnicity of the woman, butt sizes usually fall into a normal distribution. The only difference I have noticed is that with black women, it seems that when they do have big butts, then they tend to be bigger than an "average" big butt. I know that this all sounds very crude, but I'm interested in seeing if others have noticed the same thing.

I don't believe that white girls, on average, have smaller butts than black girls. CMV. I'm a black guy with family from both the States and the Caribbean. In addition to this, as a child, I was surrounded by many different ethnic groups, especially different groups from the African continent. So in all of this time, I have heard that black girls have "booty", but it wasn't until recently that I bothered to question this. In my experience, I have found that no matter the ethnicity of the woman, butt sizes usually fall into a normal distribution. The only difference I have noticed is that with black women, it seems that when they do have big butts, then they tend to be bigger than an "average" big butt. I know that this all sounds very crude, but I'm interested in seeing if others have noticed the same thing.

t3_45hyhu

CMV: Parents who teach their children values and ideologies for reasons other than the child's well-being are immoral, at best.

Before I begin, I want to be clear that the following argument is **not** a value judgement upon the ideologies and beliefs that I will be describing. I have opinions and feelings on them, but they are not on trial here---what *IS* being examined is the **motivation** behind instilling them in a child. Now with that out of the way, let's begin. Most parents will naturally try to raise their children to follow their particular set of beliefs, whether that be a religion or social ideology, or both. By itself, there is nothing morally wrong with that; it is instinctual to attempt to instruct your child on a way of living that you feel will be beneficial to them. However, there are certain people who have other motives for the ways they raise their children, and I find these unacceptable. Some time ago, I read an article by a father who had resolved to raise his young son as a feminist. The author went on to explain the need to add male allies to the struggle for equal rights for women, and so forth. However, one thing was curiously missing from the piece--what the ideology of feminism could do for his son. I was baffled and even re-read it to see if I had missed something, but there was nothing to be found. I found that unacceptable. This man was concerned about raising his son to help women in the future and less concerned about how the method of being raised would benefit his son. This is the attitude that one cannot--in good conscience--condone. Feminism isn't the only example; one could use religion. Parents who raise their child within a religion on the basis that the religion *needs* more of its members rather than trying to give their children a good life and afterlife, are just as heinous. When you bring a child into the world, whether through careful planning or through merely not aborting a pregnancy, you are saddled with a moral responsibility towards the individual you have literally pushed into existence. Whether you raise the child with values or even choose to give them away, all of those decisions should be geared towards what will ultimately benefit them. You did not give birth to anyone but that child, therefore your first loyalty is to them first and foremost. Raising your child to be someone who "helps other people" for the sake of those hypothetical people is disgusting because it violates the moral obligation of that first loyalty. To conclude--raising a child to be beneficial to other people is immoral unless the child's wellfare is thought of first and foremost before anyone or anything else. Change My View. **EDIT**: *Thank you all for the responses and the decent debates here. While my view isn't totally changed, you have opened my eyes to entirely new facets of the conversation, making it much more complicated. As it stands now, the argument posted here no longer reflects my complete opinion. So thank you for having done so.* _____ > *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: Parents who teach their children values and ideologies for reasons other than the child's well-being are immoral, at best. Before I begin, I want to be clear that the following argument is **not** a value judgement upon the ideologies and beliefs that I will be describing. I have opinions and feelings on them, but they are not on trial here---what *IS* being examined is the **motivation** behind instilling them in a child. Now with that out of the way, let's begin. Most parents will naturally try to raise their children to follow their particular set of beliefs, whether that be a religion or social ideology, or both. By itself, there is nothing morally wrong with that; it is instinctual to attempt to instruct your child on a way of living that you feel will be beneficial to them. However, there are certain people who have other motives for the ways they raise their children, and I find these unacceptable. Some time ago, I read an article by a father who had resolved to raise his young son as a feminist. The author went on to explain the need to add male allies to the struggle for equal rights for women, and so forth. However, one thing was curiously missing from the piece--what the ideology of feminism could do for his son. I was baffled and even re-read it to see if I had missed something, but there was nothing to be found. I found that unacceptable. This man was concerned about raising his son to help women in the future and less concerned about how the method of being raised would benefit his son. This is the attitude that one cannot--in good conscience--condone. Feminism isn't the only example; one could use religion. Parents who raise their child within a religion on the basis that the religion *needs* more of its members rather than trying to give their children a good life and afterlife, are just as heinous. When you bring a child into the world, whether through careful planning or through merely not aborting a pregnancy, you are saddled with a moral responsibility towards the individual you have literally pushed into existence. Whether you raise the child with values or even choose to give them away, all of those decisions should be geared towards what will ultimately benefit them. You did not give birth to anyone but that child, therefore your first loyalty is to them first and foremost. Raising your child to be someone who "helps other people" for the sake of those hypothetical people is disgusting because it violates the moral obligation of that first loyalty. To conclude--raising a child to be beneficial to other people is immoral unless the child's wellfare is thought of first and foremost before anyone or anything else. Change My View. **EDIT**: *Thank you all for the responses and the decent debates here. While my view isn't totally changed, you have opened my eyes to entirely new facets of the conversation, making it much more complicated. As it stands now, the argument posted here no longer reflects my complete opinion. So thank you for having done so.*

t3_2xcu0u

CMV: Terrorism can be an awful thing, but if it must exist, in our time, it should be used against corporations rather than government and people.

Indisputably, terrorism has always been a force for both good and evil. Terrorism here will be defined as the use or threat of violence (i.e. terror) to coerce or subdue a population, government, or other entity for political, economic, religious, and cultural purposes. It was an relatively important factor in the American Revolution, it has mobilized populations and usurped dictators. It complemented the peaceful side of the Civil Rights Movement. Conversely, the use of terrorism has killed many innocent civilians, given international voice to the inherently irrational, espoused rape camps in many conflicts, etc. Obviously, many governments are corrupt, oppressive, etc. However, in corrupt governments such as the U.S.A., where government is more or less an extension of corporate power, it is from said corporate influence that the middle class continues to disappear, the environment continues to be destroyed, entities deemed "too big to fail" remain above the law, the list goes on. (Even if you do not agree entirely to the above, imagine it a hypothetical until you've caught up on current affairs). Note: SONY was not hacked due to their corrupt outreach in oppressive social policy and law, so let us not dwindle on that. Note bene: I do not encourage or support terrorism although in some historical instances I find it a necessary evil. Likewise, participating in this thread is for intellectual and argumentative purposes and comments in the below thread should not be considered in support or against terrorism, either. TL;DR: Corporations hurt the people more than government, and therefore should be the object of terrorism, if it MUST exist, for our time. EDIT*******************: Thanks guys for an interesting discussion. A lot of people had great contributions that really got my wheels turning. I now think corporations do what they can get away with because they legally can, and this is a governmental and regulatory problem above all. Thanks for the hand-holding despite my somewhat asinine arguments. Also, I conclude that terrorism almost invariably causes human casualties and I cannot, in good conscience, say it is justifiable even in it's most innocuous (read: inert) forms. _____ > *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: Terrorism can be an awful thing, but if it must exist, in our time, it should be used against corporations rather than government and people. Indisputably, terrorism has always been a force for both good and evil. Terrorism here will be defined as the use or threat of violence (i.e. terror) to coerce or subdue a population, government, or other entity for political, economic, religious, and cultural purposes. It was an relatively important factor in the American Revolution, it has mobilized populations and usurped dictators. It complemented the peaceful side of the Civil Rights Movement. Conversely, the use of terrorism has killed many innocent civilians, given international voice to the inherently irrational, espoused rape camps in many conflicts, etc. Obviously, many governments are corrupt, oppressive, etc. However, in corrupt governments such as the U.S.A., where government is more or less an extension of corporate power, it is from said corporate influence that the middle class continues to disappear, the environment continues to be destroyed, entities deemed "too big to fail" remain above the law, the list goes on. (Even if you do not agree entirely to the above, imagine it a hypothetical until you've caught up on current affairs). Note: SONY was not hacked due to their corrupt outreach in oppressive social policy and law, so let us not dwindle on that. Note bene: I do not encourage or support terrorism although in some historical instances I find it a necessary evil. Likewise, participating in this thread is for intellectual and argumentative purposes and comments in the below thread should not be considered in support or against terrorism, either. TL;DR: Corporations hurt the people more than government, and therefore should be the object of terrorism, if it MUST exist, for our time. EDIT*******************: Thanks guys for an interesting discussion. A lot of people had great contributions that really got my wheels turning. I now think corporations do what they can get away with because they legally can, and this is a governmental and regulatory problem above all. Thanks for the hand-holding despite my somewhat asinine arguments. Also, I conclude that terrorism almost invariably causes human casualties and I cannot, in good conscience, say it is justifiable even in it's most innocuous (read: inert) forms.

t3_44egpm

CMV: A bleeped out swear word is funnier than an un-censored swear word.

Obviously this is only relevant to swear words spoken in a comedic context. I'm by no means a big fan of censorship in public platforms but there's something about a bleeped out f**k that just tickles me more than the unbridled alternative. I believe it's partially due to the controversial sensibilities this implicitly endows on the subject matter even if it wasn’t especially controversial in the first place. In a way, the beep serves to enunciate the crudeness of a word which, without censorship, would go by largely unnoticed. I often hear people complaining that bleeping out swear words ruins the experience for them and I'd like to know why that is. Discuss

CMV: A bleeped out swear word is funnier than an un-censored swear word. Obviously this is only relevant to swear words spoken in a comedic context. I'm by no means a big fan of censorship in public platforms but there's something about a bleeped out f**k that just tickles me more than the unbridled alternative. I believe it's partially due to the controversial sensibilities this implicitly endows on the subject matter even if it wasn’t especially controversial in the first place. In a way, the beep serves to enunciate the crudeness of a word which, without censorship, would go by largely unnoticed. I often hear people complaining that bleeping out swear words ruins the experience for them and I'd like to know why that is. Discuss

t3_1bg7kh

I don't think guns should be an absolute right in the US. CMV.

Let's clear this up that I pretty neutral when it comes to gun regulation. I just don't think they should be an absolute, uninfringable right. I trust individual states to decide how they want guns regulated. I see the second amendment as very out of place in the constitution, that firearms as a right is oddly specific. I think the second amendment should be wiped out, and it should be up for the states to decide how they want to regulate guns. Even if it's no regulation whatsoever in one state and complete disarmament in the other.

I don't think guns should be an absolute right in the US. CMV. Let's clear this up that I pretty neutral when it comes to gun regulation. I just don't think they should be an absolute, uninfringable right. I trust individual states to decide how they want guns regulated. I see the second amendment as very out of place in the constitution, that firearms as a right is oddly specific. I think the second amendment should be wiped out, and it should be up for the states to decide how they want to regulate guns. Even if it's no regulation whatsoever in one state and complete disarmament in the other.

t3_3i7dkh

CMV: Slipknot is bad.

My boyfriend really likes Slipknot so I've been listening to it a lot recently. I think they are bad, all their songs sound similar, and they cater to an immature audience. It's the kind of music I would have listened to in 7th grade when I was feeling rebellious. I think if you are an adult listening to it then you probably are immature. I don't think it's quality music, I think the screaming and horror-esque nature of their music is a shtick that is way over played. I don't think any mature balanced adult would listen and enjoy their music. Edit: I don't usually judge people on their music taste, I was in an aggravated state when I posted this. It was all in all a pretty dicky post and I apologize to those who like Slipknot. To each his own.

CMV: Slipknot is bad. My boyfriend really likes Slipknot so I've been listening to it a lot recently. I think they are bad, all their songs sound similar, and they cater to an immature audience. It's the kind of music I would have listened to in 7th grade when I was feeling rebellious. I think if you are an adult listening to it then you probably are immature. I don't think it's quality music, I think the screaming and horror-esque nature of their music is a shtick that is way over played. I don't think any mature balanced adult would listen and enjoy their music. Edit: I don't usually judge people on their music taste, I was in an aggravated state when I posted this. It was all in all a pretty dicky post and I apologize to those who like Slipknot. To each his own.

t3_1y33g4

I believe eating a vegan diet is the healthiest and most sustainable way to live. CMV.

I've been having some internal debate recently over my vegan diet. I've been a vegan for two years, vegetarian for five before that. But I've also been reading into the paleo and whole 30 diets, and find their reasonings compelling. So, if we are looking at these diets purely from the health perspective, I used to believe that eating vegan was the healthiest way to do so. I thought red meat contributed to heart disease, and that poultry, eggs, and fish were unnecessary to consume, since you can get protein from vegan sources like beans, tofu, tempeh, etc. But, apparently there are things that are no good for you in beans and legumes? Cost-wise, I would think that an optimal vegan diet would be cheaper than an optimal omnivorous diet. I'm a college student, and don't have the money to spend on grass-fed meats, but I can afford beans and vegetables and oatmeal. Looking at it from an ethical view, I can't quite convince myself that it's okay to eat meat. Maybe a vegan diet isn't exactly optimal, but it doesn't contribute to the suffering of animals. I don't have to feel guilt over my food, knowing that an animal died for my meal. I'd be interested in hearing from some people that may have switched from veganism to paleo or whole 30 or something similar.

I believe eating a vegan diet is the healthiest and most sustainable way to live. CMV. I've been having some internal debate recently over my vegan diet. I've been a vegan for two years, vegetarian for five before that. But I've also been reading into the paleo and whole 30 diets, and find their reasonings compelling. So, if we are looking at these diets purely from the health perspective, I used to believe that eating vegan was the healthiest way to do so. I thought red meat contributed to heart disease, and that poultry, eggs, and fish were unnecessary to consume, since you can get protein from vegan sources like beans, tofu, tempeh, etc. But, apparently there are things that are no good for you in beans and legumes? Cost-wise, I would think that an optimal vegan diet would be cheaper than an optimal omnivorous diet. I'm a college student, and don't have the money to spend on grass-fed meats, but I can afford beans and vegetables and oatmeal. Looking at it from an ethical view, I can't quite convince myself that it's okay to eat meat. Maybe a vegan diet isn't exactly optimal, but it doesn't contribute to the suffering of animals. I don't have to feel guilt over my food, knowing that an animal died for my meal. I'd be interested in hearing from some people that may have switched from veganism to paleo or whole 30 or something similar.

t3_1znw4y

I believe that grading on a curve is stupid. CMV

I understand curving when the grade distribution doesn't reflect what it should, e.g. one test was more difficult than expected. I'm talking about intentionally making a class difficult and assigning low grades under the assumption it will be curved to reach a normal distribution. I understand that some do it emphasize that you don't know enough to be able to claim mastery of the subject, but the idea is that the grade should reflect mastery of the assignment at the level of the class. If the majority of the class scores a 60 percent average on an exam, and that is considered normal, then doesn't that indicate that the issue lies with the lecturer and not the student? EDIT: To make it more clear what I was trying to get at, why do professors choose to add curves in only at the end of the semester, as opposed to throughout? Even if it lets your brightest students shine, it disadvantages the rest of the class in not knowing where their grade stands until the end of the semester when it is too late to do anything about it.

I believe that grading on a curve is stupid. CMV. I understand curving when the grade distribution doesn't reflect what it should, e.g. one test was more difficult than expected. I'm talking about intentionally making a class difficult and assigning low grades under the assumption it will be curved to reach a normal distribution. I understand that some do it emphasize that you don't know enough to be able to claim mastery of the subject, but the idea is that the grade should reflect mastery of the assignment at the level of the class. If the majority of the class scores a 60 percent average on an exam, and that is considered normal, then doesn't that indicate that the issue lies with the lecturer and not the student? EDIT: To make it more clear what I was trying to get at, why do professors choose to add curves in only at the end of the semester, as opposed to throughout? Even if it lets your brightest students shine, it disadvantages the rest of the class in not knowing where their grade stands until the end of the semester when it is too late to do anything about it.

t3_1aktv7

I think there are normal people and mentally ill people. No middle-ground. CMV

So I have realized that I am quite quick to jump to conclusions about people. But it seems to me that you have normal people and you have mentally ill people who get *all* the disorders. A friend of mine has 8 mental disorders. It seems like if you hve 1 you're likely to have more. So I've adopted a either ur fuckd or not view. CMV

I think there are normal people and mentally ill people. No middle-ground. CMV. So I have realized that I am quite quick to jump to conclusions about people. But it seems to me that you have normal people and you have mentally ill people who get *all* the disorders. A friend of mine has 8 mental disorders. It seems like if you hve 1 you're likely to have more. So I've adopted a either ur fuckd or not view. CMV

t3_2nq0rb

CMV: Developing new games is worthless (hear me out)

After making games for around 4 years now, I've come to the conclusion that it's all a waste of time. Indie game makers are often well-liked in theory, but when it comes right down to it, no one really wants to bother with them. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, though, and that's exactly my point. If people already like old IPs like Mario and Pokemon, why bother making new ones? You're not really helping anyone but yourself when you make a new game, because when it comes time to market it, you have to create a need that has already been met by existing games. This is why I'm quitting game development. I don't feel like anyone really wants or needs the thing that I do, and when I do "create the need" by advertising, I'm only really promoting greed. IMPORTANT EDIT: Thanks to everyone that replied. I had a little uncharacteristic freak-out moment, and I apologize for that. Anyway, I've decided not to throw in the towel, and that maybe indie games do have a place in the game scene _____ > *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: Developing new games is worthless (hear me out). After making games for around 4 years now, I've come to the conclusion that it's all a waste of time. Indie game makers are often well-liked in theory, but when it comes right down to it, no one really wants to bother with them. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, though, and that's exactly my point. If people already like old IPs like Mario and Pokemon, why bother making new ones? You're not really helping anyone but yourself when you make a new game, because when it comes time to market it, you have to create a need that has already been met by existing games. This is why I'm quitting game development. I don't feel like anyone really wants or needs the thing that I do, and when I do "create the need" by advertising, I'm only really promoting greed. IMPORTANT EDIT: Thanks to everyone that replied. I had a little uncharacteristic freak-out moment, and I apologize for that. Anyway, I've decided not to throw in the towel, and that maybe indie games do have a place in the game scene

t3_2wh8j4

CMV: The US Government should re-evaluate and re-distribute subsidies given to Fossil-fuel companies.

I believe that the United States is to heavily dependent on fossil fuel technologies (Coal, Oil, and Gas) It is a heavy burden to our economy and environment to subsidize fossil-fuel companies. By removing the subsidies given to fossil-fuel companies and re-distributing that money, we would create more revenue for the economy and create more incentives and jobs to focus on renewable energy and alternative sources. Current subsidies range up to $52 billion in just the production and finding fossil fuels. According to the National Research Council when evaluating air pollution and health impacts, It adds a staggering estimate of $120 billion that's collected from subsidies,loans, and grants. Removing these subsidies will balance the power that Major Oil and Coal mining companies have. There are tons of benefits to doing this which include *Cleaner Energy *More Incentives to research cleaner energy *More Money for the government *Less chances of exploitation by companies seeking these subsidies and cuts. We need to phase out of fossil fuel production and consumption, and in order to do that, we need to stop subsidizing the production of fossil fuels. _____ > *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 Government should re-evaluate and re-distribute subsidies given to Fossil-fuel companies. I believe that the United States is to heavily dependent on fossil fuel technologies (Coal, Oil, and Gas) It is a heavy burden to our economy and environment to subsidize fossil-fuel companies. By removing the subsidies given to fossil-fuel companies and re-distributing that money, we would create more revenue for the economy and create more incentives and jobs to focus on renewable energy and alternative sources. Current subsidies range up to $52 billion in just the production and finding fossil fuels. According to the National Research Council when evaluating air pollution and health impacts, It adds a staggering estimate of $120 billion that's collected from subsidies,loans, and grants. Removing these subsidies will balance the power that Major Oil and Coal mining companies have. There are tons of benefits to doing this which include *Cleaner Energy *More Incentives to research cleaner energy *More Money for the government *Less chances of exploitation by companies seeking these subsidies and cuts. We need to phase out of fossil fuel production and consumption, and in order to do that, we need to stop subsidizing the production of fossil fuels.

t3_2pybgu

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, December 13, 2014 - Friday, December 19, 2014

Totals: 7 days, 162 posts, 11,374 comments. Included in this report: The top 162 posts, and 10,429 of the top comments, by 2,484 distinct authors. No posts were gilded, but 3 comments were gilded. --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |1646|/u/canadaduane|[CMV: Most posts to CMV are a bid to be heard, not a request to "change my view"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pimzj/cmv_most_posts_to_cmv_are_a_bid_to_be_heard_not_a/)| |1439|/u/RagingTyrant74|[CMV: caffeine content of beverages should have to clearly displayed on the front of the bottle like alcohol content on beer, wine, and spirits.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p9x2r/cmv_caffeine_content_of_beverages_should_have_to/)| |934|/u/twiggystardust|[CMV: That people who opt out of being an organ donor on their drivers licence should not be eligible to receive organs, or at least put at the 'bottom of the list'.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p6kjb/cmv_that_people_who_opt_out_of_being_an_organ/)| |734|/u/DO_YOU_EVEN_LIFT_BRO|[CMV: "Female Privilege" exists.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pfo8x/cmv_female_privilege_exists/)| |499|/u/cherieish|[CMV: "Classic" actors in older movies were absolutely terrible at their art.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2plncc/cmv_classic_actors_in_older_movies_were/)| |399|/u/ControversialDebates|[CMV: Blaming extremists instead of religion for religious terrorism is like blaming extremists instead of Nazism for World War II and the Holocaust.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2prxlk/cmv_blaming_extremists_instead_of_religion_for/)| |311|/u/McBeardFuck|[CMV: I think the last three years in Sweden have turned me racist.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pdauv/cmv_i_think_the_last_three_years_in_sweden_have/)| |239|/u/junkindafront|[CMV: Socialism is simply a democratic workplace and not inconsistanty at all with democracy.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pqdi4/cmv_socialism_is_simply_a_democratic_workplace/)| |154|/u/rfonsecajr|[CMV:Rapping is considerably easier than singing or playing a musical instrument.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ps2mr/cmvrapping_is_considerably_easier_than_singing_or/)| |147|/u/tyroneblackson|[CMV: Decreasing birth rates is Western nations' biggest problem.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pod0t/cmv_decreasing_birth_rates_is_western_nations/)| |132|/u/marblecrab|[CMV: Screenings of The Interview should not have been cancelled, despite the threats.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2plzgd/cmv_screenings_of_the_interview_should_not_have/)| |100|/u/TheRationalMan|[CMV: I don't think news channels outside the Australia should have covered the hostage crisis as an all day breaking news.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pdy3i/cmv_i_dont_think_news_channels_outside_the/)| |93|/u/Kaleb1983|[CMV: I see nothing wrong with "swear words," even if said by children.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pf19b/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_swear_words_even_if/)| |89|/u/IIIBlackhartIII|[CMV: Yahoo news is a complete and total theiving ripoff](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p6ax9/cmv_yahoo_news_is_a_complete_and_total_theiving/)| |87|/u/cosima_rae|[CMV: I don't believe the calculation of child support should be tied to income.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2po514/cmv_i_dont_believe_the_calculation_of_child/)| |83|/u/deathproof-ish|[CMV: I believe Greek Life should be banned from Universities](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pi2xh/cmv_i_believe_greek_life_should_be_banned_from/)| |83|/u/ThisIsABadNameChoice|[CMV: That pre-orders and season passes are leading to poorer quality games](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pd63l/cmv_that_preorders_and_season_passes_are_leading/)| |60|/u/fiouch|[CMV: I do not vote](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p9ms8/cmv_i_do_not_vote/)| |58|/u/wynden|[CMV: Language can only be "bad" if it is personally offensive.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pprlq/cmv_language_can_only_be_bad_if_it_is_personally/)| |58|/u/general-information|[CMV: Usage-based billing for internet service based on the actual cost of data transfer is a bad idea.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pphbu/cmv_usagebased_billing_for_internet_service_based/)| |53|/u/gobears10|[CMV: Social democracy (regulated capitalism with strong safety nets) is superior to socialism (social ownership and democratic control over the means of production)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pqs9o/cmv_social_democracy_regulated_capitalism_with/)| |49|/u/Armiel|[CMV: I believe short barrel rifles, suppressors, and machine guns should be deregulated.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p9pjb/cmv_i_believe_short_barrel_rifles_suppressors_and/)| |47|/u/kazimir22|[CMV: A 20 year prison sentence is just as bad as a life sentence](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pnm9s/cmv_a_20_year_prison_sentence_is_just_as_bad_as_a/)| |46|/u/Sephard|[CMV:Fist-bumps are a superior method of celebration than high-fives](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p5bof/cmvfistbumps_are_a_superior_method_of_celebration/)| |44|/u/Virtuallyalive|[CMV: Hiphop culture was born at the cross roads of racism, poverty, and the American Dream, and deserves more credit](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pqfx4/cmv_hiphop_culture_was_born_at_the_cross_roads_of/)| |42|/u/i_smell_my_poop|[CMV: I believe the newly appointed Surgeon General should focus on more important health issues than gun violence if he actually desires to make American's live healthier, longer lives.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2phwfa/cmv_i_believe_the_newly_appointed_surgeon_general/)| |40|/u/Xerxster|[CMV: The United States should adopt the green running man pictogram as its sole exit sign.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pro6v/cmv_the_united_states_should_adopt_the_green/)| |40|/u/arcosapphire|[CMV: "Cap on top" shampoo, etc., is a worse design than "cap on bottom"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ph4vt/cmv_cap_on_top_shampoo_etc_is_a_worse_design_than/)| |40|/u/mazzoforte|[CMV: I cannot enjoy anything knowing that all things come to an end.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pcwpg/cmv_i_cannot_enjoy_anything_knowing_that_all/)| |37|/u/garnteller|[[Mod Post] Revision to Rule A](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pacro/mod_post_revision_to_rule_a/)| |35|/u/Gingyvitis|[CMV: The normalizing of relations with Cuba is a good thing.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pmym2/cmv_the_normalizing_of_relations_with_cuba_is_a/)| |35|/u/Inshuu|[CMV: I think our society has reached a point where religion is no longer necessary and brings nothing but problems.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2paxyl/cmv_i_think_our_society_has_reached_a_point_where/)| |34|/u/Pariah--|[CMV: Support work is a horrible and demeaning profession](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ptgyh/cmv_support_work_is_a_horrible_and_demeaning/)| |34|/u/seancurry1|[CMV: Republicans are trying to turn Sony pulling 'The Interview' into America losing a cyberwar so they can blame Obama for it.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pp8dz/cmv_republicans_are_trying_to_turn_sony_pulling/)| |32|/u/Tsukamori|[CMV: I don't believe film studios are in the wrong for trying to fight online piracy of their movies.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p6knq/cmv_i_dont_believe_film_studios_are_in_the_wrong/)| |32|/u/a_hoopyfrood|[CMV: Buying / breeding pedigree dogs is antiquated and harmful.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p6y53/cmv_buying_breeding_pedigree_dogs_is_antiquated/)| |30|/u/AdmiralCrunch9|[CMV: Children shouldn't be given hyphenate names combining their parents last names.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pm08t/cmv_children_shouldnt_be_given_hyphenate_names/)| |30|/u/JustinTime112|[CMV: Alcohol should be legally required to show calories on the packaging](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pb318/cmv_alcohol_should_be_legally_required_to_show/)| |29|/u/deathproof-ish|[CMV: I believe that Feminism has driven men away, and that men have every right to dislike the movement.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pedmx/cmv_i_believe_that_feminism_has_driven_men_away/)| |25|/u/redditor0000001|[CMV I immediately distrust people who use the word 'terrorist'.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2plffu/cmv_i_immediately_distrust_people_who_use_the/)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

/r/changemyview report: Saturday, December 13, 2014 - Friday, December 19, 2014. Totals: 7 days, 162 posts, 11,374 comments. Included in this report: The top 162 posts, and 10,429 of the top comments, by 2,484 distinct authors. No posts were gilded, but 3 comments were gilded. --- See the comments for detailed reports and charts. --- **Most Popular Posts** --- |Score|Author|Post Title| |:-|-|-| |1646|/u/canadaduane|[CMV: Most posts to CMV are a bid to be heard, not a request to "change my view"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pimzj/cmv_most_posts_to_cmv_are_a_bid_to_be_heard_not_a/)| |1439|/u/RagingTyrant74|[CMV: caffeine content of beverages should have to clearly displayed on the front of the bottle like alcohol content on beer, wine, and spirits.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p9x2r/cmv_caffeine_content_of_beverages_should_have_to/)| |934|/u/twiggystardust|[CMV: That people who opt out of being an organ donor on their drivers licence should not be eligible to receive organs, or at least put at the 'bottom of the list'.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p6kjb/cmv_that_people_who_opt_out_of_being_an_organ/)| |734|/u/DO_YOU_EVEN_LIFT_BRO|[CMV: "Female Privilege" exists.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pfo8x/cmv_female_privilege_exists/)| |499|/u/cherieish|[CMV: "Classic" actors in older movies were absolutely terrible at their art.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2plncc/cmv_classic_actors_in_older_movies_were/)| |399|/u/ControversialDebates|[CMV: Blaming extremists instead of religion for religious terrorism is like blaming extremists instead of Nazism for World War II and the Holocaust.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2prxlk/cmv_blaming_extremists_instead_of_religion_for/)| |311|/u/McBeardFuck|[CMV: I think the last three years in Sweden have turned me racist.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pdauv/cmv_i_think_the_last_three_years_in_sweden_have/)| |239|/u/junkindafront|[CMV: Socialism is simply a democratic workplace and not inconsistanty at all with democracy.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pqdi4/cmv_socialism_is_simply_a_democratic_workplace/)| |154|/u/rfonsecajr|[CMV:Rapping is considerably easier than singing or playing a musical instrument.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ps2mr/cmvrapping_is_considerably_easier_than_singing_or/)| |147|/u/tyroneblackson|[CMV: Decreasing birth rates is Western nations' biggest problem.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pod0t/cmv_decreasing_birth_rates_is_western_nations/)| |132|/u/marblecrab|[CMV: Screenings of The Interview should not have been cancelled, despite the threats.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2plzgd/cmv_screenings_of_the_interview_should_not_have/)| |100|/u/TheRationalMan|[CMV: I don't think news channels outside the Australia should have covered the hostage crisis as an all day breaking news.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pdy3i/cmv_i_dont_think_news_channels_outside_the/)| |93|/u/Kaleb1983|[CMV: I see nothing wrong with "swear words," even if said by children.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pf19b/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_swear_words_even_if/)| |89|/u/IIIBlackhartIII|[CMV: Yahoo news is a complete and total theiving ripoff](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p6ax9/cmv_yahoo_news_is_a_complete_and_total_theiving/)| |87|/u/cosima_rae|[CMV: I don't believe the calculation of child support should be tied to income.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2po514/cmv_i_dont_believe_the_calculation_of_child/)| |83|/u/deathproof-ish|[CMV: I believe Greek Life should be banned from Universities](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pi2xh/cmv_i_believe_greek_life_should_be_banned_from/)| |83|/u/ThisIsABadNameChoice|[CMV: That pre-orders and season passes are leading to poorer quality games](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pd63l/cmv_that_preorders_and_season_passes_are_leading/)| |60|/u/fiouch|[CMV: I do not vote](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p9ms8/cmv_i_do_not_vote/)| |58|/u/wynden|[CMV: Language can only be "bad" if it is personally offensive.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pprlq/cmv_language_can_only_be_bad_if_it_is_personally/)| |58|/u/general-information|[CMV: Usage-based billing for internet service based on the actual cost of data transfer is a bad idea.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pphbu/cmv_usagebased_billing_for_internet_service_based/)| |53|/u/gobears10|[CMV: Social democracy (regulated capitalism with strong safety nets) is superior to socialism (social ownership and democratic control over the means of production)](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pqs9o/cmv_social_democracy_regulated_capitalism_with/)| |49|/u/Armiel|[CMV: I believe short barrel rifles, suppressors, and machine guns should be deregulated.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p9pjb/cmv_i_believe_short_barrel_rifles_suppressors_and/)| |47|/u/kazimir22|[CMV: A 20 year prison sentence is just as bad as a life sentence](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pnm9s/cmv_a_20_year_prison_sentence_is_just_as_bad_as_a/)| |46|/u/Sephard|[CMV:Fist-bumps are a superior method of celebration than high-fives](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p5bof/cmvfistbumps_are_a_superior_method_of_celebration/)| |44|/u/Virtuallyalive|[CMV: Hiphop culture was born at the cross roads of racism, poverty, and the American Dream, and deserves more credit](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pqfx4/cmv_hiphop_culture_was_born_at_the_cross_roads_of/)| |42|/u/i_smell_my_poop|[CMV: I believe the newly appointed Surgeon General should focus on more important health issues than gun violence if he actually desires to make American's live healthier, longer lives.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2phwfa/cmv_i_believe_the_newly_appointed_surgeon_general/)| |40|/u/Xerxster|[CMV: The United States should adopt the green running man pictogram as its sole exit sign.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pro6v/cmv_the_united_states_should_adopt_the_green/)| |40|/u/arcosapphire|[CMV: "Cap on top" shampoo, etc., is a worse design than "cap on bottom"](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ph4vt/cmv_cap_on_top_shampoo_etc_is_a_worse_design_than/)| |40|/u/mazzoforte|[CMV: I cannot enjoy anything knowing that all things come to an end.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pcwpg/cmv_i_cannot_enjoy_anything_knowing_that_all/)| |37|/u/garnteller|[[Mod Post] Revision to Rule A](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pacro/mod_post_revision_to_rule_a/)| |35|/u/Gingyvitis|[CMV: The normalizing of relations with Cuba is a good thing.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pmym2/cmv_the_normalizing_of_relations_with_cuba_is_a/)| |35|/u/Inshuu|[CMV: I think our society has reached a point where religion is no longer necessary and brings nothing but problems.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2paxyl/cmv_i_think_our_society_has_reached_a_point_where/)| |34|/u/Pariah--|[CMV: Support work is a horrible and demeaning profession](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2ptgyh/cmv_support_work_is_a_horrible_and_demeaning/)| |34|/u/seancurry1|[CMV: Republicans are trying to turn Sony pulling 'The Interview' into America losing a cyberwar so they can blame Obama for it.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pp8dz/cmv_republicans_are_trying_to_turn_sony_pulling/)| |32|/u/Tsukamori|[CMV: I don't believe film studios are in the wrong for trying to fight online piracy of their movies.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p6knq/cmv_i_dont_believe_film_studios_are_in_the_wrong/)| |32|/u/a_hoopyfrood|[CMV: Buying / breeding pedigree dogs is antiquated and harmful.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2p6y53/cmv_buying_breeding_pedigree_dogs_is_antiquated/)| |30|/u/AdmiralCrunch9|[CMV: Children shouldn't be given hyphenate names combining their parents last names.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pm08t/cmv_children_shouldnt_be_given_hyphenate_names/)| |30|/u/JustinTime112|[CMV: Alcohol should be legally required to show calories on the packaging](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pb318/cmv_alcohol_should_be_legally_required_to_show/)| |29|/u/deathproof-ish|[CMV: I believe that Feminism has driven men away, and that men have every right to dislike the movement.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2pedmx/cmv_i_believe_that_feminism_has_driven_men_away/)| |25|/u/redditor0000001|[CMV I immediately distrust people who use the word 'terrorist'.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2plffu/cmv_i_immediately_distrust_people_who_use_the/)| --- ^(This report was automatically cross-posted from /r/subredditreports at the request of this sub's moderators.)

t3_3ueq63

CMV: Downvotes (without a contribution to the discussion, which the majority are) are often petty, unproductive, and pointless, and Reddit would be better off without them

Reddit would be better off without downvotes, because unlike social media sites, Reddit is built for discussion, and downvotes directly hinder that. Downvotes allow and perhaps encourage people to express their disapproval without adding anything substantial whatsoever to a post. It lets users imply that they think another user is wrong (whether morally or factually) without explaining why-- how can one be expected to correct a blunder on his/her part if they don't know what they said or did wrong? That's what happens when all a person has to go by is a downvote on their post. All in all, downvoting is a way for people to point out (what they perceive as) mistakes on someone else's part and not explain why they feel the way they do, which stagnates discussion. This: User A: [makes a statement] User B: [makes a counterpoint explaining why User A is wrong] User A: [can now clarify his original statement, elaborating on why he said it, or correct User B in case there was a misunderstanding, or realize that he was indeed wrong, thus learning from the discussion] Is always better than this: User A: [makes a statement] User B: [downvote] User A: [has no context with which to work, no chance to elaborate/clear up any misunderstandings, and thus nobody learns or gains anything from this interaction] Unfortunately, the system of downvotes encourages the latter less than the former. Also, the system allows (but I won't necessarily say encourages) "serial downvoting," which often involves downvoting all of a user's posts/comments out of spite for whatever reason, which is just immature. _____ > *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: Downvotes (without a contribution to the discussion, which the majority are) are often petty, unproductive, and pointless, and Reddit would be better off without them. Reddit would be better off without downvotes, because unlike social media sites, Reddit is built for discussion, and downvotes directly hinder that. Downvotes allow and perhaps encourage people to express their disapproval without adding anything substantial whatsoever to a post. It lets users imply that they think another user is wrong (whether morally or factually) without explaining why-- how can one be expected to correct a blunder on his/her part if they don't know what they said or did wrong? That's what happens when all a person has to go by is a downvote on their post. All in all, downvoting is a way for people to point out (what they perceive as) mistakes on someone else's part and not explain why they feel the way they do, which stagnates discussion. This: User A: [makes a statement] User B: [makes a counterpoint explaining why User A is wrong] User A: [can now clarify his original statement, elaborating on why he said it, or correct User B in case there was a misunderstanding, or realize that he was indeed wrong, thus learning from the discussion] Is always better than this: User A: [makes a statement] User B: [downvote] User A: [has no context with which to work, no chance to elaborate/clear up any misunderstandings, and thus nobody learns or gains anything from this interaction] Unfortunately, the system of downvotes encourages the latter less than the former. Also, the system allows (but I won't necessarily say encourages) "serial downvoting," which often involves downvoting all of a user's posts/comments out of spite for whatever reason, which is just immature.

t3_4rg7fw

CMV: A petition with 4 millions signatures for a second EU referendum is a sign that the Leave campaign is in large part anti-democracy.

Edit: was rushing through and was being stupid and for some reason put Leave instead of Remain in my title. Please don't let my stupid slip stop an actual conversation. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 *Take note that there probably a good part of these people who are from outside nations who shouldn't be partaking in this petition in the first place.* The rules were made beforehand. The democratic process rolled forward, and despite the fact that democracy was awesome and wonderful when everything looked like they were going to win, as soon as it comes in that Brexit won 4 million people decided that democracy is now needs to be rid of when it doesn't go your way. I understand that some people changed their minds. It doesn't matter. They had decades to keep up with the EU, and if they didn't take the time to contemplate what would happen until after the vote it doesn't matter. Democracy doesn't take you being an ignorant idiot into account, otherwise 70% of votes wouldn't mean anything. I understand the idea of going back to a topic after a certain amount of time has passed and new perspective can be gain, but going back literally weeks after a vote because you hope you can get your way the second time around is simply undemocratic (not to mention, it seems the biggest upset is the economy. If you voted leave and didn't expect to see a drop in the economy do to the massive instability it caused, you are plainly and simply an imbecile). You can't just loose, scream louder about how the end times are coming, call for another vote and then repeat the process until you achieve the desired result. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: A petition with 4 millions signatures for a second EU referendum is a sign that the Leave campaign is in large part anti-democracy. Edit: was rushing through and was being stupid and for some reason put Leave instead of Remain in my title. Please don't let my stupid slip stop an actual conversation. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 *Take note that there probably a good part of these people who are from outside nations who shouldn't be partaking in this petition in the first place.* The rules were made beforehand. The democratic process rolled forward, and despite the fact that democracy was awesome and wonderful when everything looked like they were going to win, as soon as it comes in that Brexit won 4 million people decided that democracy is now needs to be rid of when it doesn't go your way. I understand that some people changed their minds. It doesn't matter. They had decades to keep up with the EU, and if they didn't take the time to contemplate what would happen until after the vote it doesn't matter. Democracy doesn't take you being an ignorant idiot into account, otherwise 70% of votes wouldn't mean anything. I understand the idea of going back to a topic after a certain amount of time has passed and new perspective can be gain, but going back literally weeks after a vote because you hope you can get your way the second time around is simply undemocratic (not to mention, it seems the biggest upset is the economy. If you voted leave and didn't expect to see a drop in the economy do to the massive instability it caused, you are plainly and simply an imbecile). You can't just loose, scream louder about how the end times are coming, call for another vote and then repeat the process until you achieve the desired result.

t3_1fpfpi

I don't believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty. CMV.

I feel the "evidence" presented to the public (including his supposed "boat note confession" one month after, and his "confession" after being interrogated while drugged on pain medication), and the "evidence" of the surveillance footage of him dropping his backpack off (as described in the federal charge papers) are not substantial enough to charge or convict him of the bombing. The evidence, timeline, and photos/videos/testimonies given by the spectators of the marathon and Watertown shootout does not add up. CMV.

I don't believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty. CMV. I feel the "evidence" presented to the public (including his supposed "boat note confession" one month after, and his "confession" after being interrogated while drugged on pain medication), and the "evidence" of the surveillance footage of him dropping his backpack off (as described in the federal charge papers) are not substantial enough to charge or convict him of the bombing. The evidence, timeline, and photos/videos/testimonies given by the spectators of the marathon and Watertown shootout does not add up. CMV.

t3_2byn0m

CMV: In American elementary schools, American history classes should focus more on the Constitution than on the Declaration of Independence.

While I was still going to public school in America, most of my history classes focused more on the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution. We focused so much on it, I thought that the Declaration of Independence was the most important document America ever had. While it definitely isn't *un*important, the DoI was more a list of reasons why the King of England sucked and why they wanted independence as their own nation. The Constitution, however, is the backbone to how America is run, far more relevant to modern American life than the Declaration. Granted, 1st and 2nd graders might not fully understand what the Constitution is and it's easier to teach the Declaration to them, but I think that 4th and 5th graders would definitely be able to understand the basics of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and amendments, perhaps even 3rd graders. The Declaration is great for when you want to teach kids about the Revolutionary War. However, there's not much of a need to spend so much time on it, since, in my opinion, it's just not as relevant to American life as the Constitution. While it's important, it's more important to teach about history that had a bigger impact on today's world. The Constitution is a prime example for American life, since it's still being used and referenced all the time today! When was the last time you heard of the Declaration of Independence in the mainstream news? Okay, Nicholas Cage stole it in a movie once, but other than that, nothing much. The Constitution is *constantly* in the news, however, and in order for any of the branches of government to do anything, they have to look up the Constitution to see if it's okay. I think that if we teach American kids early on what the Constitution is, they're more likely to know how the law actually works, how the country is run and the actual intent the Founding Fathers had for America. They might also become more interested in politics in their adult lives, since they would actually know how the American government is structured. Plus, with the Constitution, it would also help teach students how America changed over time, and what the values and standards were for American people living a hundred or two hundred years ago. It might even get them to debate amongst themselves if they agree with parts of the Constitution or not, and it's important for kids to learn how to properly have a debate and not just a bunch of angry arguments. Most of the kids I know can barely name any amendments, except for like freedom of speech (and they seem to be under the impression that freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want and shouldn't have to have any social repercussions for it), right to guns and women's suffrage. It's almost like they only take the time to learn about the Constitution when they need to win an argument. Now, my "generation", for lack of a better word, is still young and we haven't really fully developed into adults yet, but how can a country be functional if the people don't know how their Constitution works, including the parts they *don't* like about it? _________ **TL;DR:** Kids would benefit more from learning about the Constitution at an early age rather than the Declaration of Independence. > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: In American elementary schools, American history classes should focus more on the Constitution than on the Declaration of Independence. While I was still going to public school in America, most of my history classes focused more on the Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution. We focused so much on it, I thought that the Declaration of Independence was the most important document America ever had. While it definitely isn't *un*important, the DoI was more a list of reasons why the King of England sucked and why they wanted independence as their own nation. The Constitution, however, is the backbone to how America is run, far more relevant to modern American life than the Declaration. Granted, 1st and 2nd graders might not fully understand what the Constitution is and it's easier to teach the Declaration to them, but I think that 4th and 5th graders would definitely be able to understand the basics of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and amendments, perhaps even 3rd graders. The Declaration is great for when you want to teach kids about the Revolutionary War. However, there's not much of a need to spend so much time on it, since, in my opinion, it's just not as relevant to American life as the Constitution. While it's important, it's more important to teach about history that had a bigger impact on today's world. The Constitution is a prime example for American life, since it's still being used and referenced all the time today! When was the last time you heard of the Declaration of Independence in the mainstream news? Okay, Nicholas Cage stole it in a movie once, but other than that, nothing much. The Constitution is *constantly* in the news, however, and in order for any of the branches of government to do anything, they have to look up the Constitution to see if it's okay. I think that if we teach American kids early on what the Constitution is, they're more likely to know how the law actually works, how the country is run and the actual intent the Founding Fathers had for America. They might also become more interested in politics in their adult lives, since they would actually know how the American government is structured. Plus, with the Constitution, it would also help teach students how America changed over time, and what the values and standards were for American people living a hundred or two hundred years ago. It might even get them to debate amongst themselves if they agree with parts of the Constitution or not, and it's important for kids to learn how to properly have a debate and not just a bunch of angry arguments. Most of the kids I know can barely name any amendments, except for like freedom of speech (and they seem to be under the impression that freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want and shouldn't have to have any social repercussions for it), right to guns and women's suffrage. It's almost like they only take the time to learn about the Constitution when they need to win an argument. Now, my "generation", for lack of a better word, is still young and we haven't really fully developed into adults yet, but how can a country be functional if the people don't know how their Constitution works, including the parts they *don't* like about it? _________ **TL;DR:** Kids would benefit more from learning about the Constitution at an early age rather than the Declaration of Independence. > *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_1yqvrr

I believe that rapists should have absolutely no parental rights over the child that was conceived from rape. CMV

The reason that I believe this is because there have been many cases where the victim of rape conceives a child and the convicted rapist has parental rights over it after they have served time in jail. If the victim decides that they want to give the child up for adoption, they must first receive written permission from the rapist. This means that they must go to their own rapist, request for the child to be put up to adoption, and have them sign a form. I cannot even imagine the psychological turmoil that this would have on the victim. There have been cases where the victim wants to give the child to adoption, but the rapists will only agree to consent if the victim does not testify against the rapist. I believe that there is a total of 31 states who currently allow rapists to request and hold parental rights over their rape-conceived children. For example, in this article, a woman was raped and conceived a child. When the child was 6 years old, the rapist wanted parental rights over it. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/ Edit: Due to certain replies to this post, it has come to my attention that I did not explain certain circumstances of my view clear enough. For example, if the female is the rapist and then conceives a child, then I believe that the convicted female rapist should not hold parental rights over it. This is because she would *hopefully* would have been convicted and sent to jail, thus the court would judge her to be an unfit parent. I also believe that the male victim should not have to pay child support. In this case, I believe that the child should go to a chosen family member issued by court or put up for adoption if the victim does not want to raise the child. Along with this, I believe that if the rapist has been rehabilitated and the victim agrees to allow them parental rights over court, then the rapist may have parental rights. However, this is only if the rapist has been convicted, serves their time, has been rehabilitated and has not blackmailed or threatened the victim into allowing them parental rights.

I believe that rapists should have absolutely no parental rights over the child that was conceived from rape. CMV. The reason that I believe this is because there have been many cases where the victim of rape conceives a child and the convicted rapist has parental rights over it after they have served time in jail. If the victim decides that they want to give the child up for adoption, they must first receive written permission from the rapist. This means that they must go to their own rapist, request for the child to be put up to adoption, and have them sign a form. I cannot even imagine the psychological turmoil that this would have on the victim. There have been cases where the victim wants to give the child to adoption, but the rapists will only agree to consent if the victim does not testify against the rapist. I believe that there is a total of 31 states who currently allow rapists to request and hold parental rights over their rape-conceived children. For example, in this article, a woman was raped and conceived a child. When the child was 6 years old, the rapist wanted parental rights over it. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/01/us/rapist-child-custody/ Edit: Due to certain replies to this post, it has come to my attention that I did not explain certain circumstances of my view clear enough. For example, if the female is the rapist and then conceives a child, then I believe that the convicted female rapist should not hold parental rights over it. This is because she would *hopefully* would have been convicted and sent to jail, thus the court would judge her to be an unfit parent. I also believe that the male victim should not have to pay child support. In this case, I believe that the child should go to a chosen family member issued by court or put up for adoption if the victim does not want to raise the child. Along with this, I believe that if the rapist has been rehabilitated and the victim agrees to allow them parental rights over court, then the rapist may have parental rights. However, this is only if the rapist has been convicted, serves their time, has been rehabilitated and has not blackmailed or threatened the victim into allowing them parental rights.

t3_1j8mz0

I think the United States needs a bigger federal government. CMV

When I say "Bigger" I mean literally a greater amount of congressman and women in the house of representatives. Up until the early 20th century, Congress regularly increased the size of the house so that Congress would have small enough constituencies such that they could actually, you know, *represent* the people in their districts. That practice stopped to deflate the power of cities--and quell anti-immigrant fears, yet it also means that today, some congressmen and women cover six-figure populations, and others five-figure, without any difference in their power in government. My view is that smaller constituencies would create more incentive for politicians to really help local communities rather than spend their time worrying about being re-elected, and it would deflate the power of extreme districts with small populations to create the 'tyranny of the minority' we've seen recently. I'd like the ideas of [this op-ed] (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133184399/Op-Ed-America-Needs-A-Larger-Congress) with a one-to-60000 ratio for representation. This would significantly swell the size of congress leading to my only problem: implementation. Would we increase the size of the Capital? Find a secure, online voting resource? It's tough , but I think that's a lesser issue than looking at the fundamental benefits of better representation. When political dysfuntion becomes as prevalant as it is now in the United States, I'm inclined to look at systematic problems: where are these issues coming from? My view is that it comes from disproportionate representation of the views of the citizens. But it seems ridiculous whenever I imagine it *physically*, so I want to be challenged.

I think the United States needs a bigger federal government. CMV. When I say "Bigger" I mean literally a greater amount of congressman and women in the house of representatives. Up until the early 20th century, Congress regularly increased the size of the house so that Congress would have small enough constituencies such that they could actually, you know, *represent* the people in their districts. That practice stopped to deflate the power of cities--and quell anti-immigrant fears, yet it also means that today, some congressmen and women cover six-figure populations, and others five-figure, without any difference in their power in government. My view is that smaller constituencies would create more incentive for politicians to really help local communities rather than spend their time worrying about being re-elected, and it would deflate the power of extreme districts with small populations to create the 'tyranny of the minority' we've seen recently. I'd like the ideas of [this op-ed] (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133184399/Op-Ed-America-Needs-A-Larger-Congress) with a one-to-60000 ratio for representation. This would significantly swell the size of congress leading to my only problem: implementation. Would we increase the size of the Capital? Find a secure, online voting resource? It's tough , but I think that's a lesser issue than looking at the fundamental benefits of better representation. When political dysfuntion becomes as prevalant as it is now in the United States, I'm inclined to look at systematic problems: where are these issues coming from? My view is that it comes from disproportionate representation of the views of the citizens. But it seems ridiculous whenever I imagine it *physically*, so I want to be challenged.

t3_18fdf2

I believe society is in a decline CMV

Speaking generally in today's American society in the last 70 years. I think teenagers are becoming more absorbed with entertainment. Drugs, alcohol, sex are becoming the standard. Large numbers of marijuana usage. High numbers of alcohol consumption, high numbers or sex from ages 13-17. Not the rare delinquent kids. Spoiled teenagers are becoming more common. Media and celebrity obsession, laziness, expectations and an entitlement mindset. Speaking for the average person. I see less charitable deeds. There seems to be a weariness to help people because they are afraid of getting mugged or taken advantage of. There are more overweight and unhealthy people. TV and video games outweigh doing healthy activities outside. Our entertainment has gone from family shows like Leave it to Beaver to Jersey Shore and other shows which glorify abuse, sex, drugs, being a horrible person and so on. Celebrities are self absorbed and the obsession is unhealthy. Case in point Beiber, Gaga. Large number approaching majority of children born out of wedlock. High abuse and rape numbers. High jail populations. Glorification of gangster lifestyle. Overall I believe that the average person and family from the 1950s is a much more respectable and stable unit than the mess that most people seem to be in this day. Entertainment, entitlement, laziness, selfishness, narcissistic tendencies, sex, drugs, alcohol, born out of wedlock, etc. All of these seem more common. Am I wrong? Are these things not bad? Thanks.

I believe society is in a decline CMV. Speaking generally in today's American society in the last 70 years. I think teenagers are becoming more absorbed with entertainment. Drugs, alcohol, sex are becoming the standard. Large numbers of marijuana usage. High numbers of alcohol consumption, high numbers or sex from ages 13-17. Not the rare delinquent kids. Spoiled teenagers are becoming more common. Media and celebrity obsession, laziness, expectations and an entitlement mindset. Speaking for the average person. I see less charitable deeds. There seems to be a weariness to help people because they are afraid of getting mugged or taken advantage of. There are more overweight and unhealthy people. TV and video games outweigh doing healthy activities outside. Our entertainment has gone from family shows like Leave it to Beaver to Jersey Shore and other shows which glorify abuse, sex, drugs, being a horrible person and so on. Celebrities are self absorbed and the obsession is unhealthy. Case in point Beiber, Gaga. Large number approaching majority of children born out of wedlock. High abuse and rape numbers. High jail populations. Glorification of gangster lifestyle. Overall I believe that the average person and family from the 1950s is a much more respectable and stable unit than the mess that most people seem to be in this day. Entertainment, entitlement, laziness, selfishness, narcissistic tendencies, sex, drugs, alcohol, born out of wedlock, etc. All of these seem more common. Am I wrong? Are these things not bad? Thanks.

t3_2ifk2f

CMV: I believe Rorschach was right. (Watchmen)

I think that Ozymandias' approach is basically based on evil. Its a lie that creates murders to preserve a lie that will create more murders. If the human race was stupid enough to get themselves in the situation that they were in then they obviously cant handle themselves anyway and will wind up being in this situation again. Its basically inevitable. Rorschachs journal resurfacing was probably the representation of that happening. Is this just purely an impulsive discussion of natural alignment or is there thought that goes into it? Does anyone here agree with Ozymandias? _____ > *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 Rorschach was right. (Watchmen). I think that Ozymandias' approach is basically based on evil. Its a lie that creates murders to preserve a lie that will create more murders. If the human race was stupid enough to get themselves in the situation that they were in then they obviously cant handle themselves anyway and will wind up being in this situation again. Its basically inevitable. Rorschachs journal resurfacing was probably the representation of that happening. Is this just purely an impulsive discussion of natural alignment or is there thought that goes into it? Does anyone here agree with Ozymandias?

t3_46o2yz

CMV:Althougn now considered debunked, the economic idea known as Say's Law is fundamentally correct

The best way to explain it, I believe, is "supply of one is demand for another." In order to buy something, thereby generating demand, you need to have something to trade for it. Therefore, the demand you generate is equal to the supply you generate. Picture a simple barter economy, where you're a fisherman that trades your fish for potatoes. It is clear that the demand for potatoes is equal to the supply of fish, and the demand for fish is equal to the supply of potatoes. I don't think that money changes the situation. Its primary purpose is as a medium by which to exchange goods. It is still the case that you need to generate supply in order to earn money with which to generate demand. When I say that supply=demand, keep in mind that I am talking about value, not mass or quantity, or anything like that. In this context, I define "value" as the market clearing price of the item in question. If there's a better word to use, please let me know. Furthermore, I am only considering the goods that are offered for trade. Goods that are hoarded or consumed by the producer are irrelevant. _____ > *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:Althougn now considered debunked, the economic idea known as Say's Law is fundamentally correct. The best way to explain it, I believe, is "supply of one is demand for another." In order to buy something, thereby generating demand, you need to have something to trade for it. Therefore, the demand you generate is equal to the supply you generate. Picture a simple barter economy, where you're a fisherman that trades your fish for potatoes. It is clear that the demand for potatoes is equal to the supply of fish, and the demand for fish is equal to the supply of potatoes. I don't think that money changes the situation. Its primary purpose is as a medium by which to exchange goods. It is still the case that you need to generate supply in order to earn money with which to generate demand. When I say that supply=demand, keep in mind that I am talking about value, not mass or quantity, or anything like that. In this context, I define "value" as the market clearing price of the item in question. If there's a better word to use, please let me know. Furthermore, I am only considering the goods that are offered for trade. Goods that are hoarded or consumed by the producer are irrelevant.

t3_3ekele

CMV: Capitalism is not the enemy. In fact, it is the best option we, currently and probably will ever, have.

Kindly, let us not talk in ideals for we all know Utopia is not humanly attainable. Capitalism is a free market, regulated by the state. If the state is just and is not rife with corruption, then a capitalism environment is a ripe environment for someone to become a self-made millionaire or whatever that he puts his mind into. A laissez-faire on the far left is not attainable due to the human nature. Communism, on the far right, will interfere with your freewill and would kill any incentive to advance the human population and their ensuing happiness (not saying that they are correlated). Am I missing something 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: Capitalism is not the enemy. In fact, it is the best option we, currently and probably will ever, have. Kindly, let us not talk in ideals for we all know Utopia is not humanly attainable. Capitalism is a free market, regulated by the state. If the state is just and is not rife with corruption, then a capitalism environment is a ripe environment for someone to become a self-made millionaire or whatever that he puts his mind into. A laissez-faire on the far left is not attainable due to the human nature. Communism, on the far right, will interfere with your freewill and would kill any incentive to advance the human population and their ensuing happiness (not saying that they are correlated). Am I missing something here?

t3_1mvt3e

I believe that atheists and non-believers should spearhead a move towards founding "secular churches." CMV.

I know that even the idea sounds oxymoronic, but I think that there is a significant subset of social, emotional, philosophical, and personal problems (often grouped as "spiritual problems") that it has been the business of religious churches to address. I don't think that religion does a great job of addressing many of these problems, just to be clear, but I think that many of the "community-oriented" strategies provided by churches could ultimately evolve into very useful tools for helping people cope with certain problems. To be a bit more specific about the problems we don't currently have many tools for addressing areligiously: -Dealing with death. -Finding meaning in one's life and the world. -Making moral decisions/ setting our personal moral paradigms. -Crafting (real life) communities. I want to also be very clear that I don't think that areligious churches have to look very much at all like religious churches. So why even call them churches, you ask? No. I agree. Let's call them something totally different. Let's think about them in a completely different sense even. Let's forget about studying ancient texts, yielding to arbitrary authority (be it human or "divine"), and obsessing over ritual and doctrine. The only thing that I want to carry over from the current incarnation of churches is something like this: like-minded people coming together to address their emotional and social concerns ("how do I raise my children, think about sex, address addiction, make good choices, meet the members of my community, deal with death, find purpose in my life, etc.?") without appealing to any single authority figure (like a God or a psychiatrist) to talk regularly and do nice things for each other and their neighbors. Every time I present anything like this to other atheists, they flip out. But while of course I stand against religion's silliness, stubbornness, prejudice, and sacrifice of the present to some imagined future in "heaven" or whatever, I can't understand why atheists should be so opposed to liking the general structure of communities coming gathering to explore love and positive change. Please CMV, if my thinking is indeed misguided. EDIT: To clarify some repeated misconceptions, this is NOT a "church of atheism" at all... this is a "church" (and really I don't even like that word) FOR atheists... Specifically, I think that religion came into existence to address a particularly insoluble set of problems that don't have any great answers. Answering these problems with pretend gods and fairies is a bad solution/ tradition, but coming together as a community to deal with these concerns together is a great idea! So this is not an "atheist church" but a "church" to deal with the problems that theist churches formerly dealt with for those people who are not theists.

I believe that atheists and non-believers should spearhead a move towards founding "secular churches." CMV. I know that even the idea sounds oxymoronic, but I think that there is a significant subset of social, emotional, philosophical, and personal problems (often grouped as "spiritual problems") that it has been the business of religious churches to address. I don't think that religion does a great job of addressing many of these problems, just to be clear, but I think that many of the "community-oriented" strategies provided by churches could ultimately evolve into very useful tools for helping people cope with certain problems. To be a bit more specific about the problems we don't currently have many tools for addressing areligiously: -Dealing with death. -Finding meaning in one's life and the world. -Making moral decisions/ setting our personal moral paradigms. -Crafting (real life) communities. I want to also be very clear that I don't think that areligious churches have to look very much at all like religious churches. So why even call them churches, you ask? No. I agree. Let's call them something totally different. Let's think about them in a completely different sense even. Let's forget about studying ancient texts, yielding to arbitrary authority (be it human or "divine"), and obsessing over ritual and doctrine. The only thing that I want to carry over from the current incarnation of churches is something like this: like-minded people coming together to address their emotional and social concerns ("how do I raise my children, think about sex, address addiction, make good choices, meet the members of my community, deal with death, find purpose in my life, etc.?") without appealing to any single authority figure (like a God or a psychiatrist) to talk regularly and do nice things for each other and their neighbors. Every time I present anything like this to other atheists, they flip out. But while of course I stand against religion's silliness, stubbornness, prejudice, and sacrifice of the present to some imagined future in "heaven" or whatever, I can't understand why atheists should be so opposed to liking the general structure of communities coming gathering to explore love and positive change. Please CMV, if my thinking is indeed misguided. EDIT: To clarify some repeated misconceptions, this is NOT a "church of atheism" at all... this is a "church" (and really I don't even like that word) FOR atheists... Specifically, I think that religion came into existence to address a particularly insoluble set of problems that don't have any great answers. Answering these problems with pretend gods and fairies is a bad solution/ tradition, but coming together as a community to deal with these concerns together is a great idea! So this is not an "atheist church" but a "church" to deal with the problems that theist churches formerly dealt with for those people who are not theists.

t3_39pk4l

CMV: The "Fuck Pao" crowd has no end-game.

A few days after the banning of /r/fatpeoplehate, the dust is beginning to settle. There are still multiple posts at the top of /r/all from subs like /r/EllenPao_IsA_Cunt and /r/gasthesnoo, but with every passing day, it's relenting. However, many people remain steadfast in the belief that they can get Ellen Pao ousted from the CEO position. One of the top posts in /r/all right now is this: >Hey Reddit Board Members, if Redditors can push a stupid button for 2 months straight you better believe we can keep Reddit "unsafe" for as long as it takes to replace Ellen Pao I don't think those people are really thinking this through, and it will ultimately prove to be a waste of time. Board members aren't going to look at a bunch of people (most of whom are upset because their hatred of people has been censored) calling the CEO a cunt and say, "Boy they're making a mess of things. We'd best give them what they want." A far more likely scenario is, "We don't want those assholes on our site anyway. Good riddance." I also don't think any great exodus is inbound. /r/fatpeoplehate had 150,000 subscribers. The two subs (that weren't direct responses to this whole incident) that seem to be the most outraged are /r/KotakuinAction (41,000) and /r/conspiracy (313,000). Even if we put all of those together and assume they're separate people, that comes to 504,000 people. Hell, to account for users who don't log in, we'll even double it, and say 1 million people. Against Reddit's [172.7 million monthly unique users](http://www.reddit.com/about/). I don't think anyone is going to sweat that, especially when most of the site (even those who decry the censorship) didn't like /r/fatpeoplehate to begin with. I think at most one million people ultimately leave Reddit for Voat, and I don't think that number is nearly high enough for any of the higher ups to care. So ultimately, I think all this outrage will prove fruitless and nothing will come of any of this. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: The "Fuck Pao" crowd has no end-game. A few days after the banning of /r/fatpeoplehate, the dust is beginning to settle. There are still multiple posts at the top of /r/all from subs like /r/EllenPao_IsA_Cunt and /r/gasthesnoo, but with every passing day, it's relenting. However, many people remain steadfast in the belief that they can get Ellen Pao ousted from the CEO position. One of the top posts in /r/all right now is this: >Hey Reddit Board Members, if Redditors can push a stupid button for 2 months straight you better believe we can keep Reddit "unsafe" for as long as it takes to replace Ellen Pao I don't think those people are really thinking this through, and it will ultimately prove to be a waste of time. Board members aren't going to look at a bunch of people (most of whom are upset because their hatred of people has been censored) calling the CEO a cunt and say, "Boy they're making a mess of things. We'd best give them what they want." A far more likely scenario is, "We don't want those assholes on our site anyway. Good riddance." I also don't think any great exodus is inbound. /r/fatpeoplehate had 150,000 subscribers. The two subs (that weren't direct responses to this whole incident) that seem to be the most outraged are /r/KotakuinAction (41,000) and /r/conspiracy (313,000). Even if we put all of those together and assume they're separate people, that comes to 504,000 people. Hell, to account for users who don't log in, we'll even double it, and say 1 million people. Against Reddit's [172.7 million monthly unique users](http://www.reddit.com/about/). I don't think anyone is going to sweat that, especially when most of the site (even those who decry the censorship) didn't like /r/fatpeoplehate to begin with. I think at most one million people ultimately leave Reddit for Voat, and I don't think that number is nearly high enough for any of the higher ups to care. So ultimately, I think all this outrage will prove fruitless and nothing will come of any of this. CMV.

t3_36fvzi

CMV: It is not worth the money it costs to conserve biodiversity

I've been told this is a horrible viewpoint to hold, so I'm hoping someone can help me out. Generally, I have seen a large focus on trying to stop human-caused biodiversity decline ("Save the ____"). While I understand that this is a noble cause, I do not believe that there is reasoning behind it besides simple morality. People dump large amounts of money into urban planning being more environmentally friendly, but it seems as though, besides agriculture, we have little to gain from having a wide variety of species in urban and suburban areas. I've read a fair amount on the topic, but I still have yet to find something that really changes my view. So, please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: It is not worth the money it costs to conserve biodiversity. I've been told this is a horrible viewpoint to hold, so I'm hoping someone can help me out. Generally, I have seen a large focus on trying to stop human-caused biodiversity decline ("Save the ____"). While I understand that this is a noble cause, I do not believe that there is reasoning behind it besides simple morality. People dump large amounts of money into urban planning being more environmentally friendly, but it seems as though, besides agriculture, we have little to gain from having a wide variety of species in urban and suburban areas. I've read a fair amount on the topic, but I still have yet to find something that really changes my view. So, please CMV.

t3_5edwmr

CMV:I don't think it's wrong for me to quit a online game because of lagging

So I play ufc 2 online I'm not big on online gaming this is pretty much the only game I go online. It's one on one so quitting because Your loosing is a dick a move and it ruins the game. And is a unsportsmanlike. Here's the thing though video games are there for enjoyment. A game that's lagging is no fun also games on ufc can last a god dam long time. Neither of us are having fun on a lagging game so by quitting I'm doing both of us a solid. He gets a win on his record and neither of us have to play that piece of shit game. Maybe it's not lagging on their end and he just thinks I'm a dick but that's something I'll have to live with. Either way his victory isn't clean seeing as though it's almost impossible to win while lagging unless your both lagging at which point it's pretty much just luck unless one of you is insanely better than the other. Lt:dr: either way it's a shitty situation by quitting I'm just ending it in a shitty but quicker less inconvenient way

CMV:I don't think it's wrong for me to quit a online game because of lagging. So I play ufc 2 online I'm not big on online gaming this is pretty much the only game I go online. It's one on one so quitting because Your loosing is a dick a move and it ruins the game. And is a unsportsmanlike. Here's the thing though video games are there for enjoyment. A game that's lagging is no fun also games on ufc can last a god dam long time. Neither of us are having fun on a lagging game so by quitting I'm doing both of us a solid. He gets a win on his record and neither of us have to play that piece of shit game. Maybe it's not lagging on their end and he just thinks I'm a dick but that's something I'll have to live with. Either way his victory isn't clean seeing as though it's almost impossible to win while lagging unless your both lagging at which point it's pretty much just luck unless one of you is insanely better than the other. Lt:dr: either way it's a shitty situation by quitting I'm just ending it in a shitty but quicker less inconvenient way

t3_2jqwaa

CMV: Equality as an idea is fairly subjective and for this reason will never be "reached"

So at first i was going to post an idea i had about equality between men and women but then this thought came to my head. One of my frustrations when trying to discuss feminism or equality is that as a man i feel my ideas or opinions are largely ignored or attacked by women. I often get a "your a guy so you wouldn't understand". Not only is this aggravating but is hypocritical since equality would mean we all have an equal voice in the discussion, i digress. Anyways in trying to understand why these discussions so often breakdown i came to the conclusion that what one person considers equal another does not. This seems obvious but I don't mean that a chauvinistic man who believe all women should be house wives thinks that that is equal. Instead i mean to say that me someone who wants equality for all people, believes that requires vastly different things than the women i'm talking with. To better illustrate this point i think that equality would mean that everyone is given the same opportunity without bias; this means if your black and you are a better applicant than a white person you get the job, similar situation no matter the relation. Same goes for the law, if a man is held responsible for his actions while intoxicated shouldn't a woman be as well. (I'm not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol) But many would disagree with me and say this is not fair, that minorities and women need to be protected under the law so that the majority (us white men) don't take advantage. So i don't think we can ever reach "equality" because due to peoples different opinions on what that means there will always be those who are not equal in someones mind, and discussions to reach it will not go far, at least not as quickly as they should. To change my view should not be hard since i am not emotionally attached to this idea since i just thought of it. You either have to show that people ideas of equality are not fundamentally different (dictionary definition does not count) or show me that even with this difference in opinion equality can be achieved accommodating for everyones needs. There may be another way that you find so good luck. _____ > *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: Equality as an idea is fairly subjective and for this reason will never be "reached". So at first i was going to post an idea i had about equality between men and women but then this thought came to my head. One of my frustrations when trying to discuss feminism or equality is that as a man i feel my ideas or opinions are largely ignored or attacked by women. I often get a "your a guy so you wouldn't understand". Not only is this aggravating but is hypocritical since equality would mean we all have an equal voice in the discussion, i digress. Anyways in trying to understand why these discussions so often breakdown i came to the conclusion that what one person considers equal another does not. This seems obvious but I don't mean that a chauvinistic man who believe all women should be house wives thinks that that is equal. Instead i mean to say that me someone who wants equality for all people, believes that requires vastly different things than the women i'm talking with. To better illustrate this point i think that equality would mean that everyone is given the same opportunity without bias; this means if your black and you are a better applicant than a white person you get the job, similar situation no matter the relation. Same goes for the law, if a man is held responsible for his actions while intoxicated shouldn't a woman be as well. (I'm not saying if someone got her drunk against her will i mean if she made the decision to drink alcohol) But many would disagree with me and say this is not fair, that minorities and women need to be protected under the law so that the majority (us white men) don't take advantage. So i don't think we can ever reach "equality" because due to peoples different opinions on what that means there will always be those who are not equal in someones mind, and discussions to reach it will not go far, at least not as quickly as they should. To change my view should not be hard since i am not emotionally attached to this idea since i just thought of it. You either have to show that people ideas of equality are not fundamentally different (dictionary definition does not count) or show me that even with this difference in opinion equality can be achieved accommodating for everyones needs. There may be another way that you find so good luck.

t3_1thr2m

I believe that Cesar Milan, The Dog Whisperer is a complete and total phony. CMV.

First of all, I've seen his show. I enjoyed his show. I watched it a lot. After a few years of being a fan, I started to look past, "this is pretty cool," and wondered whether or not it was realistic. It really seems as though what Cesar is doing is just stopping bad behaviors temporarily. He uses methods like positive punishment, which have proven effective for *human beings,* but what logical reason could there be for it to have the exact same effect on dogs? Sometimes, even more effective. My most solid piece of evidence is this episode in which he helps a family, with a guy named Greg. http://youtu.be/wKWcl2qhyco?t=1m20s Who is Greg? Greg is an actor. You may know him from his youtube channel, "MediocreFilms." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA1J-raGinQ I believe that he was hired to pretend that this dog was his. They used his real name and everything in the show, so even the dumbest internet sleuth could find the guy. I think it's kind of obvious to anyone who is skeptical, and has heard of MediocreFilms. Please Reddit. Change my view. I want to believe. edited for spelling errors

I believe that Cesar Milan, The Dog Whisperer is a complete and total phony. CMV. First of all, I've seen his show. I enjoyed his show. I watched it a lot. After a few years of being a fan, I started to look past, "this is pretty cool," and wondered whether or not it was realistic. It really seems as though what Cesar is doing is just stopping bad behaviors temporarily. He uses methods like positive punishment, which have proven effective for *human beings,* but what logical reason could there be for it to have the exact same effect on dogs? Sometimes, even more effective. My most solid piece of evidence is this episode in which he helps a family, with a guy named Greg. http://youtu.be/wKWcl2qhyco?t=1m20s Who is Greg? Greg is an actor. You may know him from his youtube channel, "MediocreFilms." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA1J-raGinQ I believe that he was hired to pretend that this dog was his. They used his real name and everything in the show, so even the dumbest internet sleuth could find the guy. I think it's kind of obvious to anyone who is skeptical, and has heard of MediocreFilms. Please Reddit. Change my view. I want to believe. edited for spelling errors

t3_1k5kcv

I used to believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. TCMV. CMV back?

I was formerly of the opinion that prostitution should be legalized and regulated, and that this would improve the situation of the prostitutes by giving them more autonomy, lower the potential for exploitation, and give them the ability to work safely, and it would improve the situation for Johns because they get slightly more assurance that they won't get a disease, and it would be impossible to stop them from buying sex anyway. Then I read this article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html It hasn't swung my view all the way to the other side, but I definitely no longer believe it is guaranteed to be a good idea, and whether or not it turns out well could depend on a lot of things. Ideologically I think prostitution should be allowed, but to me, practical concerns trump ideological ones and if legalizing prostitution would be harmful in practice then I think we should keep it illegal. I want to believe it will be helpful in practise though. I'm Canadian for reference.

I used to believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated. TCMV. CMV back?. I was formerly of the opinion that prostitution should be legalized and regulated, and that this would improve the situation of the prostitutes by giving them more autonomy, lower the potential for exploitation, and give them the ability to work safely, and it would improve the situation for Johns because they get slightly more assurance that they won't get a disease, and it would be impossible to stop them from buying sex anyway. Then I read this article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html It hasn't swung my view all the way to the other side, but I definitely no longer believe it is guaranteed to be a good idea, and whether or not it turns out well could depend on a lot of things. Ideologically I think prostitution should be allowed, but to me, practical concerns trump ideological ones and if legalizing prostitution would be harmful in practice then I think we should keep it illegal. I want to believe it will be helpful in practise though. I'm Canadian for reference.

t3_3p56gi

CMV: Private prison are a good thing.

Lately I have been seeing a lot of arguments that privatizing prisons is an awful idea. The major argument is that money will become a priority and the prisons will be designed to make profit without the prisoners best interests in mind. In response to this, I would argue that government owned prisons also operate with a sense of economic awareness. Although government owned prisons may not function to *make money*, they very often function to *save money*. There is still a consideration to money. A common example is that a privatized prison, which is losing money, may reduce food quality in order to restore profitability. However, couldn't this happen in a government owned prison as well? The government very often cuts corners to save money. There are a few more positives about private prisons. Privatized prisons can run at a lower-cost because government worker salaries are much higher. Privatized prisons also run more efficiently because there is little to no red tape. Also, there are supposedly issues with transparency, however this is all skepticism. Unless concrete evidence comes out that private prisons are blatantly mistreating and abusing prisoners then this slippery slope argument seems invalid. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: Private prison are a good thing. Lately I have been seeing a lot of arguments that privatizing prisons is an awful idea. The major argument is that money will become a priority and the prisons will be designed to make profit without the prisoners best interests in mind. In response to this, I would argue that government owned prisons also operate with a sense of economic awareness. Although government owned prisons may not function to *make money*, they very often function to *save money*. There is still a consideration to money. A common example is that a privatized prison, which is losing money, may reduce food quality in order to restore profitability. However, couldn't this happen in a government owned prison as well? The government very often cuts corners to save money. There are a few more positives about private prisons. Privatized prisons can run at a lower-cost because government worker salaries are much higher. Privatized prisons also run more efficiently because there is little to no red tape. Also, there are supposedly issues with transparency, however this is all skepticism. Unless concrete evidence comes out that private prisons are blatantly mistreating and abusing prisoners then this slippery slope argument seems invalid.

t3_1v15wa

I believe abortion should only be allowed in cases of threat to a woman's life (including suicide), or if the foetus has a fatal foetal abnormality. CMV.

To expand, I think the reason we don't kill people generally isn't because it might hurt them, but because it deprives them of what is termed a future of value. Deprivation of an ability to live and experience all other rights and privileges is what I think is heinous and it is why I think we don't allow killing generally. I think this right to life necessarily extends to viable foetuses regardless of whether or not their life is comparable to that of a born and developed person, because they too have a future of value. My caveats are for non-viable foetuses, as mentioned above and who have no prospect of a future of value, and for threats to the mother's life, which can be justified on the same grounds of self-defense. I don't think the arguments of bodily sovereignty that I see floating around Reddit or Tumblr (whereby a foetus occupies a mother's womb with her permission since they make use of her organs and sustenance) fly because an abortion requires an active undertaking to violate the bodily sovereignty of the foetus. I don't think this is justifiable because we extend the right of bodily sovereignty to people as a safeguard against their being killed. This has to extend to foetuses too, because I've explained how I think they must receive this equal right to life. Lastly, I don't think any of this can be brushed away by saying it's a personal issue of choice for individual women. If we grant that the foetus is not an inhuman life, but rather a human one, then I think it needs to be a social question that regards the foetus as having the same potential in it's future as any other member of society.

I believe abortion should only be allowed in cases of threat to a woman's life (including suicide), or if the foetus has a fatal foetal abnormality. CMV. To expand, I think the reason we don't kill people generally isn't because it might hurt them, but because it deprives them of what is termed a future of value. Deprivation of an ability to live and experience all other rights and privileges is what I think is heinous and it is why I think we don't allow killing generally. I think this right to life necessarily extends to viable foetuses regardless of whether or not their life is comparable to that of a born and developed person, because they too have a future of value. My caveats are for non-viable foetuses, as mentioned above and who have no prospect of a future of value, and for threats to the mother's life, which can be justified on the same grounds of self-defense. I don't think the arguments of bodily sovereignty that I see floating around Reddit or Tumblr (whereby a foetus occupies a mother's womb with her permission since they make use of her organs and sustenance) fly because an abortion requires an active undertaking to violate the bodily sovereignty of the foetus. I don't think this is justifiable because we extend the right of bodily sovereignty to people as a safeguard against their being killed. This has to extend to foetuses too, because I've explained how I think they must receive this equal right to life. Lastly, I don't think any of this can be brushed away by saying it's a personal issue of choice for individual women. If we grant that the foetus is not an inhuman life, but rather a human one, then I think it needs to be a social question that regards the foetus as having the same potential in it's future as any other member of society.

t3_25mcwr

CMV:I believe the 9/11 memorial seems over the top and unnecessary. I view it as nothing more than emotion porn.

Seemingly we live in a culture here in the US where every national or local tragedy gets sensationalized to the extreme. Yes, 9/11 was a horrific day, and the now two wars, the subsequent trillions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost are in its wake. While I see a need to honor the dead, perpetuate their memory, and remind folks that something bad happened, it seems over the top to spend the millions of dollars it took to build out the new memorial. Call me crass, but rebuilding a bigger tower(s), continuing on with commerce, and overall, moving on in my opinion is a huge "Well screw you too" to those that want to see us harmed. I know a lot of the money came from private donations, but in my opinion, the money could have been better spent on the families of the dead, the first responders who are going to suffer the rest of their lives both physically and mentally, and so on. So change my view on this. Tell me why this giant exhibit is absolutely necessary. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:I believe the 9/11 memorial seems over the top and unnecessary. I view it as nothing more than emotion porn. Seemingly we live in a culture here in the US where every national or local tragedy gets sensationalized to the extreme. Yes, 9/11 was a horrific day, and the now two wars, the subsequent trillions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost are in its wake. While I see a need to honor the dead, perpetuate their memory, and remind folks that something bad happened, it seems over the top to spend the millions of dollars it took to build out the new memorial. Call me crass, but rebuilding a bigger tower(s), continuing on with commerce, and overall, moving on in my opinion is a huge "Well screw you too" to those that want to see us harmed. I know a lot of the money came from private donations, but in my opinion, the money could have been better spent on the families of the dead, the first responders who are going to suffer the rest of their lives both physically and mentally, and so on. So change my view on this. Tell me why this giant exhibit is absolutely necessary.

t3_3t6pnw

CMV: Blocking Syrian refugees is a reasonable measure by state governors, in the interest of national security

I am not anti-immigration, I hate hearing Donald Trump rant about his harsh stance toward immigrants, and I love the fact that the US is such a diverse country with such a great immigrant population. However, at times we have to make some sacrifices for our own safety. These governors are being called xenophobic for doing what they are doing, and I think that's unfair. I can't stand Greg Abbott (governor of Texas), but to call him or Texas anti-immigrant is plain ignorant. An enormous portion of Texas's population is composed of immigrants, from many countries beyond just Mexico. Houston has a bunch of immigrants from the Middle East and parts of Asia as well. So the notion that Texas is xenophobic because of this is simply ridiculous. The attacks in Paris were a very sobering reminder that the western world is not immune to the impact of these scumbag terrorists, even after 9/11. We hear about all the shit going on the middle east and subconsciously think "good thing that won't happen here." Well, unfortunately, it can, and we have to be extra cautious about it. Security takes priority. My heart hurts for the Syrian refugees. I don't WANT them to be refused entry to a new country, and I don't even like the decision by some governors to refuse them entry. However, I do understand it. Sometimes the safety of our people trumps other matters. I don't like that it's come to this, we must focus on the safety and security of our own until we can take out ISIS. _____ > *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: Blocking Syrian refugees is a reasonable measure by state governors, in the interest of national security. I am not anti-immigration, I hate hearing Donald Trump rant about his harsh stance toward immigrants, and I love the fact that the US is such a diverse country with such a great immigrant population. However, at times we have to make some sacrifices for our own safety. These governors are being called xenophobic for doing what they are doing, and I think that's unfair. I can't stand Greg Abbott (governor of Texas), but to call him or Texas anti-immigrant is plain ignorant. An enormous portion of Texas's population is composed of immigrants, from many countries beyond just Mexico. Houston has a bunch of immigrants from the Middle East and parts of Asia as well. So the notion that Texas is xenophobic because of this is simply ridiculous. The attacks in Paris were a very sobering reminder that the western world is not immune to the impact of these scumbag terrorists, even after 9/11. We hear about all the shit going on the middle east and subconsciously think "good thing that won't happen here." Well, unfortunately, it can, and we have to be extra cautious about it. Security takes priority. My heart hurts for the Syrian refugees. I don't WANT them to be refused entry to a new country, and I don't even like the decision by some governors to refuse them entry. However, I do understand it. Sometimes the safety of our people trumps other matters. I don't like that it's come to this, we must focus on the safety and security of our own until we can take out ISIS.

t3_2llfy2

CMV - I don't really think bathrooms should be separated by gender.

This isn't a strongly held view of mine, and I'm very open to changing it, but it's something I've thought for quite a while now. Basically, I don't see why there exist separate men's and women's bathrooms. The following are my thoughts: * There's no reason a woman couldn't use a bathroom which also had a urinal, and there's no reason a man couldn't use a stall in place of a urinal. We're just in there to use the bathroom. If you're using a stall, there's no way to tell the gender of another person anyway, so what's it matter if they're standing or sitting? And if a guy's using a urinal, what's it matter? His back is to you, you can't see anything. * In places with unequal numbers of men and women (like an office), separating can lead to one bathroom being overfull while the other has perfectly usable stalls that people don't use because they're not the right gender. * As trans/queer gendered people are coming out and becoming more accepted, distinguishing between two genders for the bathroom just reinforces a gender binary that could potentially alienate them. * There are already unisex and family bathrooms some places that are used with no complaint. * That whole "separate but equal" problem probably fits in here somewhere. I understand and accept that places susceptible to potential harassment should probably segregate the bathrooms (bars, clubs, locker rooms, possibly high schools) but for restaurants and lots of businesses, it seems kind of silly to me. So convince me otherwise.

CMV - I don't really think bathrooms should be separated by gender. This isn't a strongly held view of mine, and I'm very open to changing it, but it's something I've thought for quite a while now. Basically, I don't see why there exist separate men's and women's bathrooms. The following are my thoughts: * There's no reason a woman couldn't use a bathroom which also had a urinal, and there's no reason a man couldn't use a stall in place of a urinal. We're just in there to use the bathroom. If you're using a stall, there's no way to tell the gender of another person anyway, so what's it matter if they're standing or sitting? And if a guy's using a urinal, what's it matter? His back is to you, you can't see anything. * In places with unequal numbers of men and women (like an office), separating can lead to one bathroom being overfull while the other has perfectly usable stalls that people don't use because they're not the right gender. * As trans/queer gendered people are coming out and becoming more accepted, distinguishing between two genders for the bathroom just reinforces a gender binary that could potentially alienate them. * There are already unisex and family bathrooms some places that are used with no complaint. * That whole "separate but equal" problem probably fits in here somewhere. I understand and accept that places susceptible to potential harassment should probably segregate the bathrooms (bars, clubs, locker rooms, possibly high schools) but for restaurants and lots of businesses, it seems kind of silly to me. So convince me otherwise.

t3_4lznuu

CMV: It is not women's fault that dating is harder for men.

A popular topic on this thread is one that states that men have it harder than women. Specifically, that they have a harder time in the dating area. I am not here to debate this or any other sexism issue. This is not meant to be a battle of the sexes or a competition so please do not bring up feminist issues or other issues. I am going to operate under the assumption that men are correct when they say that they have a harder time dating. However, my stance on the issue is that this is through no fault of women and there is nothing that women can do to remedy this problem. I believe that men have a hard time with dating because they, overall, are lacking in communication skills. It has been pointed out in many studies that women are better communicators than men. They are better at: picking up on social cues, recognizing body language, recognizing when a comment is well received, recognizing when to drop an inappropriate topic. These items are all especially important when it comes to dating, because the first steps to a relationship involve an above average amount of communication. This is what I believe to be men's problem overall. However, this is not something that women can fix. Women can not teach you basic communication skills. That is a problem each man must address individually and get better at on his own. Further, women are under no obligation to date a man who is a poor communicator. If you attempt to flirt with a woman and you are doing a poor job at it, that woman has no reason to date you. If you are hitting on a girl and she is not receiving it well, it is because you are doing something wrong and it is up to you to figure out what that is. I want to reiterate once again that this is not a battle of the sexes and that I am only interested in discussing this single topic. Other feminist/anti-feminist issues are off bounds for me and I will not respond to them. 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: It is not women's fault that dating is harder for men. A popular topic on this thread is one that states that men have it harder than women. Specifically, that they have a harder time in the dating area. I am not here to debate this or any other sexism issue. This is not meant to be a battle of the sexes or a competition so please do not bring up feminist issues or other issues. I am going to operate under the assumption that men are correct when they say that they have a harder time dating. However, my stance on the issue is that this is through no fault of women and there is nothing that women can do to remedy this problem. I believe that men have a hard time with dating because they, overall, are lacking in communication skills. It has been pointed out in many studies that women are better communicators than men. They are better at: picking up on social cues, recognizing body language, recognizing when a comment is well received, recognizing when to drop an inappropriate topic. These items are all especially important when it comes to dating, because the first steps to a relationship involve an above average amount of communication. This is what I believe to be men's problem overall. However, this is not something that women can fix. Women can not teach you basic communication skills. That is a problem each man must address individually and get better at on his own. Further, women are under no obligation to date a man who is a poor communicator. If you attempt to flirt with a woman and you are doing a poor job at it, that woman has no reason to date you. If you are hitting on a girl and she is not receiving it well, it is because you are doing something wrong and it is up to you to figure out what that is. I want to reiterate once again that this is not a battle of the sexes and that I am only interested in discussing this single topic. Other feminist/anti-feminist issues are off bounds for me and I will not respond to them. Thank you.

t3_1e897d

I believe all gun owners should be equally responsible for any crimes committed with that gun, whether or not they actually committed the crime. CMV

When you own a gun, you take on a certain responsibility. Too often people are negligent and irresponsible with these weapons and tragedies happen. To give people an incentive to lock up there guns and keep them away from others, I believe gun owners should be held equally responsible for whatever crimes (or accidents caused by negligence) are committed with them while they are under their ownership. Exceptions would arise if a gun was stolen by force, and selling a firearm would transfer the responsibility. **EDIT:** A lot of people have been plugging in other things such as cars to this same concept. What makes guns stand out in my mind is that if you lent your car to someone who did not have proper driving training (or obviously intoxicated) and they ran somebody over, you would be responsible. But when you lend a car to someone completely capable of driving safely (w/ drivers license) you shouldn't be responsible. This applies to guns in that they require a much higher level of care and responsibility for one to be considered an able user, therefore, there are very few situations in which you can responsibly let someone borrow your gun. **EDIT:** Good discussion people. After hearing some good points, I simply feel that criminal negligence charges should be more actively enforced on irresponsible gun owners on a case by case basis. While I don't think they should do the same time as the criminal, there should be a harsh sentence.

I believe all gun owners should be equally responsible for any crimes committed with that gun, whether or not they actually committed the crime. CMV. When you own a gun, you take on a certain responsibility. Too often people are negligent and irresponsible with these weapons and tragedies happen. To give people an incentive to lock up there guns and keep them away from others, I believe gun owners should be held equally responsible for whatever crimes (or accidents caused by negligence) are committed with them while they are under their ownership. Exceptions would arise if a gun was stolen by force, and selling a firearm would transfer the responsibility. **EDIT:** A lot of people have been plugging in other things such as cars to this same concept. What makes guns stand out in my mind is that if you lent your car to someone who did not have proper driving training (or obviously intoxicated) and they ran somebody over, you would be responsible. But when you lend a car to someone completely capable of driving safely (w/ drivers license) you shouldn't be responsible. This applies to guns in that they require a much higher level of care and responsibility for one to be considered an able user, therefore, there are very few situations in which you can responsibly let someone borrow your gun. **EDIT:** Good discussion people. After hearing some good points, I simply feel that criminal negligence charges should be more actively enforced on irresponsible gun owners on a case by case basis. While I don't think they should do the same time as the criminal, there should be a harsh sentence.

t3_4zcjt2

CMV: Illegal Immigrants being good for the USA

First off, 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals. This is an indisputable fact. Now here is the conundrum. There are reports stating that illegal immigrants (trespassers) are good for the economy but my argument is that this is only if they keep their below minimum wage/under the table wages. What happens when all illegals are given amnesty and they are now given minimum wage? What happens if we double that minimum wage to $15.00 instead of ~$7.00? Would calling for amnesty of all illegal immigrants just promote more illegal trespassing to get "grandfathered" in? **Change My View**

CMV: Illegal Immigrants being good for the USA. First off, 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals. This is an indisputable fact. Now here is the conundrum. There are reports stating that illegal immigrants (trespassers) are good for the economy but my argument is that this is only if they keep their below minimum wage/under the table wages. What happens when all illegals are given amnesty and they are now given minimum wage? What happens if we double that minimum wage to $15.00 instead of ~$7.00? Would calling for amnesty of all illegal immigrants just promote more illegal trespassing to get "grandfathered" in? **Change My View**

t3_5zrd9j

CMV: Cultural Appropriation isn't a bad thing

So first of all, I want to be clear in saying that as a society, we should be respectful and embracing of the cultures and traditions of other societies. Diversity and societal differences should be celebrated, not denigrated. However, with that in mind, I believe that- in America specifically, with its history of being a "melting pot" country- we should not view cultural appropriation in a negative context. There are a few reasons for this. The first and most pressing to me is that "cultural appropriation," as I understand it, is just the blending of culture- one person likes a certain aspect of a different culture and incorporates it into their own. This trend is replicated across multiple cultures, with multiple people, leading to a blended society. This then, in turn, leads to a very diverse and multicultural society that embraces the cultures and backgrounds of others... right? Another is that I think the most common examples of cultural appropriation often lead to higher exposure to the aspect of the culture that is being "appropriated." For example, Elvis enjoys gospel/r&b and wants to incorporate it into his music, so he throws electric guitars and hip gyration on it and boom- rock and roll. Black culture is in the mainstream. Obviously in this specific instance, this was a pre-civil rights era America, and the aspects of black culture that Elvis incorporated were never explained to have originated in black culture. But had this occurred in a vacuum, with societal conditions at the time notwithstanding, I think you could make an argument that Elvis highlighted, rather than appropriated, black culture, leading to further exposure. So am I way off base? Do I just not understand cultural appropriation as a concept? CMV.

CMV: Cultural Appropriation isn't a bad thing. So first of all, I want to be clear in saying that as a society, we should be respectful and embracing of the cultures and traditions of other societies. Diversity and societal differences should be celebrated, not denigrated. However, with that in mind, I believe that- in America specifically, with its history of being a "melting pot" country- we should not view cultural appropriation in a negative context. There are a few reasons for this. The first and most pressing to me is that "cultural appropriation," as I understand it, is just the blending of culture- one person likes a certain aspect of a different culture and incorporates it into their own. This trend is replicated across multiple cultures, with multiple people, leading to a blended society. This then, in turn, leads to a very diverse and multicultural society that embraces the cultures and backgrounds of others... right? Another is that I think the most common examples of cultural appropriation often lead to higher exposure to the aspect of the culture that is being "appropriated." For example, Elvis enjoys gospel/r&b and wants to incorporate it into his music, so he throws electric guitars and hip gyration on it and boom- rock and roll. Black culture is in the mainstream. Obviously in this specific instance, this was a pre-civil rights era America, and the aspects of black culture that Elvis incorporated were never explained to have originated in black culture. But had this occurred in a vacuum, with societal conditions at the time notwithstanding, I think you could make an argument that Elvis highlighted, rather than appropriated, black culture, leading to further exposure. So am I way off base? Do I just not understand cultural appropriation as a concept? CMV.

t3_1gzcq8

Unlike my boyfriend, I believe physically having children is much more rewarding than being childfree or adopting. CMV

My boyfriend and I have been dating for quite some time now and a lot of important issues have come up such as marriage, where we should live, and we can never quite settle on one particular point: whether or not we should have children. He believes that children are an economic drawback and he's worried about his family medical history (he's brilliant! his child would be smart and he's smart enough to care for a kid). He wants to run off and get a vasectomy and, if his feelings about children change, he wants us to adopt a kid. But I don't think he understands how important it is for me to produce my own children. I don't know if I'm hormonally compelled or what, but ever since I was a little girl I knew I NEEDED to get married to an excellent guy (just like my boyfriend) and have kids with him. I feel like making a kid is the ultimate commitment within a relationship, it deepens the bond between wife and husband, and the quality of that bond deepens the bond between each parent and the child, as well. The child, genetically speaking, amounts to a little you and a little him. The child is a total reflection of both of us, physically, emotionally, etc. I know people claim to have the same relationship with adopted children, but it can't quite be the exact same experience, can it? You don't have that hormonal connection. The child isn't genetically "yours" - and I know genetics does have some influence on behavior. I'm worried that if I do what my boyfriend wants to do later in life, that I won't truly love our adopted child just as much as if I'd birthed the child. Indeed, we'd initially have to tolerate someone else's genetics and someone else's behavioral influence and change that. And the choice not to have children at all? That's... baffling to me. I've never imagined a future without someone to help take care of us when we get older, someone who would listen to our stories and remember us when we're gone. My boyfriend and I are really close. We've been dating for six years now. This wedge has been between us for quite some time. I just want to address the issue to preserve what has to be the only relationship I want to have for the rest of my life. He is THE ONE. I don't want anything to get in the way of our happiness. To do that, I'm not just trying to change my view. I'm trying to change what has been since I was a little girl my identity. So please, help me CMI for the sake of my relationship and my happiness.

Unlike my boyfriend, I believe physically having children is much more rewarding than being childfree or adopting. CMV. My boyfriend and I have been dating for quite some time now and a lot of important issues have come up such as marriage, where we should live, and we can never quite settle on one particular point: whether or not we should have children. He believes that children are an economic drawback and he's worried about his family medical history (he's brilliant! his child would be smart and he's smart enough to care for a kid). He wants to run off and get a vasectomy and, if his feelings about children change, he wants us to adopt a kid. But I don't think he understands how important it is for me to produce my own children. I don't know if I'm hormonally compelled or what, but ever since I was a little girl I knew I NEEDED to get married to an excellent guy (just like my boyfriend) and have kids with him. I feel like making a kid is the ultimate commitment within a relationship, it deepens the bond between wife and husband, and the quality of that bond deepens the bond between each parent and the child, as well. The child, genetically speaking, amounts to a little you and a little him. The child is a total reflection of both of us, physically, emotionally, etc. I know people claim to have the same relationship with adopted children, but it can't quite be the exact same experience, can it? You don't have that hormonal connection. The child isn't genetically "yours" - and I know genetics does have some influence on behavior. I'm worried that if I do what my boyfriend wants to do later in life, that I won't truly love our adopted child just as much as if I'd birthed the child. Indeed, we'd initially have to tolerate someone else's genetics and someone else's behavioral influence and change that. And the choice not to have children at all? That's... baffling to me. I've never imagined a future without someone to help take care of us when we get older, someone who would listen to our stories and remember us when we're gone. My boyfriend and I are really close. We've been dating for six years now. This wedge has been between us for quite some time. I just want to address the issue to preserve what has to be the only relationship I want to have for the rest of my life. He is THE ONE. I don't want anything to get in the way of our happiness. To do that, I'm not just trying to change my view. I'm trying to change what has been since I was a little girl my identity. So please, help me CMI for the sake of my relationship and my happiness.

t3_3ddod7

CMV: The only way Reddit will avoid the fate of Digg is to make Reddit gold much more valuable.

Reddit should just use Reddit gold to solve it’s current problems. Why couldn’t Reddit expand on the Reddit gold feature in a way that would address the issues it currently faces? Every time I think about this controversy I can’t help but think that if they just built up Reddit gold so that it was actually valuable and more people paid for Reddit, it would resolve most of the issues being talked about. Think about it: * A monthly subscription would allow them to monetize the site without bending to the will of advertisers, plus Reddit could keep its claim as a platform for free speech * If it was more popular it would also cut down on harassment by creating a financial barrier between members and anonymous hatred. They could also use it as an incentive for users to post better content if they allowed people to personalize their user account. * Finally it could be used to control the general atmosphere of the site by making it easier for paying members to post content and harder for anonymous trolls to create drama for drama’s sake **This solution seems incredibly simple to me but I have yet to hear any one say this. Why wouldn’t this work?**

CMV: The only way Reddit will avoid the fate of Digg is to make Reddit gold much more valuable. Reddit should just use Reddit gold to solve it’s current problems. Why couldn’t Reddit expand on the Reddit gold feature in a way that would address the issues it currently faces? Every time I think about this controversy I can’t help but think that if they just built up Reddit gold so that it was actually valuable and more people paid for Reddit, it would resolve most of the issues being talked about. Think about it: * A monthly subscription would allow them to monetize the site without bending to the will of advertisers, plus Reddit could keep its claim as a platform for free speech * If it was more popular it would also cut down on harassment by creating a financial barrier between members and anonymous hatred. They could also use it as an incentive for users to post better content if they allowed people to personalize their user account. * Finally it could be used to control the general atmosphere of the site by making it easier for paying members to post content and harder for anonymous trolls to create drama for drama’s sake **This solution seems incredibly simple to me but I have yet to hear any one say this. Why wouldn’t this work?**

t3_2jtwhb

CMV: Why sustain the elderly? Why don't they die? I know it's very wrong, and I need arguments.

I have been several times in my life on retirement homes, doing charity and stuff. When you see old people, senile, hanging in their chairs, doing nothing, unable to speak or think coherently in some cases, in some others, perfectly able, but always with that look of despair and inferiority… I get to think, why? Why cling to such an 'burning nail' as we say in Spain. Your life has no value to others, all the experience you acquired during your life is outdated or you have no means to give it to others. Not only your body doesn't respond well, you actually take someone's time entirely sometimes. I heard studies than apparently from average people tend to spend 90% of their medical bills in their lifetime on their last year. If your body is broken and your dusk consists on a tedious, horrific routine of getting your dignity thrown out of the window by contemplating as you stand naked, in your decadent body, being washed, staring at walls, eating soup, and getting back to sleep… I don't know, it makes zero sense to me. Aren't supposed the elderly people to be maturely enough to be able to see when they 'should let go and stop complicating other's lives', or on the other the right to life, although in miserable conditions, is more important than anything else there is. The debate around euthanasia and this topic comes from this religious stand-point: You are not the master of your life, as God gave it to you. You are then not able morally to dispose of it at will (suicide, euthanasia, etc.) I think it's a flawless argument that has run rivers of ink and if you're interested in this topic you can read during hours, days, beginning by the Catholic catechism. But, once you're out of this religious context, and if you're agnostic/atheist even more, the main argument of the defense of life falls. Is there another alternative?

CMV: Why sustain the elderly? Why don't they die? I know it's very wrong, and I need arguments. I have been several times in my life on retirement homes, doing charity and stuff. When you see old people, senile, hanging in their chairs, doing nothing, unable to speak or think coherently in some cases, in some others, perfectly able, but always with that look of despair and inferiority… I get to think, why? Why cling to such an 'burning nail' as we say in Spain. Your life has no value to others, all the experience you acquired during your life is outdated or you have no means to give it to others. Not only your body doesn't respond well, you actually take someone's time entirely sometimes. I heard studies than apparently from average people tend to spend 90% of their medical bills in their lifetime on their last year. If your body is broken and your dusk consists on a tedious, horrific routine of getting your dignity thrown out of the window by contemplating as you stand naked, in your decadent body, being washed, staring at walls, eating soup, and getting back to sleep… I don't know, it makes zero sense to me. Aren't supposed the elderly people to be maturely enough to be able to see when they 'should let go and stop complicating other's lives', or on the other the right to life, although in miserable conditions, is more important than anything else there is. The debate around euthanasia and this topic comes from this religious stand-point: You are not the master of your life, as God gave it to you. You are then not able morally to dispose of it at will (suicide, euthanasia, etc.) I think it's a flawless argument that has run rivers of ink and if you're interested in this topic you can read during hours, days, beginning by the Catholic catechism. But, once you're out of this religious context, and if you're agnostic/atheist even more, the main argument of the defense of life falls. Is there another alternative?

t3_605p85

CMV: U.S. government should not spend money on bringing good internet access to small towns and rural areas.

For internet providers, it is cheap/efficient to offer internet services in cities since people are close together. It is too expensive and unprofitable to set up equipment in places where people are spread out. BUT, it is also true that these places benefit immensely from government investment with two major acts: The Rural Electrification Act and the Interstate Highway Act. In those cases, the government picked up the tab for building the power lines and highways that were too expensive for private companies. But should that have happened? I don't see why the government should have spend taxpayer money to help these small areas. Wouldn't it have made more sense for those rural and small town people to move closer to cities if they wanted access to electricity and transportation routes? And I think the same thing with providing internet to those places. It's expensive to bring internet to them. Wouldn't it be better for them to move closer to cheaper internet access? Wouldn't it be better for them to move closer to where providing utilities is cheaper? It would save on taxpayer money that can be spend elsewhere.

CMV: U.S. government should not spend money on bringing good internet access to small towns and rural areas. For internet providers, it is cheap/efficient to offer internet services in cities since people are close together. It is too expensive and unprofitable to set up equipment in places where people are spread out. BUT, it is also true that these places benefit immensely from government investment with two major acts: The Rural Electrification Act and the Interstate Highway Act. In those cases, the government picked up the tab for building the power lines and highways that were too expensive for private companies. But should that have happened? I don't see why the government should have spend taxpayer money to help these small areas. Wouldn't it have made more sense for those rural and small town people to move closer to cities if they wanted access to electricity and transportation routes? And I think the same thing with providing internet to those places. It's expensive to bring internet to them. Wouldn't it be better for them to move closer to cheaper internet access? Wouldn't it be better for them to move closer to where providing utilities is cheaper? It would save on taxpayer money that can be spend elsewhere.

t3_2k1hhn

CMV: Military interference in conflicts is wrong because everybody has a right to live

Since I decided against becoming a soldier, I thought my stance should be that all conflict is to be avoided even if that means letting alone people who cause suffering in the world. Living as an example for a society without violent interference could potentially serve as an example for others not to do so as well. In the end it always came down to the fact that I didn't feel like anything gave me a reason to take ones live away. Am I really responsible for the acts an other man commits and should therefor put an end to them? Further, if we feel the need to interfere with the behavior of someone else, shouldn't we interfere with everything which is against our moral reasoning e.g. against the behavior of animals, even though they don't know better? I'd be really interested in changing my view, to get why many people support war in the world.

CMV: Military interference in conflicts is wrong because everybody has a right to live. Since I decided against becoming a soldier, I thought my stance should be that all conflict is to be avoided even if that means letting alone people who cause suffering in the world. Living as an example for a society without violent interference could potentially serve as an example for others not to do so as well. In the end it always came down to the fact that I didn't feel like anything gave me a reason to take ones live away. Am I really responsible for the acts an other man commits and should therefor put an end to them? Further, if we feel the need to interfere with the behavior of someone else, shouldn't we interfere with everything which is against our moral reasoning e.g. against the behavior of animals, even though they don't know better? I'd be really interested in changing my view, to get why many people support war in the world.

t3_2avbxo

[MODPOST] We're a trending subreddit today! Hello New Folks!

Congratulations everyone! I'm going to guess the trending subreddit status had something to do with our bestof post yesterday. Good job us! **Greetings new subscribers and visitors! Here's the first few things you ought to do on the subreddit** 1. Read the rules! We're a heavily moderated subreddit, and we've got a fair number of rules. They're easy to break if you haven't read them, but they're easy to follow once you have. 2. Use the searchbar! Got a view you're itching to change? Use that searchbar, and check out our [popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics). Chances are we've had a topic similar to yours before. Be sure to search by keywords, not just the title! 3. Check out our top posts of all time! There's some good stuff in there. My favorite is [about the probability of death](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dn43v/i_remain_unconvinced_that_my_death_has_a_fixed/)! If you're looking to change views, I'd suggest hanging out in the new queue. You'll find it easier to engage an OP when their thread has just recently been made. If you've got any questions let us know, otherwise have a good time posting/browsing/lurking!

[MODPOST] We're a trending subreddit today! Hello New Folks!. Congratulations everyone! I'm going to guess the trending subreddit status had something to do with our bestof post yesterday. Good job us! **Greetings new subscribers and visitors! Here's the first few things you ought to do on the subreddit** 1. Read the rules! We're a heavily moderated subreddit, and we've got a fair number of rules. They're easy to break if you haven't read them, but they're easy to follow once you have. 2. Use the searchbar! Got a view you're itching to change? Use that searchbar, and check out our [popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics). Chances are we've had a topic similar to yours before. Be sure to search by keywords, not just the title! 3. Check out our top posts of all time! There's some good stuff in there. My favorite is [about the probability of death](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dn43v/i_remain_unconvinced_that_my_death_has_a_fixed/)! If you're looking to change views, I'd suggest hanging out in the new queue. You'll find it easier to engage an OP when their thread has just recently been made. If you've got any questions let us know, otherwise have a good time posting/browsing/lurking!

t3_66aqem

CMV: Living "off the grid" is arguably worse (for society) than living responsibly "on the grid"

I am not sure if I am just rationalizing my own unwillingness to step away from the things I like about society which is why I am inviting you all to CMV. my premises: ~Reducing our environmental impact is imperative, both to stem the tide of global climate change, and to enhance our control/understanding of human habitation for whatever future society we may live in (IE colonization of more than just earth). ~No cop outs like suicide. Yes, your impact is lowest if you simply dont exist. I don't think I need to explain why this line of thought is a dead end (pun only kind of intended). ~Humans learn from and copy one another, especially when that person is successful. THEREFORE: It is a selfish act to live "off the grid" because it is a waste of potential and not scale-able to society as a whole. _____ > *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: Living "off the grid" is arguably worse (for society) than living responsibly "on the grid". I am not sure if I am just rationalizing my own unwillingness to step away from the things I like about society which is why I am inviting you all to CMV. my premises: ~Reducing our environmental impact is imperative, both to stem the tide of global climate change, and to enhance our control/understanding of human habitation for whatever future society we may live in (IE colonization of more than just earth). ~No cop outs like suicide. Yes, your impact is lowest if you simply dont exist. I don't think I need to explain why this line of thought is a dead end (pun only kind of intended). ~Humans learn from and copy one another, especially when that person is successful. THEREFORE: It is a selfish act to live "off the grid" because it is a waste of potential and not scale-able to society as a whole.

t3_1xg9o8

I believe that all teachers should be encourage to carry a handgun. CMV

I live in Israel and at least in the area that I live (WB, I am not here to debate that though) after many terror attacks at schools many teachers started carrying handguns, this for example stopped the [Mercaz HaRav massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre) and could have stopped the [Ma'alot massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alot_massacre). This practice could help stop many school shootings around the world. Schools can pay for the purchase of the weapons and pay for the shooting courses and basic security measures (safes). I do not see any reason not to allow teachers to defend students if the need arises. This can also help teachers defend themselves against violent students/paraents. CMV

I believe that all teachers should be encourage to carry a handgun. CMV. I live in Israel and at least in the area that I live (WB, I am not here to debate that though) after many terror attacks at schools many teachers started carrying handguns, this for example stopped the [Mercaz HaRav massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre) and could have stopped the [Ma'alot massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alot_massacre). This practice could help stop many school shootings around the world. Schools can pay for the purchase of the weapons and pay for the shooting courses and basic security measures (safes). I do not see any reason not to allow teachers to defend students if the need arises. This can also help teachers defend themselves against violent students/paraents. CMV

t3_2kht6q

CMV: I don't always need to win in team oriented pick-up matches (sports and video games)

This applies for any game/competition where players are not part of a pre-organized team. I don't care about my teammates and I sometimes want to be selfish. Assume that I do not have aspirations of joining a dedicated team that is part of a larger association. My two examples and reasoning behind my view below: 1) Pick-up basketball, streetball included (2v2,3v3,4v4,5v5) 2) League of Legends, solo queue ranked (5v5) - I have no obligation to anyone besides myself to always play at 100% of my physical/mental limit. - I want to practice or invent new dribbling moves/try out new build orders, occasionally causing my own team to lose. - Unwritten rules don't have to be followed (e.g. notifying teammates of screens/calling out 'MIAs'). - Tactics and strategies that work well with one teammate do not always work well with the next; working on improve my solo skill potential is more important than winning. tl;dr Basically, I feel like it's okay to do what I want because my teammates are strangers. Win or lose, it doesn't matter... engaging in the activity is all that is important. Change my view with your own examples?

CMV: I don't always need to win in team oriented pick-up matches (sports and video games). This applies for any game/competition where players are not part of a pre-organized team. I don't care about my teammates and I sometimes want to be selfish. Assume that I do not have aspirations of joining a dedicated team that is part of a larger association. My two examples and reasoning behind my view below: 1) Pick-up basketball, streetball included (2v2,3v3,4v4,5v5) 2) League of Legends, solo queue ranked (5v5) - I have no obligation to anyone besides myself to always play at 100% of my physical/mental limit. - I want to practice or invent new dribbling moves/try out new build orders, occasionally causing my own team to lose. - Unwritten rules don't have to be followed (e.g. notifying teammates of screens/calling out 'MIAs'). - Tactics and strategies that work well with one teammate do not always work well with the next; working on improve my solo skill potential is more important than winning. tl;dr Basically, I feel like it's okay to do what I want because my teammates are strangers. Win or lose, it doesn't matter... engaging in the activity is all that is important. Change my view with your own examples?

t3_3vqluf

CMV: Elitism in video games is fine.

There's a lot of anti-elitist sentiment in the gaming community, and there's not a lot of grounds for it, other than "They tend to be assholes." In reality, from a philosophical and ideological perspective elitism is not inconsistent with the purpose of playing a game. In particular the purpose of a game is supposed to be derived enjoyment. If being an elitist at a video game causes you to experience enjoyment, then it's a consistent view to have that elitism is fine because the game is fulfilling its intended purpose. I would also like to add that the purpose of video games is not to make sure *player(S)* get enjoyment, just individual end users. Reason being, is that it's often perceived that just because 1 elitist is ruining the enjoyment of other players that the game is not fulfilling its intended purpose which is not the case. People play games so that they have fun, if other people have fun as a result that's a boon but ultimately not a requirement with few exceptions I.E. having enough players to reasonably play the game, which is rarely an actual issue. Lastly I view it as its own playstyle, and having a particular playstyle is heralded as one of the aspects you are allowed to be least critical of, because everyone gets their enjoyment differently. _____ > *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: Elitism in video games is fine. There's a lot of anti-elitist sentiment in the gaming community, and there's not a lot of grounds for it, other than "They tend to be assholes." In reality, from a philosophical and ideological perspective elitism is not inconsistent with the purpose of playing a game. In particular the purpose of a game is supposed to be derived enjoyment. If being an elitist at a video game causes you to experience enjoyment, then it's a consistent view to have that elitism is fine because the game is fulfilling its intended purpose. I would also like to add that the purpose of video games is not to make sure *player(S)* get enjoyment, just individual end users. Reason being, is that it's often perceived that just because 1 elitist is ruining the enjoyment of other players that the game is not fulfilling its intended purpose which is not the case. People play games so that they have fun, if other people have fun as a result that's a boon but ultimately not a requirement with few exceptions I.E. having enough players to reasonably play the game, which is rarely an actual issue. Lastly I view it as its own playstyle, and having a particular playstyle is heralded as one of the aspects you are allowed to be least critical of, because everyone gets their enjoyment differently.

t3_5scb6w

CMV: Russia has some sort of blackmail on Donald Trump.

I don't want to bore you all with a wall of text--I think the notion that Trump is under the thumb of Russia, and Putin, in some way is fairly well established. There's the buzzfeed dossier (which is admittedly not fully reliable), but there's also a pattern of seemingly illogical defenses/support of Putin and Russia on Trump's part. For a heated nativist, Trump seems pretty happy with Russia. To me it seems like the only reason a guy like Trump would be so blatantly positive and defensive about Putin and Russia is if they had something on him that could potentially humiliate him. CMV

CMV: Russia has some sort of blackmail on Donald Trump. I don't want to bore you all with a wall of text--I think the notion that Trump is under the thumb of Russia, and Putin, in some way is fairly well established. There's the buzzfeed dossier (which is admittedly not fully reliable), but there's also a pattern of seemingly illogical defenses/support of Putin and Russia on Trump's part. For a heated nativist, Trump seems pretty happy with Russia. To me it seems like the only reason a guy like Trump would be so blatantly positive and defensive about Putin and Russia is if they had something on him that could potentially humiliate him. CMV

t3_1gpd7g

I believe that piracy is basically digital theft CMV

The reason being is that the developer spent numerous amounts of time and resources on the game and people are getting it for free. Simply put yourself in their shoes, imagine that you spent one year producing a game, only to have people download it without paying. Besides, when you're paying money you're helping the company, allowing it to produce more games and updates.

I believe that piracy is basically digital theft CMV. The reason being is that the developer spent numerous amounts of time and resources on the game and people are getting it for free. Simply put yourself in their shoes, imagine that you spent one year producing a game, only to have people download it without paying. Besides, when you're paying money you're helping the company, allowing it to produce more games and updates.

t3_1unek2

If your a guest at a house, you should be your regular self, not necessarily on your best behavior. CMV

It has long been a staple of parenting that if you are invited into someone else's house, especially for the first time, you should be on your best behavior. If you present yourself in an ideal manner then you might get invited back and develop a closer relationship with the host. Therefore, you need to behave yourself and be courteous and presentable throughout your stay as a guest lest you displease your host. I disagree. I think it sets unrealistic expectations on the part of both the guest and the host. You are presenting a false face of who you really are and how you'd act when in a relaxed, normal state of mind. Since the host also expects you are being on your best behavior, he knows that what you are showing him isn't the real you. He just doesn't know how far from the crafted image you are in real life. That is not to say you should go out of your way to be boorish and rude, but a more normal approach with all its faults and flaws would be better than trying to keep up appearances that is not true to form.

If your a guest at a house, you should be your regular self, not necessarily on your best behavior. CMV. It has long been a staple of parenting that if you are invited into someone else's house, especially for the first time, you should be on your best behavior. If you present yourself in an ideal manner then you might get invited back and develop a closer relationship with the host. Therefore, you need to behave yourself and be courteous and presentable throughout your stay as a guest lest you displease your host. I disagree. I think it sets unrealistic expectations on the part of both the guest and the host. You are presenting a false face of who you really are and how you'd act when in a relaxed, normal state of mind. Since the host also expects you are being on your best behavior, he knows that what you are showing him isn't the real you. He just doesn't know how far from the crafted image you are in real life. That is not to say you should go out of your way to be boorish and rude, but a more normal approach with all its faults and flaws would be better than trying to keep up appearances that is not true to form.

t3_4aegtv

CMV: At this point, it seems like the best option for America would be to just allow Obama a third term

Note, this is ignoring the huge problems of allowing a third term for a president, and more just an overall opinion that Barack Obama still seems like the best option over any of the replacements. I can't vote in this election as I do not live in the states, but at this point it seems like Barack Obama overall still remains the best option. While I'm not particularly a fan of Obama, there is also not that much I particularly dislike either. But when I compare him to the runners, it seems that he is a much better option than any of them. So I guess try to change my mind that any of the candidates could actually be better for the country than Obama. Edit: Well that was the fastest I've had my view changed, thanks u/AlwaysABride _____ > *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: At this point, it seems like the best option for America would be to just allow Obama a third term. Note, this is ignoring the huge problems of allowing a third term for a president, and more just an overall opinion that Barack Obama still seems like the best option over any of the replacements. I can't vote in this election as I do not live in the states, but at this point it seems like Barack Obama overall still remains the best option. While I'm not particularly a fan of Obama, there is also not that much I particularly dislike either. But when I compare him to the runners, it seems that he is a much better option than any of them. So I guess try to change my mind that any of the candidates could actually be better for the country than Obama. Edit: Well that was the fastest I've had my view changed, thanks u/AlwaysABride

t3_37lsy6

CMV: Convicts should have the right to participate in "work programs" to increase their vocational skills.

I hear a lot of stories about convicts whose sentences end, they're basically thrown out and then they backslide and become repeat offenders because not much had really changed about them except they've been in jail. My view is that convicts should have the chance to develop vocational skills like the ones at that jail in Colorado that has a dairy farm with goats. Participation can be voluntary, but this kind of thing would give them something to look forward to beyond just another day in the jailhouse, earn them some cash for when they get out of jail (60 cents an hour might not sound like much but it can add up over the 5 years or 10 years that their living expenses isn't coming out of their pockets), and they learn what they need to find and hold a job when they get out. That'll give them more hope than what they get when they've just basically sat on their thumbs in jail without learning anything that would be useful in a civilized society and then they're going to go out and commit crimes again because they figure they have nothing to lose. Does anyone have a reason to not support work programs for convicts and, if so, why?

CMV: Convicts should have the right to participate in "work programs" to increase their vocational skills. I hear a lot of stories about convicts whose sentences end, they're basically thrown out and then they backslide and become repeat offenders because not much had really changed about them except they've been in jail. My view is that convicts should have the chance to develop vocational skills like the ones at that jail in Colorado that has a dairy farm with goats. Participation can be voluntary, but this kind of thing would give them something to look forward to beyond just another day in the jailhouse, earn them some cash for when they get out of jail (60 cents an hour might not sound like much but it can add up over the 5 years or 10 years that their living expenses isn't coming out of their pockets), and they learn what they need to find and hold a job when they get out. That'll give them more hope than what they get when they've just basically sat on their thumbs in jail without learning anything that would be useful in a civilized society and then they're going to go out and commit crimes again because they figure they have nothing to lose. Does anyone have a reason to not support work programs for convicts and, if so, why?

t3_1s4kkk

CMV: I believe if someone commits a horrible crime while "Mentally Ill" if they were truly cured they wouldn't be able to live with the horrors they have caused.

This post is spurred by [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1s3ltx/former_inmates_of_reddit_how_are/cdtlkky) comment in the ask reddit inmates thread. Now first, I want to point out that I don't think that revenge is the same as justice, all though I can understand his/her want for revenge. Rape, Pedophilia, and even the plain nuttery that would cause someone to shoot up a school or movie theater are caused by "mental illnesses" but if they were truly cured of their "illness" then knowing what they did while sick would haunt them. I can't even imagine doing something like any of those crimes and I don't think that anyone that was truly cured of the "illness" that caused it would be able to live with themselves know what they had done. And if they are not fully cured then releasing them back in to the public is a hazard because they could commit the same crimes again. I'll put up a few of my personal beliefs to help. 1. I put "mental illness" in quotes because what is and isn't a mental illness is subjective, short of an physical defect in the brain we are still trying to figure out what makes a person tick. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness, and some still argue that it is even though the mainstream though is that it's not. If someone is wired up to where they don't have the moral compass tells them not to do these things, or they are wired to where they have a need to do them, I honestly don't think we have the tech to be able to fix that and can not be truly cured, at least at this point in time. 2. I believe in the death penalty. If someone is incurable then the best thing for society as a whole is to go ahead and put them to death. If you leave them locked up in prison, then there is the chance of them escaping and committing their crimes again, and while in prison they can commit their crimes on their fellow inmates, not something that should be happening either. TL;DR: If someone is truly cured of their mental illness after they committed horrible crimes, then they wouldn't be able to live with themselves knowing what they did while sick, and if they aren't fully cured it is a mistake to let them back in to the public because they could commit their crimes again. Edit: I intended to put this in also >The pedophile who molested me ten years ago is currently getting a free college education as part of his "recovery plan". He also receives free healthcare, a free gym membership, and a guaranteed three meals a day. I don't think that it is right to give the criminals these benefits because they will never be truly cured and for release.

CMV: I believe if someone commits a horrible crime while "Mentally Ill" if they were truly cured they wouldn't be able to live with the horrors they have caused. This post is spurred by [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1s3ltx/former_inmates_of_reddit_how_are/cdtlkky) comment in the ask reddit inmates thread. Now first, I want to point out that I don't think that revenge is the same as justice, all though I can understand his/her want for revenge. Rape, Pedophilia, and even the plain nuttery that would cause someone to shoot up a school or movie theater are caused by "mental illnesses" but if they were truly cured of their "illness" then knowing what they did while sick would haunt them. I can't even imagine doing something like any of those crimes and I don't think that anyone that was truly cured of the "illness" that caused it would be able to live with themselves know what they had done. And if they are not fully cured then releasing them back in to the public is a hazard because they could commit the same crimes again. I'll put up a few of my personal beliefs to help. 1. I put "mental illness" in quotes because what is and isn't a mental illness is subjective, short of an physical defect in the brain we are still trying to figure out what makes a person tick. It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness, and some still argue that it is even though the mainstream though is that it's not. If someone is wired up to where they don't have the moral compass tells them not to do these things, or they are wired to where they have a need to do them, I honestly don't think we have the tech to be able to fix that and can not be truly cured, at least at this point in time. 2. I believe in the death penalty. If someone is incurable then the best thing for society as a whole is to go ahead and put them to death. If you leave them locked up in prison, then there is the chance of them escaping and committing their crimes again, and while in prison they can commit their crimes on their fellow inmates, not something that should be happening either. TL;DR: If someone is truly cured of their mental illness after they committed horrible crimes, then they wouldn't be able to live with themselves knowing what they did while sick, and if they aren't fully cured it is a mistake to let them back in to the public because they could commit their crimes again. Edit: I intended to put this in also >The pedophile who molested me ten years ago is currently getting a free college education as part of his "recovery plan". He also receives free healthcare, a free gym membership, and a guaranteed three meals a day. I don't think that it is right to give the criminals these benefits because they will never be truly cured and for release.

t3_1grkgk

I believe that the U.S., and most major economies of this world, should revert to the gold standard. CMV.

disclaimer: I'm a complete beginner in this field and I am probably wrong in many of my assumptions. That is why I came here, so please correct me whenever I'm completely wrong. I believe that a large part of why the U.S. and the global economy is not at its best is because of the current monetary system. The U.S.'s central bank (the one that prints the U.S.'s fiat money) is a private company owned by banks like Goldman Sachs, and previously Lehman Brothers, financial institutions that were very closely involved in the causes of 2008 recession, notably the sub-prime mortgage crisis/ABACUS case. A private institution that has a reputation of working solely for its profit, making reckless investments that tanked a country's economy, them managing something that is of public interest is not something that I particularly approve of, but I might be simply ignorant of the benefits of central bank privatization. Correct me if that is the case, please. I simply don't trust the Central bank/the government to create money out of thin air, money that isn't backed by anything physical, thus devaluating our money by printing excessive amounts of it when a bank needs more money to lend, which can lead to catastrophic scenarios of hyperinflation like ex-Yugoslavia or Zaire. I also think that the gold standard helps keep inflation rates stable and low, thanks to the relatively stable supply of gold, and if every economy were to use it, exchange rates would be stable as well. Other commodity-backed currencies like a silver standard also seem like a viable option to me, as long as we don't have the option to inflate the money supply. thanks for reading

I believe that the U.S., and most major economies of this world, should revert to the gold standard. CMV. disclaimer: I'm a complete beginner in this field and I am probably wrong in many of my assumptions. That is why I came here, so please correct me whenever I'm completely wrong. I believe that a large part of why the U.S. and the global economy is not at its best is because of the current monetary system. The U.S.'s central bank (the one that prints the U.S.'s fiat money) is a private company owned by banks like Goldman Sachs, and previously Lehman Brothers, financial institutions that were very closely involved in the causes of 2008 recession, notably the sub-prime mortgage crisis/ABACUS case. A private institution that has a reputation of working solely for its profit, making reckless investments that tanked a country's economy, them managing something that is of public interest is not something that I particularly approve of, but I might be simply ignorant of the benefits of central bank privatization. Correct me if that is the case, please. I simply don't trust the Central bank/the government to create money out of thin air, money that isn't backed by anything physical, thus devaluating our money by printing excessive amounts of it when a bank needs more money to lend, which can lead to catastrophic scenarios of hyperinflation like ex-Yugoslavia or Zaire. I also think that the gold standard helps keep inflation rates stable and low, thanks to the relatively stable supply of gold, and if every economy were to use it, exchange rates would be stable as well. Other commodity-backed currencies like a silver standard also seem like a viable option to me, as long as we don't have the option to inflate the money supply. thanks for reading

t3_681kju

CMV:People who aren't open to donate their own organs or another body part should not be given one when they need it themselves.

Let's say that you are someone who does not want to donate or are never open to do a donation. I'm not just talking about kidneys or part of you liver, but also about stemcells, blood or other tissue. This way you are not improving someones life quality or chances to live. We have a shortage of organs and the list is growing for people waiting for a donation. According to [Donatelife](https://www.donatelife.net/statistics/) every 10 minutes someone is added to the transplant waiting list. Every day 22 people die and we have 118,000 people waiting for a donation. The numbers are big and we already have a certain ruling about who should get the organs. So I want to add another criterium for the priority selection. People who were not open to donate should not receive an organ when they need one. This ruling is only used when there is a shortage of organs (which is almost always). Ofcourse when there is enough for everybody then the people who aren't open to donate should receive their organs. But for now I don't think that hypocrits should be benefiting of a system that they are not open to join even when they know they can save lives. I know there are some points where you can say that donating might not be possible for someone. Those people should be excluded. Also it is known that donating a kidney increases health problems. My point is that you don't have to donate a kidney to help someone. Everything can help. If we force people to help others in our society we will be able to help many many people. Think about the lives you can save. Think about the fact that one day your family member or your friends being able to survive due to people being open to donate. When we look at the recent bombings or attacks here in Europe we see many people donating blood. So many people are donating that there are too many donations which is maybe the best thing to have an excessive amount of. Donating should be also very important in this day and age. We are improving everyday in the medical science and we should be taking advantage of that. We have the capability to help many people but we aren't using it the way we should. If you want to see the impact one donation can have I recommend watching [this vox video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7EglP5A2Hg). In the video you see that one donation is able to help multiple people. So when we look back at the transplant waiting list you see that we don't need 118,000 donations, but even less than that. 118,000 is a big number, but the amount of people who can donate makes this number look miniscule. So we know the statistics, the numbers and the reasons why donation is such an important thing. It might come over as forcing people to donate, but sometimes a little push does more good than harm. Sometimes you should force people into a corner and make them do certain things to improve our society. _____ > *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:People who aren't open to donate their own organs or another body part should not be given one when they need it themselves. Let's say that you are someone who does not want to donate or are never open to do a donation. I'm not just talking about kidneys or part of you liver, but also about stemcells, blood or other tissue. This way you are not improving someones life quality or chances to live. We have a shortage of organs and the list is growing for people waiting for a donation. According to [Donatelife](https://www.donatelife.net/statistics/) every 10 minutes someone is added to the transplant waiting list. Every day 22 people die and we have 118,000 people waiting for a donation. The numbers are big and we already have a certain ruling about who should get the organs. So I want to add another criterium for the priority selection. People who were not open to donate should not receive an organ when they need one. This ruling is only used when there is a shortage of organs (which is almost always). Ofcourse when there is enough for everybody then the people who aren't open to donate should receive their organs. But for now I don't think that hypocrits should be benefiting of a system that they are not open to join even when they know they can save lives. I know there are some points where you can say that donating might not be possible for someone. Those people should be excluded. Also it is known that donating a kidney increases health problems. My point is that you don't have to donate a kidney to help someone. Everything can help. If we force people to help others in our society we will be able to help many many people. Think about the lives you can save. Think about the fact that one day your family member or your friends being able to survive due to people being open to donate. When we look at the recent bombings or attacks here in Europe we see many people donating blood. So many people are donating that there are too many donations which is maybe the best thing to have an excessive amount of. Donating should be also very important in this day and age. We are improving everyday in the medical science and we should be taking advantage of that. We have the capability to help many people but we aren't using it the way we should. If you want to see the impact one donation can have I recommend watching [this vox video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7EglP5A2Hg). In the video you see that one donation is able to help multiple people. So when we look back at the transplant waiting list you see that we don't need 118,000 donations, but even less than that. 118,000 is a big number, but the amount of people who can donate makes this number look miniscule. So we know the statistics, the numbers and the reasons why donation is such an important thing. It might come over as forcing people to donate, but sometimes a little push does more good than harm. Sometimes you should force people into a corner and make them do certain things to improve our society.

t3_3lk5m4

CMV: I think that to be eligible for an organ transplant, you should be required to have agreed to be an organ donor for at least 1 year prior.

I think that the current shortage of available organs for transplant could be resolved by requiring that people "buy into" the system by agreeing to be donors themselves. Currently in the US, we have a system where anybody can agree to receive a life saving transplant while simultaneously refusing to save anyone else's life in the same manner. 1) This sets up a system where there are more "payers" than "takers," alleviating the current shortage. 2) Religious preference and personal preference are preserved with a system that leaves people free to not donate if they don't want to. The only consequence of opting out is being ineligible for receiving a transplant. 3) This would of course not apply to people who have a legitimate medical reason that would disqualify them from being donors. 4) This eliminates the moral hypocrisy of those who would gladly receive an organ but otherwise refuse to give one. 5) The 1 year requirement would eliminate those who would want to avoid signing up until the last minute. 6) Parents would have to give legal consent to donate the organs of minors (as is currently the system), in order to buy into the system where their children could potentially be the recipients of transplants. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think that to be eligible for an organ transplant, you should be required to have agreed to be an organ donor for at least 1 year prior. I think that the current shortage of available organs for transplant could be resolved by requiring that people "buy into" the system by agreeing to be donors themselves. Currently in the US, we have a system where anybody can agree to receive a life saving transplant while simultaneously refusing to save anyone else's life in the same manner. 1) This sets up a system where there are more "payers" than "takers," alleviating the current shortage. 2) Religious preference and personal preference are preserved with a system that leaves people free to not donate if they don't want to. The only consequence of opting out is being ineligible for receiving a transplant. 3) This would of course not apply to people who have a legitimate medical reason that would disqualify them from being donors. 4) This eliminates the moral hypocrisy of those who would gladly receive an organ but otherwise refuse to give one. 5) The 1 year requirement would eliminate those who would want to avoid signing up until the last minute. 6) Parents would have to give legal consent to donate the organs of minors (as is currently the system), in order to buy into the system where their children could potentially be the recipients of transplants.

t3_1znyu4

I think striving is a bad thing, CMV

American poet Charles Bukowski's epitaph that reads simply "don't try" has had a profound impact on me since seeing it. I've adopted it over the past four years or so as my approach to living, that I do not strive, I do not expect, I simply exist and react to things however I do. Expectedly, I've realized I'm a bit of a dirty old man like Bukowski but I feel authentic. There's a lot of noise out there, however, about leaving comfort zones, about force and so forth. I tend to think this all is just the climate we live in, of egos and control, of this emphatic, white-knuckle grip on the idea of free will and choosing our destiny and that we could fuck our lives up if we aren't striving. I remain unconvinced because despite giving it all a serious chance, I still find the poet's wisdom most convincing, that we trust who we are and not "try."

I think striving is a bad thing, CMV. American poet Charles Bukowski's epitaph that reads simply "don't try" has had a profound impact on me since seeing it. I've adopted it over the past four years or so as my approach to living, that I do not strive, I do not expect, I simply exist and react to things however I do. Expectedly, I've realized I'm a bit of a dirty old man like Bukowski but I feel authentic. There's a lot of noise out there, however, about leaving comfort zones, about force and so forth. I tend to think this all is just the climate we live in, of egos and control, of this emphatic, white-knuckle grip on the idea of free will and choosing our destiny and that we could fuck our lives up if we aren't striving. I remain unconvinced because despite giving it all a serious chance, I still find the poet's wisdom most convincing, that we trust who we are and not "try."

t3_24i6me

CMV: I think that graffiti on trees, rocks, nature in general is borderline no different to traditional urban graffiti.

People talk about those who tag trees the same way a white person form the 1800's would talk about lynching a black man. But I really don't see what the big deal is. What makes nature so sacred? What makes it above the hands of humans? It is vandalism, but isn't graffiti technically vandalism? It's taking land, property, an area, whatever, that isn't yours, and putting artwork on it to doll up the place / boost your ego / have bragging rights. I'm sure there's areas of cities where authorities turn a blind eye to it, but *someone* owns that land, and if someone else purchases it, fat-cat or not, they're going to become the owner of a patch of ground with a bunch of paint on it, which more than likely doesn't suit the purpose of what they bought it for. You can't paint over tree bark and get rid of it. Ok. But so what? The tree will be fine. S'plenty more in the forest. If you've got your camera out in the woods, and the tag ruins your beautiful shot, shop it out, or find a different spot. All nature is beautiful, right? It *certainly* isn't going to harm [that rock over there.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/What_is_your_problem,_graffiti_rock_-_Flickr_-_daveynin.jpg) Thing's not even alive. What makes it different then the cave paintings in France? A couple thousand years and taking the time to make a recognizable shape? It's not harming the wildlife, not to the extent that it will eradicate a species. They'll adapt, like they already have with our deforestation tactics and desire for an ever increasing urban sprawl. It seems like the stuff that looks like [this](http://edenmakersblog.com/wp-content/uploads/img_2926.jpg) is what people are up in arms about. What if the 'graffiti' looked like [this,](http://www.escapedcreativity.co.uk/images/yarnbombing.jpg) and wasn't comprised of yarn, like in the photo? What if the artist put some effort into it, like a regular piece on a city wall? Would that be better? Would it be considered art, and become absolved from scrutiny? It seems like the issue here is aesthetics, and not damaging the planet. Maybe it's because I grew up outside of a big city, and have gotten my fill of nature, but as far as I know, the only difference between a tree and a concrete wall is canvas space.

CMV: I think that graffiti on trees, rocks, nature in general is borderline no different to traditional urban graffiti. People talk about those who tag trees the same way a white person form the 1800's would talk about lynching a black man. But I really don't see what the big deal is. What makes nature so sacred? What makes it above the hands of humans? It is vandalism, but isn't graffiti technically vandalism? It's taking land, property, an area, whatever, that isn't yours, and putting artwork on it to doll up the place / boost your ego / have bragging rights. I'm sure there's areas of cities where authorities turn a blind eye to it, but *someone* owns that land, and if someone else purchases it, fat-cat or not, they're going to become the owner of a patch of ground with a bunch of paint on it, which more than likely doesn't suit the purpose of what they bought it for. You can't paint over tree bark and get rid of it. Ok. But so what? The tree will be fine. S'plenty more in the forest. If you've got your camera out in the woods, and the tag ruins your beautiful shot, shop it out, or find a different spot. All nature is beautiful, right? It *certainly* isn't going to harm [that rock over there.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/What_is_your_problem,_graffiti_rock_-_Flickr_-_daveynin.jpg) Thing's not even alive. What makes it different then the cave paintings in France? A couple thousand years and taking the time to make a recognizable shape? It's not harming the wildlife, not to the extent that it will eradicate a species. They'll adapt, like they already have with our deforestation tactics and desire for an ever increasing urban sprawl. It seems like the stuff that looks like [this](http://edenmakersblog.com/wp-content/uploads/img_2926.jpg) is what people are up in arms about. What if the 'graffiti' looked like [this,](http://www.escapedcreativity.co.uk/images/yarnbombing.jpg) and wasn't comprised of yarn, like in the photo? What if the artist put some effort into it, like a regular piece on a city wall? Would that be better? Would it be considered art, and become absolved from scrutiny? It seems like the issue here is aesthetics, and not damaging the planet. Maybe it's because I grew up outside of a big city, and have gotten my fill of nature, but as far as I know, the only difference between a tree and a concrete wall is canvas space.

t3_1z1r5y

I believe that Reddit should make you automatically upvote any comment you reply to. CMV.

If we refer to [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette), "If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it." Many redditors have pointed out that the reddit voting system creates a sort of vicious feed-back loop (circlejerk) where the comments people want to see receive tons of upvotes while the ones that are well thought-out are downvoted into oblivion. Often, people put their thoughts into comments that, regardless of whether right or not, they feel contribute positively to discussion. If you are disagreeing with someone and replying to their comment with your view, then it's clear the original comment served as a springboard for discussion. This means that it deserves its upvote because it contributes positively to the thread and isn't a troll. We've all seen threads like "AskReddit, what is something you believe that most people don't?". The ones at the top are always the same and have thousands of upvotes (like "I think vaccines don't cause autism") while the ones on the bottom are controversial responses. Actual ones like "I think all blacks are dumb". These then are downvoted heavily and never seen or talked about. Additionally, I feel like this will help people feel less bitter about reddit in general and educate people more. When posters post things like "all blacks are dumb", the genuinely mean it. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, the person intended for it to add to the discussion. Putting it towards the top allows people with different views (like that all races are equal) a chance to actually talk to said racist and have a discussion with him rather than simply ignoring him and letting him stay racist. Anyway, I've personally had reddit discussions where I've professed opinions that are against the "majority's" opinion and been downvoted, even though I wasn't trolling. I've met people who simply wanted to play devil's advocate and couldn't because the downvotes kept coming. In conclusion, this sub-reddit has a giant banner saying "downvotes don't change opinions". I feel that the policy I've proposed helps build upon it by rewarding people who contribute, regardless of who agrees with their opinions. CMV.

I believe that Reddit should make you automatically upvote any comment you reply to. CMV. If we refer to [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette), "If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it." Many redditors have pointed out that the reddit voting system creates a sort of vicious feed-back loop (circlejerk) where the comments people want to see receive tons of upvotes while the ones that are well thought-out are downvoted into oblivion. Often, people put their thoughts into comments that, regardless of whether right or not, they feel contribute positively to discussion. If you are disagreeing with someone and replying to their comment with your view, then it's clear the original comment served as a springboard for discussion. This means that it deserves its upvote because it contributes positively to the thread and isn't a troll. We've all seen threads like "AskReddit, what is something you believe that most people don't?". The ones at the top are always the same and have thousands of upvotes (like "I think vaccines don't cause autism") while the ones on the bottom are controversial responses. Actual ones like "I think all blacks are dumb". These then are downvoted heavily and never seen or talked about. Additionally, I feel like this will help people feel less bitter about reddit in general and educate people more. When posters post things like "all blacks are dumb", the genuinely mean it. Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, the person intended for it to add to the discussion. Putting it towards the top allows people with different views (like that all races are equal) a chance to actually talk to said racist and have a discussion with him rather than simply ignoring him and letting him stay racist. Anyway, I've personally had reddit discussions where I've professed opinions that are against the "majority's" opinion and been downvoted, even though I wasn't trolling. I've met people who simply wanted to play devil's advocate and couldn't because the downvotes kept coming. In conclusion, this sub-reddit has a giant banner saying "downvotes don't change opinions". I feel that the policy I've proposed helps build upon it by rewarding people who contribute, regardless of who agrees with their opinions. CMV.

t3_2gegjn

CMV: Glass is an outdated technology and should be gradually phased out in favor of plastics

EDIT: This post has nothing to do with Google Glass, although it does fall under the category of "things I think should be plastic instead of glass." The other day, I broke two glass jars in quick succession. This is undoubtedly because I am a klutz. However, it got me thinking. I can't see a good use for glass in the modern world. It's incredibly brittle, so it shatters on impact with anything even remotely hard. Yet we use it in containers, windows, and many other important things, when plastic is also transparent and lacks this disadvantage. I always hear about car windows, for example, having high-tech layered glass. What's the point, when we have a variety of plastics available? It seems to me that without glass, we wouldn't have to worry as much about broken windows, broken glasses, or broken containers. _____ > *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: Glass is an outdated technology and should be gradually phased out in favor of plastics. EDIT: This post has nothing to do with Google Glass, although it does fall under the category of "things I think should be plastic instead of glass." The other day, I broke two glass jars in quick succession. This is undoubtedly because I am a klutz. However, it got me thinking. I can't see a good use for glass in the modern world. It's incredibly brittle, so it shatters on impact with anything even remotely hard. Yet we use it in containers, windows, and many other important things, when plastic is also transparent and lacks this disadvantage. I always hear about car windows, for example, having high-tech layered glass. What's the point, when we have a variety of plastics available? It seems to me that without glass, we wouldn't have to worry as much about broken windows, broken glasses, or broken containers.

t3_3avel0

CMV:Our current generation will be the last drivers. My 6 month old nephew will never need to learn how to operate a car.

With the advent of self-driving vehicles, the unavoidable will become clear: people are terrible drivers, and operating your own car is unacceptably reckless if a better alternative exists. I see the coming timeline like this: (copied from a reply to another post) >2-5 years: The last major technological hurdles (driving in rural/poorly documented areas, driving in adverse conditions, cost) are resolved. Cars are now demonstratively better drivers than humans in all situations. (note: may be a very liberal estimate.) 4-6 years: The first round of legal cases involving driverless cars is settled, producing a precedent that makes driving your own car very risky. A collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver. Causing an accident while operating a car with unused self-driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued. 5-10 years: Safety studies, overwhelmingly favorable to self-driving cars, lead to the option becoming mandatory on all new vehicles. insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually. Soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous. 10-15 years: Commercial driving is entirely automated. Cabs, buses, trucks, trains, "driver" becomes an obsolete profession. The savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non-automated fleet to remain competitive. 15-20 years: Studies conclusively show that the only traffic casualties that still occur are exclusively due to human operator error. It becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts. Safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle. By the time my nephew is 15-16, controlling a car will be something that only hobbyists do, and never on public roads. Very few cars will be privately owned, rather they will be operated by private or municipal transportation services. The age of the personal automobile is ending. 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:Our current generation will be the last drivers. My 6 month old nephew will never need to learn how to operate a car. With the advent of self-driving vehicles, the unavoidable will become clear: people are terrible drivers, and operating your own car is unacceptably reckless if a better alternative exists. I see the coming timeline like this: (copied from a reply to another post) >2-5 years: The last major technological hurdles (driving in rural/poorly documented areas, driving in adverse conditions, cost) are resolved. Cars are now demonstratively better drivers than humans in all situations. (note: may be a very liberal estimate.) 4-6 years: The first round of legal cases involving driverless cars is settled, producing a precedent that makes driving your own car very risky. A collision between two vehicles, one self driving the other not, almost always results in fault to the driver. Causing an accident while operating a car with unused self-driving capability makes drivers extremely vulnerable to being sued. 5-10 years: Safety studies, overwhelmingly favorable to self-driving cars, lead to the option becoming mandatory on all new vehicles. insurance companies, burned by litigation, offer premium rates to those who never switch off the driverless option, while increasing rates on drivers who elect to operate their cars manually. Soon the difference between these rates becomes enormous. 10-15 years: Commercial driving is entirely automated. Cabs, buses, trucks, trains, "driver" becomes an obsolete profession. The savings in both wages and liability is simply too tremendous to allow any non-automated fleet to remain competitive. 15-20 years: Studies conclusively show that the only traffic casualties that still occur are exclusively due to human operator error. It becomes evident that driving your own car is unthinkably dangerous, like drunk driving at night with no headlights or seatbelts. Safety laws are passed that effectively outlaw operating your own vehicle. By the time my nephew is 15-16, controlling a car will be something that only hobbyists do, and never on public roads. Very few cars will be privately owned, rather they will be operated by private or municipal transportation services. The age of the personal automobile is ending. CMV.

t3_52v1ku

CMV: American 'democracy' is broken.

*I'd like to note I'm fairly new to American politics, so just bare that In mind* I myself am from the UK, and have been recently studying the American political system at a high level of education, at to me the American political system just seems unfair. Firstly, you use electors to vote for your president. As far as I can understand, you do not directly vote for whomever you want, but elect someone to choose for you, who could actually vote otherwise. Also, you have electors equivalent to the amount of congressman. So this not only means some states have less of a say than others, but don't get a direct say. Finally, you use a super delegate system in some areas, which means some people's votes count for more than others. This could not be more un-democratic. To me, it seems unfair and overly complicated, but I may be misunderstanding. Thanks. **edit:** basic errors resolved

CMV: American 'democracy' is broken. *I'd like to note I'm fairly new to American politics, so just bare that In mind* I myself am from the UK, and have been recently studying the American political system at a high level of education, at to me the American political system just seems unfair. Firstly, you use electors to vote for your president. As far as I can understand, you do not directly vote for whomever you want, but elect someone to choose for you, who could actually vote otherwise. Also, you have electors equivalent to the amount of congressman. So this not only means some states have less of a say than others, but don't get a direct say. Finally, you use a super delegate system in some areas, which means some people's votes count for more than others. This could not be more un-democratic. To me, it seems unfair and overly complicated, but I may be misunderstanding. Thanks. **edit:** basic errors resolved

t3_4o4umf

CMV:1 Given the developments in technology of instantaneous written communication, legal cases should change precedent and be conducted over online chat. The judge and jury should not be allowed to see or hear or the defendant.

The tl;dr relies on a simple set of assumptions: * Certain demographics are convicted of crimes at higher rates, and that is separable from rate at which crimes are committed and economic status. * This is affected not only by arrest rates but also by their visible appearance in a court room. * As a society, we ought to value reducing that gap. I realize that people may believe that they can obtain evidence through tone of voice or mannerisms, but I think being able to see a defendant forces a judge and jury to use spurious evidence, such as accent, skin color, or medical conditions such as disabilities, deformities, or anxieties. I am arguing that little to no evidence is obtained by looking at someone that is legally considered evidence. What's nearly always added is a feeling of "credibility" that is entirely a demographic judgment. My idea would require the creation of a system where evidence could be submitted and viewed by all relevant parties online. It would also require a way to validate the identity of the various members of the trial - a possible solution would be to hold it in a courtroom that has chambers for the defendant to enter with his/her lawyer and communicate via chat. Perhaps the lawyer would then need to step out when the defendant is being questioned, and so on. Witnesses would also communicate via chat. I accept that there sometimes would be cases where a court may have to or wish to meet in person, but setting a standard of chat-based trials would reduce the higher rate of convictions for minorities because they'd be better able to hide their identity. Even if this couldn't eliminate the gap, it would reduce it. Edit: Clarifying comments. 1) Defendants could opt for a trial in person if they so chose. Text-based trials would be standard but opt-out. 2) There would not be a transcriber editing the words.

CMV:1 Given the developments in technology of instantaneous written communication, legal cases should change precedent and be conducted over online chat. The judge and jury should not be allowed to see or hear or the defendant. The tl;dr relies on a simple set of assumptions: * Certain demographics are convicted of crimes at higher rates, and that is separable from rate at which crimes are committed and economic status. * This is affected not only by arrest rates but also by their visible appearance in a court room. * As a society, we ought to value reducing that gap. I realize that people may believe that they can obtain evidence through tone of voice or mannerisms, but I think being able to see a defendant forces a judge and jury to use spurious evidence, such as accent, skin color, or medical conditions such as disabilities, deformities, or anxieties. I am arguing that little to no evidence is obtained by looking at someone that is legally considered evidence. What's nearly always added is a feeling of "credibility" that is entirely a demographic judgment. My idea would require the creation of a system where evidence could be submitted and viewed by all relevant parties online. It would also require a way to validate the identity of the various members of the trial - a possible solution would be to hold it in a courtroom that has chambers for the defendant to enter with his/her lawyer and communicate via chat. Perhaps the lawyer would then need to step out when the defendant is being questioned, and so on. Witnesses would also communicate via chat. I accept that there sometimes would be cases where a court may have to or wish to meet in person, but setting a standard of chat-based trials would reduce the higher rate of convictions for minorities because they'd be better able to hide their identity. Even if this couldn't eliminate the gap, it would reduce it. Edit: Clarifying comments. 1) Defendants could opt for a trial in person if they so chose. Text-based trials would be standard but opt-out. 2) There would not be a transcriber editing the words.

t3_594z9r

CMV:going to Amsterdam to take advantage of all the legal things is pointless.

Ok let me start by saying Amsterdam is a beautiful country with so much wonderful culture to take in that there's good reason to want to go there. But I'm pretty sure the 18 year olds going there to smoke weed and bang prostitutes couldn't give less of a fuck about the culture. Now I love weed as much as the next guy and having sex with strange women for money sounds like a grand old time. But I can already do all that in the comfort of my own home. I don't smoke much weed anymore and I'm not exactly street smart but I can get weed in pretty much every city I spend any time in without even trying. And I've never had sex with a prostitute but thanks to the internet I could get one today if I wanted with zero effort. I also guarantee nobody goes to Amsterdam to try weed for the first time they're all at least knowledgeable enough to have a few connections. And as for the other drugs I'm pretty sure if your into that sort of thing you already know how to get them in your country. I really don't get why people flock to Amsterdam in order to commit crimes they already commit in the comfort of there own home with zero consequences. I get it people want to go on holiday and do fucked up crazy shit. But is Amsterdam really a good place for that sort of thing. If your into harder stuff or weirder stuff than weed then maybe. But if all you want to do is smoke weed and fuck prostitutes that's easily done in any other holiday location like Miami, LA or Jamaica where the weathers probably nicer and there's probably more to do outside that stuff. I'm not saying Amsterdams not a good place to get fucked up but weed is a pretty dreadful reason to go there. It would be like me saying I'm of to Spain to play Xbox and jerk of I already do that shit anyway.

CMV:going to Amsterdam to take advantage of all the legal things is pointless. Ok let me start by saying Amsterdam is a beautiful country with so much wonderful culture to take in that there's good reason to want to go there. But I'm pretty sure the 18 year olds going there to smoke weed and bang prostitutes couldn't give less of a fuck about the culture. Now I love weed as much as the next guy and having sex with strange women for money sounds like a grand old time. But I can already do all that in the comfort of my own home. I don't smoke much weed anymore and I'm not exactly street smart but I can get weed in pretty much every city I spend any time in without even trying. And I've never had sex with a prostitute but thanks to the internet I could get one today if I wanted with zero effort. I also guarantee nobody goes to Amsterdam to try weed for the first time they're all at least knowledgeable enough to have a few connections. And as for the other drugs I'm pretty sure if your into that sort of thing you already know how to get them in your country. I really don't get why people flock to Amsterdam in order to commit crimes they already commit in the comfort of there own home with zero consequences. I get it people want to go on holiday and do fucked up crazy shit. But is Amsterdam really a good place for that sort of thing. If your into harder stuff or weirder stuff than weed then maybe. But if all you want to do is smoke weed and fuck prostitutes that's easily done in any other holiday location like Miami, LA or Jamaica where the weathers probably nicer and there's probably more to do outside that stuff. I'm not saying Amsterdams not a good place to get fucked up but weed is a pretty dreadful reason to go there. It would be like me saying I'm of to Spain to play Xbox and jerk of I already do that shit anyway.

t3_29t02p

CMV: I think that being gay is a choice, and that most people who choose to be gay do it for attention.

I think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice. Regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do. For instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so. Maybe his genes influenced him, but that doesn't mean he's incapable of choosing his own actions. Homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution. If being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce. It seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual. This view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: I think that being gay is a choice, and that most people who choose to be gay do it for attention. I think that participating in homosexual acts is definitely a choice. Regardless of nature a gay person still chooses to do the things they do. For instance, if a murderer was genetically more aggressive than another person he would still be guilty of killing someone, because he chose to do so. Maybe his genes influenced him, but that doesn't mean he's incapable of choosing his own actions. Homosexuality, in my opinion, goes completely against the theory of evolution. If being gay was because of a genetic trait, than that trait would be bred out of the species in a single generation, simply because it is impossible for gay people to reproduce. It seems like lgbt organizations have convinced people it is, not only normal, but cool/interesting to be openly homosexual. This view is based on more personal experience, but most lgbt groups seem a lot like cliques.

t3_4nw5kd

CMV: Sunni Islam has a sizeable contingent of individuals with 'incompatible views'

So. I'm really against racism. I'm really against generalization, and the idea that a population as a whole can hold a single belief is unshakably present. But my girlfriend and I have got into a debate regarding this, with her taking the position that Islam is an inherently antisocial, and destructive religion. Personally, I'm of the belief that religious individuals shouldn't be held accountable for their zealots. And I had held it that the average Muslim was against sharia law. But then I saw [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc-kPYayYA&feature=youtu.be). Suffice to say, my position on the matter is somewhat shaken. I would really rather not assign Islam to the same ideological scrap heap as Scientology. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

CMV: Sunni Islam has a sizeable contingent of individuals with 'incompatible views'. So. I'm really against racism. I'm really against generalization, and the idea that a population as a whole can hold a single belief is unshakably present. But my girlfriend and I have got into a debate regarding this, with her taking the position that Islam is an inherently antisocial, and destructive religion. Personally, I'm of the belief that religious individuals shouldn't be held accountable for their zealots. And I had held it that the average Muslim was against sharia law. But then I saw [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc-kPYayYA&feature=youtu.be). Suffice to say, my position on the matter is somewhat shaken. I would really rather not assign Islam to the same ideological scrap heap as Scientology. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

t3_1rdmwu

I Don't Believe That Iran's Nuclear Program Threatens Israel: CMV

Specifically I don't believe the comments of Netanyahu on the recent deal with Iran. I don't believe Israel has a need to 'defend' itself against Iranian nuclear ambitions, nor do they espouse the 'wiping off the map' or physcial destruction of Israel. Whether they oppose the coalition in power is a different question.. I don't think they are threatening Israel, and I think Netanyahu is fearmongering. 'But the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet it was a "historic mistake" and that his country reserved the right to defend itself. "Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world," he said. At a later news conference, Mr Netanyahu said Israel would not be bound by the agreement. "We cannot and will not allow a regime that calls for the destruction of Israel to obtain the means to achieve this goal. "Israel has many friends and allies, but when they're mistaken, its my duty to speak out."'

I Don't Believe That Iran's Nuclear Program Threatens Israel: CMV. Specifically I don't believe the comments of Netanyahu on the recent deal with Iran. I don't believe Israel has a need to 'defend' itself against Iranian nuclear ambitions, nor do they espouse the 'wiping off the map' or physcial destruction of Israel. Whether they oppose the coalition in power is a different question.. I don't think they are threatening Israel, and I think Netanyahu is fearmongering. 'But the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet it was a "historic mistake" and that his country reserved the right to defend itself. "Today the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world," he said. At a later news conference, Mr Netanyahu said Israel would not be bound by the agreement. "We cannot and will not allow a regime that calls for the destruction of Israel to obtain the means to achieve this goal. "Israel has many friends and allies, but when they're mistaken, its my duty to speak out."'

t3_1du9ac

I feel that municipal housing encourages cyclical poverty. CMV

Now I'm not saying there should be no government housing period, but I think containing all of those inhabitants into giant self-contained apartment lots does not give them much opportunity for advancement from their current situation. Instead, government housing should be spread throughout various residential areas to avoid economic "ghettos" and give people hope of changing their current economic environment.

I feel that municipal housing encourages cyclical poverty. CMV. Now I'm not saying there should be no government housing period, but I think containing all of those inhabitants into giant self-contained apartment lots does not give them much opportunity for advancement from their current situation. Instead, government housing should be spread throughout various residential areas to avoid economic "ghettos" and give people hope of changing their current economic environment.

t3_37e6il

CMV: There are no good reasons to not wear a helmet while riding a bicycle

As the title says, I can't find any valid reasons to not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. Here are a few of the many to wear one: **They reduce the extent of any injuries caused by a bike accident** Bike helmets are proven to make any injuries obtained greatly decreased. The effectiveness of helmets are found to be 85-88% in preventing serious injury. About 70-80% of accidents involve some damage to the head. It is estimated that if children ages 5-15 were forced to wear a helmet, 39,000 to 45,000 head injuries would be avoided, along with 18,000-55,000 face and scalp injuries. I could go on and on with these, but I don't have that much time. If you want more proof, just google "bike helmet facts". I've also listed my sources below. Sources: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/b_helmetlaws.pdf https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/ (NSFW, for some reason there is a picture of a man and woman riding naked. Still good stuff on this page, though) **Helmets do not interfere with riding the bike.** Helmets, if they are the correct size, do not get in the way while riding the bike. The only thing they can do is possibly disturb the airflow, but special aerodynamic helmets are made for this, if that is that big of a deal to a person. Common Counterarguments: **It messes up my hair!/It is uncomfortable!/It makes me look like a dork!** I always hear this, but, you know what, none of these are that big of a deal! I would much rather endure a little discomfort than get a possibly permanent injury to my head. **But I haven't fallen off my bike in, like, years!** This one. I hate when people say this. Just because you haven't gotten in a crash in a while does not mean that you are exempt from ever crashing again. This is especially true when travelling on a main road when other cars are a factor. **They're so expensive!!** No, just no. An average bike helmet will cost about 10 bucks or less. If you can afford a bike, then you can afford a helmet Alright, that's it for now. Please CMV! Edit: My view has been changed. Many of you have brought up good points, but I don't have time to individually comment on each of your comments. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV: There are no good reasons to not wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. As the title says, I can't find any valid reasons to not wearing a helmet while riding a bicycle. Here are a few of the many to wear one: **They reduce the extent of any injuries caused by a bike accident** Bike helmets are proven to make any injuries obtained greatly decreased. The effectiveness of helmets are found to be 85-88% in preventing serious injury. About 70-80% of accidents involve some damage to the head. It is estimated that if children ages 5-15 were forced to wear a helmet, 39,000 to 45,000 head injuries would be avoided, along with 18,000-55,000 face and scalp injuries. I could go on and on with these, but I don't have that much time. If you want more proof, just google "bike helmet facts". I've also listed my sources below. Sources: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/b_helmetlaws.pdf https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/ (NSFW, for some reason there is a picture of a man and woman riding naked. Still good stuff on this page, though) **Helmets do not interfere with riding the bike.** Helmets, if they are the correct size, do not get in the way while riding the bike. The only thing they can do is possibly disturb the airflow, but special aerodynamic helmets are made for this, if that is that big of a deal to a person. Common Counterarguments: **It messes up my hair!/It is uncomfortable!/It makes me look like a dork!** I always hear this, but, you know what, none of these are that big of a deal! I would much rather endure a little discomfort than get a possibly permanent injury to my head. **But I haven't fallen off my bike in, like, years!** This one. I hate when people say this. Just because you haven't gotten in a crash in a while does not mean that you are exempt from ever crashing again. This is especially true when travelling on a main road when other cars are a factor. **They're so expensive!!** No, just no. An average bike helmet will cost about 10 bucks or less. If you can afford a bike, then you can afford a helmet Alright, that's it for now. Please CMV! Edit: My view has been changed. Many of you have brought up good points, but I don't have time to individually comment on each of your comments.

t3_360pj5

CMV: I believe that the city of Chicago has no unifying characteristic or "vibe."

Other major American cities have developed distinct personalities in the cultural imagination. Ask someone to give a one-word summary of New York and they might say "art" or "Broadway" or "money." That's a city that evokes feeling and opinions. San Francisco might incite ideas about liberalism or gay culture. Los Angeles is Hollywood. Houston is oil. Boston is intellectualism. But Chicago? It's a patchwork of pretty-cool neighborhoods that don't add up to much. It's the place you go because you get a job there, not the place you go when you want to quit your job and "make it." As a Midwesterner, I want to love Chicago. But with every visit, all I can think is that it's a pile of people who just happen to be there. What has Chicago contributed? Pizza? Ditka? Second City, aka the stepping stone to bigger things in New York? It's the third largest city in the U.S., but it seems to underperform in its cultural impact. Tell me why Chicago is a unique place in the world.

CMV: I believe that the city of Chicago has no unifying characteristic or "vibe.". Other major American cities have developed distinct personalities in the cultural imagination. Ask someone to give a one-word summary of New York and they might say "art" or "Broadway" or "money." That's a city that evokes feeling and opinions. San Francisco might incite ideas about liberalism or gay culture. Los Angeles is Hollywood. Houston is oil. Boston is intellectualism. But Chicago? It's a patchwork of pretty-cool neighborhoods that don't add up to much. It's the place you go because you get a job there, not the place you go when you want to quit your job and "make it." As a Midwesterner, I want to love Chicago. But with every visit, all I can think is that it's a pile of people who just happen to be there. What has Chicago contributed? Pizza? Ditka? Second City, aka the stepping stone to bigger things in New York? It's the third largest city in the U.S., but it seems to underperform in its cultural impact. Tell me why Chicago is a unique place in the world.

t3_354thv

CMV: The FDNY's new policy of passing firefighters who fail the physical test is wrong and harmful.

[Background info](http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/). Up until now, the FDNY has had a mandatory physical test (as well as written tests, etc.). One could not become a firefighter without passing the physical test. The current test, called the FST, has been in place for the last several years. However, before the FST, there was still a physical test that one had to pass. Note: I am not talking about the [CPAT](https://uwaterloo.ca/uw-fitness/fire-fighter-candidate-testing/candidate-physical-ability-test-cpat-overview). The CPAT is and was merely the introductory test to enter the firefighter academy. It was not the final physical test needed to become a firefighter. Under the FDNY's new policy, someone can become a firefighter even while failing the physical test (currently, the FST) - as long as your other tests (academic) are high enough to form a sufficient average. And for the first time, someone has became a firefighter while being unable - by a large margin - to pass the physical test. This seems absurd, almost ridiculous - and will directly lead to firefighters who are incapable of performing the job. I'll address common objections: *People only take the physical test once - there may be lots of veterans who can no longer pass*. An actual firefighter's [answer](http://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/34pwm2/woman_to_become_ny_firefighter_despite_failing/cqxh6qu?context=30: >Here's the thing though, and I think this is what you're getting at - experience on the fire floor is even more important than physical strength. You learn where you need to exert yourself, where you can go, how to control your breathing, and you can fall back on lessons learned at past fires. There is also a component of muscle memory as well - we drill a lot, we wear our masks a lot, we use our tools a lot; somebody who might have less fat or look in better shape could potentially be a lot more run down because they are using muscles in ways they've never had to before. >That's essentially why it's so important to be physically fit as a probie - because you have no fire experience, you're bringing nothing to the table except for bare strength and endurance. You aren't used to holding/operating these tools, you have no experience to fall back on, and you're freaking out because you're in a fire and have no idea what's going on. To have no strength and no experience, you might as well be another person we're going to have to rescue; even worse, because it means one less person that we then have to fight the fire. *The FST is not a suitable test - being unable to pass it does not mean that a person is not physically capable of the job*. I would need some compelling evidence for this claim. But, even if it was true - the new policy is still wrong and harmful. If the FST is not suitable - why is it still being used? There must be a new, suitable test, that should be mandatory to pass. If the FST truly is unsuitable, then it still makes no sense to say "well, we're going to use it, but if you can't pass, you could still be a firefighter if your written tests are great". *Firefighters don't all need to be strong - they can do desk work etc.* The main duty of firefighters is to fight fires and rescue people from fires. If you are not capable of doing that - then you are not a firefighter. It is directly harmful to citizens to have firefighters taking up space that are physically unable to perform required tasks. There may be some factors I've been unable to think of, that could justify this. Please CMV if possible.

CMV: The FDNY's new policy of passing firefighters who fail the physical test is wrong and harmful. [Background info](http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/). Up until now, the FDNY has had a mandatory physical test (as well as written tests, etc.). One could not become a firefighter without passing the physical test. The current test, called the FST, has been in place for the last several years. However, before the FST, there was still a physical test that one had to pass. Note: I am not talking about the [CPAT](https://uwaterloo.ca/uw-fitness/fire-fighter-candidate-testing/candidate-physical-ability-test-cpat-overview). The CPAT is and was merely the introductory test to enter the firefighter academy. It was not the final physical test needed to become a firefighter. Under the FDNY's new policy, someone can become a firefighter even while failing the physical test (currently, the FST) - as long as your other tests (academic) are high enough to form a sufficient average. And for the first time, someone has became a firefighter while being unable - by a large margin - to pass the physical test. This seems absurd, almost ridiculous - and will directly lead to firefighters who are incapable of performing the job. I'll address common objections: *People only take the physical test once - there may be lots of veterans who can no longer pass*. An actual firefighter's [answer](http://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/34pwm2/woman_to_become_ny_firefighter_despite_failing/cqxh6qu?context=30: >Here's the thing though, and I think this is what you're getting at - experience on the fire floor is even more important than physical strength. You learn where you need to exert yourself, where you can go, how to control your breathing, and you can fall back on lessons learned at past fires. There is also a component of muscle memory as well - we drill a lot, we wear our masks a lot, we use our tools a lot; somebody who might have less fat or look in better shape could potentially be a lot more run down because they are using muscles in ways they've never had to before. >That's essentially why it's so important to be physically fit as a probie - because you have no fire experience, you're bringing nothing to the table except for bare strength and endurance. You aren't used to holding/operating these tools, you have no experience to fall back on, and you're freaking out because you're in a fire and have no idea what's going on. To have no strength and no experience, you might as well be another person we're going to have to rescue; even worse, because it means one less person that we then have to fight the fire. *The FST is not a suitable test - being unable to pass it does not mean that a person is not physically capable of the job*. I would need some compelling evidence for this claim. But, even if it was true - the new policy is still wrong and harmful. If the FST is not suitable - why is it still being used? There must be a new, suitable test, that should be mandatory to pass. If the FST truly is unsuitable, then it still makes no sense to say "well, we're going to use it, but if you can't pass, you could still be a firefighter if your written tests are great". *Firefighters don't all need to be strong - they can do desk work etc.* The main duty of firefighters is to fight fires and rescue people from fires. If you are not capable of doing that - then you are not a firefighter. It is directly harmful to citizens to have firefighters taking up space that are physically unable to perform required tasks. There may be some factors I've been unable to think of, that could justify this. Please CMV if possible.

t3_3rvx5k

CMV: Owning a car is completely nonsensical. Clarification: In an urban area when not part of a profession.

Edit: My view has been changed! I now recognize that for a lot of people, perhaps even he majority, owning a car makes a lot of sense. Just because it doesn't at all to me, doesn't mean it doesn't for everyone. I still believe cars are not the best solution to the transportation problem, and that ideal cities would minimally include them, but the real world is not ideal. Significant changes would have to happen in order to facilitate such a norm. Warning; explicit rant! It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me. I'm a student and my housemate happens to own a car. Pretty much all his working hours go towards payments for that car. Before they had a car, they caught a train home, they used a bus to get to town, they walked to the shops. Life was possible. Now life is just as possible, but more expensive. It takes me 20 minutes to cycle to town and I don't have to even think about parking. They allow an hour in case of traffic, and need a good fiver for parking. All in the name of 'freedom'. Is it freedom if you have to work every weekend to pay for it? If you used to do the same things beforehand anyway? This is with a cheap car and expensive insurance. But when we get older, it still makes no fucking sense. Professionals aspire to owning a 'nice car'. Which will half in value as soon as they buy it. Which will be a little bit more noisy when stuck in traffic. Which they'll be even more protective of when they leave it clogging up space on a public road. What the fuck? Imagine all the holidays one could go on instead? If its about a status symbol, wouldn't pictures of you on a beach be just as effective? Or a nicer, bigger house? Or a great education for your kids? All the huge car park lots, all the boring front gardens reserved for cars instead of flowers, all the massive noisy expensive roads cutting through towns. I occasionally end up cycling through London, and as I weave past standstill traffic I am flabbergasted at the endless number of 5 door cars with one person miserably sitting at the front. Why do it? Everyone flocks to Venice in awe. Everyone admires Copenhagen for its peace. Well why not fucking replicate the model then!? This is just a cost/benefit with what is currently included in the economy. Imagine if we had a carbon tax too. The initial cost of a car would probably double, as would the cost of fuel. When you include the more accurate costs that account for the environment, it all makes even less fucking sense. And its more upsetting when you remember that these costs unfortunately are not included. And then there is the matter of health! Beijing, New York, London, Mumbai, whichever mega city you look the air is literally shit. It doesn't fucking have to be. And the risk if driving itself. According to the WHO, road accidents are the ninth biggest killer worldwide. Number fucking 9! What the fuck! Cars should be straight up banned immediately and labelled as killing machines! This is ridiculous! This is a joke! A few related articles worth mentioning: [this documentary](https://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/nheqd/taken_for_a_ride_how_big_oil_and_auto/) [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11095120/Getting-the-bus-or-train-to-work-makes-us-happier-than-driving-study-finds.html) [and this](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4de21c14-2f93-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=uk&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F4de21c14-2f93-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&_i_referer=&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz3qoIyYJdn) > *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: Owning a car is completely nonsensical. Clarification: In an urban area when not part of a profession. Edit: My view has been changed! I now recognize that for a lot of people, perhaps even he majority, owning a car makes a lot of sense. Just because it doesn't at all to me, doesn't mean it doesn't for everyone. I still believe cars are not the best solution to the transportation problem, and that ideal cities would minimally include them, but the real world is not ideal. Significant changes would have to happen in order to facilitate such a norm. Warning; explicit rant! It just doesn't make any fucking sense to me. I'm a student and my housemate happens to own a car. Pretty much all his working hours go towards payments for that car. Before they had a car, they caught a train home, they used a bus to get to town, they walked to the shops. Life was possible. Now life is just as possible, but more expensive. It takes me 20 minutes to cycle to town and I don't have to even think about parking. They allow an hour in case of traffic, and need a good fiver for parking. All in the name of 'freedom'. Is it freedom if you have to work every weekend to pay for it? If you used to do the same things beforehand anyway? This is with a cheap car and expensive insurance. But when we get older, it still makes no fucking sense. Professionals aspire to owning a 'nice car'. Which will half in value as soon as they buy it. Which will be a little bit more noisy when stuck in traffic. Which they'll be even more protective of when they leave it clogging up space on a public road. What the fuck? Imagine all the holidays one could go on instead? If its about a status symbol, wouldn't pictures of you on a beach be just as effective? Or a nicer, bigger house? Or a great education for your kids? All the huge car park lots, all the boring front gardens reserved for cars instead of flowers, all the massive noisy expensive roads cutting through towns. I occasionally end up cycling through London, and as I weave past standstill traffic I am flabbergasted at the endless number of 5 door cars with one person miserably sitting at the front. Why do it? Everyone flocks to Venice in awe. Everyone admires Copenhagen for its peace. Well why not fucking replicate the model then!? This is just a cost/benefit with what is currently included in the economy. Imagine if we had a carbon tax too. The initial cost of a car would probably double, as would the cost of fuel. When you include the more accurate costs that account for the environment, it all makes even less fucking sense. And its more upsetting when you remember that these costs unfortunately are not included. And then there is the matter of health! Beijing, New York, London, Mumbai, whichever mega city you look the air is literally shit. It doesn't fucking have to be. And the risk if driving itself. According to the WHO, road accidents are the ninth biggest killer worldwide. Number fucking 9! What the fuck! Cars should be straight up banned immediately and labelled as killing machines! This is ridiculous! This is a joke! A few related articles worth mentioning: [this documentary](https://www.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/nheqd/taken_for_a_ride_how_big_oil_and_auto/) [this](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11095120/Getting-the-bus-or-train-to-work-makes-us-happier-than-driving-study-finds.html) [and this](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4de21c14-2f93-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=uk&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F4de21c14-2f93-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&_i_referer=&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz3qoIyYJdn) > *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_28x0ur

CMV:women's tennis tournaments are secondary

I'm sitting here watching highlights of Andy Murray winning Wimbledon last year, and it strikes me that the pinnacle of tennis is the men's tournament, simply because elite male tennis players would consistently beat elite female tennis players. I think we would all be better off simply acknowledging this and consider bifurcating the rules of the sport such that they are better suited to each sex. Examples could include differently-weighted tennis balls or different court sizes. I certainly think I would enjoy a situation in which elite players of tennis A would be rubbish at tennis B (against the elite of that sport), and vice-versa. Both tournaments could then just be open to all sexes, because there'll always be some odd outliers. Note: this is not an argument about prize money. I appreciate and respect that as athletes, both men and women put in the same effort and that the extra prize money (particularly at the bottom end of the professional rankings), makes a massive difference. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

CMV:women's tennis tournaments are secondary. I'm sitting here watching highlights of Andy Murray winning Wimbledon last year, and it strikes me that the pinnacle of tennis is the men's tournament, simply because elite male tennis players would consistently beat elite female tennis players. I think we would all be better off simply acknowledging this and consider bifurcating the rules of the sport such that they are better suited to each sex. Examples could include differently-weighted tennis balls or different court sizes. I certainly think I would enjoy a situation in which elite players of tennis A would be rubbish at tennis B (against the elite of that sport), and vice-versa. Both tournaments could then just be open to all sexes, because there'll always be some odd outliers. Note: this is not an argument about prize money. I appreciate and respect that as athletes, both men and women put in the same effort and that the extra prize money (particularly at the bottom end of the professional rankings), makes a massive difference.

t3_1sg7zy

I think that the recent movement in favor of a $15 minimum wage in the US is a great idea, CMV.

Current minimum wage is simply not enough to live independently on, and I don't think anyone should be forced to live in dependence on others (or taxpayers) simply because they can't find a job that pays enough. If you want to work and you do work, there's no reason you shouldn't make enough to house, feed, and clothe yourself with some extra money for the non-necessities that are simply the marks of the modern, civilized world. (Having a TV and computer with internet, cell phone, indoor heating/cooling, a car, going to the movies once in a while, taking vacations once or twice a year, etc.) If the minimum wage is raised 100%, that means 50% or more of the workforce would need to get laid off to see overall negative consequences. It's simply not going to happen, and as the people who do keep jobs bring in more money, more jobs will slowly be created, and those new jobs will also be livable. Change my view.

I think that the recent movement in favor of a $15 minimum wage in the US is a great idea, CMV. Current minimum wage is simply not enough to live independently on, and I don't think anyone should be forced to live in dependence on others (or taxpayers) simply because they can't find a job that pays enough. If you want to work and you do work, there's no reason you shouldn't make enough to house, feed, and clothe yourself with some extra money for the non-necessities that are simply the marks of the modern, civilized world. (Having a TV and computer with internet, cell phone, indoor heating/cooling, a car, going to the movies once in a while, taking vacations once or twice a year, etc.) If the minimum wage is raised 100%, that means 50% or more of the workforce would need to get laid off to see overall negative consequences. It's simply not going to happen, and as the people who do keep jobs bring in more money, more jobs will slowly be created, and those new jobs will also be livable. Change my view.

t3_63p6u7

CMV: Religious extremists and fundamentalists constitute a truer version of their religion than moderates of the same religion

The title sums it up. If a person follows their sacred texts more to the letter, aren't they better examples of that religion than anyone of the same belief system who only follows its core doctrines and others? Because I thought that more adherence to an ideology equals a better example of that adherent, and in this case a truer follower. Or am I missing something here? If so, please tell me, because I would love to hear your opinions on the subject. _____ > *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: Religious extremists and fundamentalists constitute a truer version of their religion than moderates of the same religion. The title sums it up. If a person follows their sacred texts more to the letter, aren't they better examples of that religion than anyone of the same belief system who only follows its core doctrines and others? Because I thought that more adherence to an ideology equals a better example of that adherent, and in this case a truer follower. Or am I missing something here? If so, please tell me, because I would love to hear your opinions on the subject.

t3_2mp5kn

CMV: Cultural Appropriation is not harmful (and it is universal)

In my view, people in each culture inevitably and necessarily employ the ideas, symbols, and inventions of other cultures without understanding the larger context or history of these features of the other cultures. I don't see a fundamental difference in majority cultures appropriating minority cultures and the reverse situation. Further, I don't see how use of such cultures out of context is harmful to the original culture. What is "marginalization", really? Please help me understand why so many people at my university are so passionate about this issue.

CMV: Cultural Appropriation is not harmful (and it is universal). In my view, people in each culture inevitably and necessarily employ the ideas, symbols, and inventions of other cultures without understanding the larger context or history of these features of the other cultures. I don't see a fundamental difference in majority cultures appropriating minority cultures and the reverse situation. Further, I don't see how use of such cultures out of context is harmful to the original culture. What is "marginalization", really? Please help me understand why so many people at my university are so passionate about this issue.

t3_6jjpzr

CMV: Why do we need a gay pride.

So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way. --- So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?** My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here) Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people. I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding. _____ > *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: Why do we need a gay pride. So let me first just clarify, i'm not anti gay or anything even remotely like that. And to be clear the tone of this question is pure curiosity and should be taken that way. --- So my question is **Why do we need a gay pride?** My personal opinion is, if a person isn't bothering you or affecting you in any way, what does their personal belief on you being gay matter? And why do you feel the need to advertise/promote you being gay? (I know i'm being a little presumptuous here) Why do we need to have gay pride in the first place? We don't have any other gender orientation event and in most of the Western world where these events happen, we already have pretty much close to equality for gay people (Compared to straight), so to me i feel like its just a very egocentric event that provides no purpose other then to aggravate people who might have an issue with gay people. I'd like to hear counter points to my opinion and i'm more then willing to change my opinion on this, as i feel the reason i feel this way is probably a lack of understanding.

t3_1mfbv6

I believe that if you are in the military, you shouldn't be allowed to smoke or drink. CMV

Smoking and drinking have negative health effects. If your primary job is the physical enforcement of military force and protection, I don't think it should be permitted to purposefully damage your health. Furthermore, smoking is highly addictive (alcohol less so, but still potentially addictive). Once the service-member leaves the military, their healthcare costs are almost exclusively paid by the government. Minimizing their health problems from service would save money and make them healthier. Also, assault, trauma, and rape in the military is substantially higher than in the general population. The chances for violence or assault (sexual or otherwise) are substantially higher when alcohol is involved. And while I understand that everyone *should* have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, people in the military sign contracts that dictate certain rules for behavior in order to keep their jobs. They would freely be entering into these contracts knowing full well that they would not be allowed to smoke or drink. The contracts already prohibit pot and other minor drugs. I am from the United States and am largely talking about the US, but I suppose these themes would carry true through to other countries.

I believe that if you are in the military, you shouldn't be allowed to smoke or drink. CMV. Smoking and drinking have negative health effects. If your primary job is the physical enforcement of military force and protection, I don't think it should be permitted to purposefully damage your health. Furthermore, smoking is highly addictive (alcohol less so, but still potentially addictive). Once the service-member leaves the military, their healthcare costs are almost exclusively paid by the government. Minimizing their health problems from service would save money and make them healthier. Also, assault, trauma, and rape in the military is substantially higher than in the general population. The chances for violence or assault (sexual or otherwise) are substantially higher when alcohol is involved. And while I understand that everyone *should* have the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, people in the military sign contracts that dictate certain rules for behavior in order to keep their jobs. They would freely be entering into these contracts knowing full well that they would not be allowed to smoke or drink. The contracts already prohibit pot and other minor drugs. I am from the United States and am largely talking about the US, but I suppose these themes would carry true through to other countries.

t3_1a2rqo

I believe that incest is okay. CMV

I do not believe people should be disallowed to have sex with any member of their family that is a consenting adult. Although there are obvious implications if a brother and sister have a child (e.g. deformities), this also applies to women having children at later stages of their lives (which is rarely frowned upon). Where does one draw the line? Even if I am to concede that it is immoral to have a child at high-risk of being born with health implications, this does not relate to infertile women in incestuous relationships, nor does it relate to homosexual incest. Please, CMV!

I believe that incest is okay. CMV. I do not believe people should be disallowed to have sex with any member of their family that is a consenting adult. Although there are obvious implications if a brother and sister have a child (e.g. deformities), this also applies to women having children at later stages of their lives (which is rarely frowned upon). Where does one draw the line? Even if I am to concede that it is immoral to have a child at high-risk of being born with health implications, this does not relate to infertile women in incestuous relationships, nor does it relate to homosexual incest. Please, CMV!