Datasets:

nailiamirzakhmedova
/

cmv_op_10k

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 10k rows

id stringlengths 9 9	title stringlengths 9 300	selftext stringlengths 9 9.73k	text stringlengths 53 9.81k
t3_1kgwn3	I believe the washing machine - but not the dryer - was, and still is, the most revolutionary appliance ever invented. CMV	As I was loading my laundry I imagined how much life would suck without this wonderful invention. Before any sort of automated clothes washing process was developed, you had to wash your clothes by hand with washboards and the even older methods used before those were thought up. Yeah, yeah the washer/dryer combo is very convenient but putting clothes on a line or rack to dry isn't a big deal compared to wringing a day's worth of hard, manual labor out of some jeans. My laundry will be ready to dry in 30 minutes. It would have taken hours without this miracle. Sure, refrigerators are extremely badass too, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if they didn't exist. Same goes for the equally sweet microwave. The one thing that could come close is air conditioning. I absolutely love air conditioning. I grew up in a dry, sweltering desert with 120 degree [Fahrenheit] summers. AC was a God send, and it still is, even though I live in a cooler climate. Heating is the other big one. I've also lived in a snowy, wooded area and know all too well the wonders of heating. That being said, I've experienced several day power outages where I didn't have AC during a heat wave and heating during a snow storm, respectively. You can make do with shitty weather one way or another and you adapt pretty quickly. Washing clothes, however, sucks no matter where you live and what time of the year it is. Imagine how much more awesome the wild west would have been if you could toss your clothes in a machine after a long, grueling day of dueling people and robbing armored carriages. Instead you have to go home to your bandit hideout somewhere in the hills outside of town and wash the blood from the guy you just robbed out of your sweet "This isn't where I hitched my horse" riding vest using your Goddamn hands when you could be enjoying some nice delicious beer and mountain goat barbecue while the laundry washes and rinses for you. Do any folks have any suggestions as to why I should feel otherwise?	I believe the washing machine - but not the dryer - was, and still is, the most revolutionary appliance ever invented. CMV. As I was loading my laundry I imagined how much life would suck without this wonderful invention. Before any sort of automated clothes washing process was developed, you had to wash your clothes by hand with washboards and the even older methods used before those were thought up. Yeah, yeah the washer/dryer combo is very convenient but putting clothes on a line or rack to dry isn't a big deal compared to wringing a day's worth of hard, manual labor out of some jeans. My laundry will be ready to dry in 30 minutes. It would have taken hours without this miracle. Sure, refrigerators are extremely badass too, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if they didn't exist. Same goes for the equally sweet microwave. The one thing that could come close is air conditioning. I absolutely love air conditioning. I grew up in a dry, sweltering desert with 120 degree [Fahrenheit] summers. AC was a God send, and it still is, even though I live in a cooler climate. Heating is the other big one. I've also lived in a snowy, wooded area and know all too well the wonders of heating. That being said, I've experienced several day power outages where I didn't have AC during a heat wave and heating during a snow storm, respectively. You can make do with shitty weather one way or another and you adapt pretty quickly. Washing clothes, however, sucks no matter where you live and what time of the year it is. Imagine how much more awesome the wild west would have been if you could toss your clothes in a machine after a long, grueling day of dueling people and robbing armored carriages. Instead you have to go home to your bandit hideout somewhere in the hills outside of town and wash the blood from the guy you just robbed out of your sweet "This isn't where I hitched my horse" riding vest using your Goddamn hands when you could be enjoying some nice delicious beer and mountain goat barbecue while the laundry washes and rinses for you. Do any folks have any suggestions as to why I should feel otherwise?
t3_382uqn	CMV: The pledge of allegience and other rituals of national identity are holding society back.	Nationalism in general is harmful distinction amongst people serving only to encourage people to believe that (not necessarily even) the country they were born makes them more important / better than others from different countires. This further highlights physical and cultural differences keeping race, creed and skin colour at the forefront of discrimination. Your land mass of preference is nothing more than a matter of circumstance and the nationals of your country are just as much of a burden on the planet as the foreigners these rituals imply are second rate. Edit: This has necessarily expanded into a discussion on - Social economics - Patriotism vs nationalism In terms of economics: Please assume any reference to this is intended to express public (and occasionally at a push, social) benefits. The reasoning for doing so is to hopefully highlight how national identity can be a) relative to your perceptions of "lesser countries". b) a productive of abusing of nations / collections of nations. e.g, DDT ban once the rest of the world no longer needed America for its production. _____ > 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 pledge of allegience and other rituals of national identity are holding society back. Nationalism in general is harmful distinction amongst people serving only to encourage people to believe that (not necessarily even) the country they were born makes them more important / better than others from different countires. This further highlights physical and cultural differences keeping race, creed and skin colour at the forefront of discrimination. Your land mass of preference is nothing more than a matter of circumstance and the nationals of your country are just as much of a burden on the planet as the foreigners these rituals imply are second rate. Edit: This has necessarily expanded into a discussion on - Social economics - Patriotism vs nationalism In terms of economics: Please assume any reference to this is intended to express public (and occasionally at a push, social) benefits. The reasoning for doing so is to hopefully highlight how national identity can be a) relative to your perceptions of "lesser countries". b) a productive of abusing of nations / collections of nations. e.g, DDT ban once the rest of the world no longer needed America for its production.
t3_1kzfmv	I believe that if the world ends, it wouldn't be a bad thing. CMV	I think that if the earth exploded right now and every human being died it would not make a difference. It would be really sad if people died few by few like in some apocalyptic movies (2012, World War Z, The Day After Tomorrow...). Seeing people you love dying would be horrible. But if everyone died at the same time, what is the difference? Nobody would be sad, nobody would suffer. And I even think that if just the human beings died and the other living species stayed alive, the world would be a better place for them to live. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suicidal and I don't wanna die. But if someone said to me that everyone would die in 1 minute, I think I would just be like "Whatever.."	I believe that if the world ends, it wouldn't be a bad thing. CMV. I think that if the earth exploded right now and every human being died it would not make a difference. It would be really sad if people died few by few like in some apocalyptic movies (2012, World War Z, The Day After Tomorrow...). Seeing people you love dying would be horrible. But if everyone died at the same time, what is the difference? Nobody would be sad, nobody would suffer. And I even think that if just the human beings died and the other living species stayed alive, the world would be a better place for them to live. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suicidal and I don't wanna die. But if someone said to me that everyone would die in 1 minute, I think I would just be like "Whatever.."
t3_1ss21x	I think the main reason to object to cars isn't pollution or gasoline, it's the space; the fact that gridlock happens at all is ridiculous. CMV.	When I see most car-judging on the Internet, I see people mainly talking about tailpipe emissions and the environment, or else gasoline prices and international politics. Now I want to agree hastily that these are good, important things to worry about, but I'm not really worried about them, at least not in the long term. Cars are getting more fuel efficient, and hybrid cars are gaining market share, and eventually they'll run on some other energy source anyway. But cars are not getting significantly smaller, the brief Mini fad notwithstanding, and the population is growing. My home city, Vancouver, is certainly not the worst North American city when it comes to traffic, and I think some people would even say we're comparatively pretty good. But still every morning, and every evening, for about 2 hours each, our downtown core and the major arteries of our city are full. Not completely jammed, but moving slowly, bumper-nearly-to-bumper, travelling at roughly the same average pace as a moderately-fit jogger. They move this slowly because there are such-and-such many cars per kilometre of road, and because it would be unsafe to drive at/near the speed limit when the distance between cars is so short; no one has that kind of reaction time. And there are so many cars because, as a society, we have this thing where it is basically expected that every adult who has passed some tests, is entitled to occupy their own 4 or 5 meter rectangle of public road space to themselves, for as long as they need to. This is something which most city dwellers see as normal, and I can't seem to get anyone else to see this everyone-gets-a-car-or-at-least-most-people model of urban life as a completely absurd, ludicrous solution to a pretty simple engineering problem. The usefulness of everyone's car decreases slightly with each additional car there is on the road, and I feel like most medium-to-big cities are already at the point of diminishing returns, where additional cars slow down their neighbours by a greater margin than they provide their own driver, and so actually have negative net utility. Does it make sense for people to use the same machine to traverse between cities (highway systems are very efficient!) as they use to cross town? If it does, CMV!	I think the main reason to object to cars isn't pollution or gasoline, it's the space; the fact that gridlock happens at all is ridiculous. CMV. When I see most car-judging on the Internet, I see people mainly talking about tailpipe emissions and the environment, or else gasoline prices and international politics. Now I want to agree hastily that these are good, important things to worry about, but I'm not really worried about them, at least not in the long term. Cars are getting more fuel efficient, and hybrid cars are gaining market share, and eventually they'll run on some other energy source anyway. But cars are not getting significantly smaller, the brief Mini fad notwithstanding, and the population is growing. My home city, Vancouver, is certainly not the worst North American city when it comes to traffic, and I think some people would even say we're comparatively pretty good. But still every morning, and every evening, for about 2 hours each, our downtown core and the major arteries of our city are full. Not completely jammed, but moving slowly, bumper-nearly-to-bumper, travelling at roughly the same average pace as a moderately-fit jogger. They move this slowly because there are such-and-such many cars per kilometre of road, and because it would be unsafe to drive at/near the speed limit when the distance between cars is so short; no one has that kind of reaction time. And there are so many cars because, as a society, we have this thing where it is basically expected that every adult who has passed some tests, is entitled to occupy their own 4 or 5 meter rectangle of public road space to themselves, for as long as they need to. This is something which most city dwellers see as normal, and I can't seem to get anyone else to see this everyone-gets-a-car-or-at-least-most-people model of urban life as a completely absurd, ludicrous solution to a pretty simple engineering problem. The usefulness of everyone's car decreases slightly with each additional car there is on the road, and I feel like most medium-to-big cities are already at the point of diminishing returns, where additional cars slow down their neighbours by a greater margin than they provide their own driver, and so actually have negative net utility. Does it make sense for people to use the same machine to traverse between cities (highway systems are very efficient!) as they use to cross town? If it does, CMV!
t3_2ocaob	CMV: I think that people who have ever cheated in a relationship are not worth dating.	Being cheated on, to put it simply, is obviously a universally negative experience. Of course people handle it differently; some people brush it off quickly and other people end up on a negative spiral lasting years. Now I'm not sure what the exact statistic is, but it's probably safe to say that most people experience being cheated on at some point in their life. Cheating also tends to be a repeat behaviour. I believe that in many, if not most cases it is caused by a personality flaw in the person who cheated. As such, if someone wants to minimize their chance of being hurt in this way; it would be best to avoid people who have a history of cheating. Of course, this isn't a foolproof strategy; but is statistically more likely to work out better for you. Now you might say that people who have cheated a long time ago should deserve a second chance; that they have changed and "wouldn't do that again". I disagree. When people mess up in a certain area they tend to not easily get a second chance in that area. Will anyone ever respect Lance Armstrong's future cycling achievements? I doubt it. Would an accounting firm hire someone with a fraud conviction, even if they were a financial genius and had spent the last 20 years rescuing puppies? Probably not. With all the other choices of people to date; it's a mistake to date someone who has cheated in the past. Also, if more people thought this way, it might even decrease the number of people who do cheat (but probably not). Anyway, I welcome to change my view. EDIT: A few things that I would really like to address. For some reason a great deal of the posters here are misconstruing my view as something along the line of "Cheaters are irredemable and can never have successful relationships" or "Nobody can ever change". These have nothing to do with my view; in fact I disagree with both. I do NOT want for anyone to suffer and it is not my secret goal in life for people who made a youth to be forever alone. However I have altered my view. What I believe is simply that cheating is a good method of screening out potential dates. Reflecting on my topic however, the proposed view of "Not worth dating" has certainly been softened, even though it probably was never really that extreme to begin with. Some people who have cheated are certainly worth getting to know and dating. I'll award a delta to whom I feel best made this point. I'd like the chance to rephrase my view as "For me, people who have cheated in the past are not worth the risk to date." If you can convince me to give this up you get another delta. EDIT 2: I really haven't met the standard of proof to make the claim that completely avoiding people who have cheated in the past offers any sort of benefit (let alone a guarantee of avoiding hurt). My opinion was clouded by personal resentment and such a blanket statement really is logically indefensible. While I still would avoid dating someone who cheated because of my personal issues, these issues fall upon me alone to work on. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Any more insight, of course, is still welcome. _____ > 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 people who have ever cheated in a relationship are not worth dating. Being cheated on, to put it simply, is obviously a universally negative experience. Of course people handle it differently; some people brush it off quickly and other people end up on a negative spiral lasting years. Now I'm not sure what the exact statistic is, but it's probably safe to say that most people experience being cheated on at some point in their life. Cheating also tends to be a repeat behaviour. I believe that in many, if not most cases it is caused by a personality flaw in the person who cheated. As such, if someone wants to minimize their chance of being hurt in this way; it would be best to avoid people who have a history of cheating. Of course, this isn't a foolproof strategy; but is statistically more likely to work out better for you. Now you might say that people who have cheated a long time ago should deserve a second chance; that they have changed and "wouldn't do that again". I disagree. When people mess up in a certain area they tend to not easily get a second chance in that area. Will anyone ever respect Lance Armstrong's future cycling achievements? I doubt it. Would an accounting firm hire someone with a fraud conviction, even if they were a financial genius and had spent the last 20 years rescuing puppies? Probably not. With all the other choices of people to date; it's a mistake to date someone who has cheated in the past. Also, if more people thought this way, it might even decrease the number of people who do cheat (but probably not). Anyway, I welcome to change my view. EDIT: A few things that I would really like to address. For some reason a great deal of the posters here are misconstruing my view as something along the line of "Cheaters are irredemable and can never have successful relationships" or "Nobody can ever change". These have nothing to do with my view; in fact I disagree with both. I do NOT want for anyone to suffer and it is not my secret goal in life for people who made a youth to be forever alone. However I have altered my view. What I believe is simply that cheating is a good method of screening out potential dates. Reflecting on my topic however, the proposed view of "Not worth dating" has certainly been softened, even though it probably was never really that extreme to begin with. Some people who have cheated are certainly worth getting to know and dating. I'll award a delta to whom I feel best made this point. I'd like the chance to rephrase my view as "For me, people who have cheated in the past are not worth the risk to date." If you can convince me to give this up you get another delta. EDIT 2: I really haven't met the standard of proof to make the claim that completely avoiding people who have cheated in the past offers any sort of benefit (let alone a guarantee of avoiding hurt). My opinion was clouded by personal resentment and such a blanket statement really is logically indefensible. While I still would avoid dating someone who cheated because of my personal issues, these issues fall upon me alone to work on. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Any more insight, of course, is still welcome.
t3_1fxjrb	I believe that spanking my child is a proper and acceptable form of punishment. CMV.	I will be having a child soon, and the discussion of Discipline came up between my wife and I. She was raised with time-outs and wagged fingers, while I was raised with spankings and slapped wrists. I've began noticing that there are a lot of people out there who believe that spanking is immoral, and in some instances bordering abuse. I simply disagree. Now, I'm not talking about beating my child mercilessly. I'm simply talking about a stern slap on the bottom and an explanation of what they did wrong and why they were punished. I feel like it is much more effective than making a child stand in a corner for a bit and think about what they've done. My wife came out to be a perfectly functional human being, however. So did I. That's why I'm coming to you, because I'd like to hear a logical argument for time-outs and other non-physical forms of punishment as opposed to spankings.	I believe that spanking my child is a proper and acceptable form of punishment. CMV. I will be having a child soon, and the discussion of Discipline came up between my wife and I. She was raised with time-outs and wagged fingers, while I was raised with spankings and slapped wrists. I've began noticing that there are a lot of people out there who believe that spanking is immoral, and in some instances bordering abuse. I simply disagree. Now, I'm not talking about beating my child mercilessly. I'm simply talking about a stern slap on the bottom and an explanation of what they did wrong and why they were punished. I feel like it is much more effective than making a child stand in a corner for a bit and think about what they've done. My wife came out to be a perfectly functional human being, however. So did I. That's why I'm coming to you, because I'd like to hear a logical argument for time-outs and other non-physical forms of punishment as opposed to spankings.
t3_2rq5g3	CMV: In heaven, as long as an individual has free will and eternal life, they will sin an infinite number of times.	My argument assumes the Christian theology taught by most non-denominational churches in the USA. Statements 1-3 are primarily taken from this theology. I would rather not argue these points, but rather the philosophy in statements 4-9. However, if there is a better interpretation of Christian beliefs than the one I am presenting, I still would be interested to hear it. Here's my argument. 1. After the events of the current universe have expired, select individuals will go to heaven. 2. The Bible refers to an infinite passage of time in this heaven. e.g. "the righteous will reign forever", "God has given us eternal life" which is taken literally according to the most common Christian interpretation of the text. 3. Every being continues to have free will in heaven. (I realize that this is a point of debate even among Christians, but I would like to pursue this particular line of thought. Assuming the opposite introduces a whole new set of issues.) 4. If a being has free will, then there is the possibility that they will sin. 5. As long as the individual continues to have free will and continues to have eternal life, then the possibility of sin will remain. 6. Given an infinite amount of time, if there is the possibility that something will occur, it will eventually occur.* 7. From (5) and (6), an individual must sin at some point. 8. Since (5) still holds given the immutable conditions for eternal life and residency in heaven presented by the Bible, (6) and (7) still follow. 9. (5-8) can repeated an infinite number of times, so the individual will sin an infinite number of times. (Conclusion) * I realize that (6) is not strictly true. For instance if sin is conditional on something else with a zero probability, then sin could still be possible without actually ever occurring. However I'll maintain that the only condition for sin is free will. In other words, the only condition needed for sin to occur is an individual's ability to choose. As long as this ability remains, then (6) holds. Thanks for reading, CMV. Edit: Several people are responding that free will is not the only requirement for sin to occur. In order for an individual to sin, then there must also be a reason, opportunity, or temptation. Although this would fix the problem, I don't think it is consistent with the rest of Christian theology. The reason is because according to Christianity, the possibility of sin is a requirement for free will to exist. God created a world with the possibility of sin so that its inhabitants could have free will. If there were secondary requirements for sin, as those listed above, then the possibility of sin could be eliminated without removing free will. Then I would ask, why is there sin in this universe? The standard response of, 'so that we can have free will' would no longer be a satisfactory answer. In short, if you propose that there is a secondary requirement for sin beyond free will, then you would need to revisit the question of why sin exists in the first place. Edit2: Thank you all for your responses. I've about exhausted the amount of time I want to spend replying, and I'm sorry that I didn't get to address every point. I do not think my argument is as strong as I originally thought, so I hope to revise it using all the helpful suggestions posted here. Thanks again. _____ > 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 heaven, as long as an individual has free will and eternal life, they will sin an infinite number of times. My argument assumes the Christian theology taught by most non-denominational churches in the USA. Statements 1-3 are primarily taken from this theology. I would rather not argue these points, but rather the philosophy in statements 4-9. However, if there is a better interpretation of Christian beliefs than the one I am presenting, I still would be interested to hear it. Here's my argument. 1. After the events of the current universe have expired, select individuals will go to heaven. 2. The Bible refers to an infinite passage of time in this heaven. e.g. "the righteous will reign forever", "God has given us eternal life" which is taken literally according to the most common Christian interpretation of the text. 3. Every being continues to have free will in heaven. (I realize that this is a point of debate even among Christians, but I would like to pursue this particular line of thought. Assuming the opposite introduces a whole new set of issues.) 4. If a being has free will, then there is the possibility that they will sin. 5. As long as the individual continues to have free will and continues to have eternal life, then the possibility of sin will remain. 6. Given an infinite amount of time, if there is the possibility that something will occur, it will eventually occur.* 7. From (5) and (6), an individual must sin at some point. 8. Since (5) still holds given the immutable conditions for eternal life and residency in heaven presented by the Bible, (6) and (7) still follow. 9. (5-8) can repeated an infinite number of times, so the individual will sin an infinite number of times. (Conclusion) * I realize that (6) is not strictly true. For instance if sin is conditional on something else with a zero probability, then sin could still be possible without actually ever occurring. However I'll maintain that the only condition for sin is free will. In other words, the only condition needed for sin to occur is an individual's ability to choose. As long as this ability remains, then (6) holds. Thanks for reading, CMV. Edit: Several people are responding that free will is not the only requirement for sin to occur. In order for an individual to sin, then there must also be a reason, opportunity, or temptation. Although this would fix the problem, I don't think it is consistent with the rest of Christian theology. The reason is because according to Christianity, the possibility of sin is a requirement for free will to exist. God created a world with the possibility of sin so that its inhabitants could have free will. If there were secondary requirements for sin, as those listed above, then the possibility of sin could be eliminated without removing free will. Then I would ask, why is there sin in this universe? The standard response of, 'so that we can have free will' would no longer be a satisfactory answer. In short, if you propose that there is a secondary requirement for sin beyond free will, then you would need to revisit the question of why sin exists in the first place. Edit2: Thank you all for your responses. I've about exhausted the amount of time I want to spend replying, and I'm sorry that I didn't get to address every point. I do not think my argument is as strong as I originally thought, so I hope to revise it using all the helpful suggestions posted here. Thanks again.
t3_71vqkk	CMV: It's impossible to become a politician if you've blundered on social media in your youth.	No matter how much you may have changed, the digital proof of your past views/behavior will always be widely accessible and successfully exploitable by your adversaries. If you were ever captured being ignorant, hateful, or lewdly sexual (images or otherwise), you have no chance at becoming president or any other major position in your country's government. No matter how much you've changed or what you've learned, the people will not accept you. CMV: People who have high hopes for their country and how they can help their brothers and sisters should give up if they have ever gravely blundered on record in the past. edit: spelling	CMV: It's impossible to become a politician if you've blundered on social media in your youth. No matter how much you may have changed, the digital proof of your past views/behavior will always be widely accessible and successfully exploitable by your adversaries. If you were ever captured being ignorant, hateful, or lewdly sexual (images or otherwise), you have no chance at becoming president or any other major position in your country's government. No matter how much you've changed or what you've learned, the people will not accept you. CMV: People who have high hopes for their country and how they can help their brothers and sisters should give up if they have ever gravely blundered on record in the past. edit: spelling
t3_1n0gjc	I think the term “Western World” is mostly meaningless. CMV.	In all kinds of disciplines, the term “the Western World” is more or less axiomatic. It surprises me that people are so willing to use this term uncritically, especially in modern times. Obviously in any such division of the planet there will be edge cases along the borders (“Is Tibet part of China?” “Is Turkey part of Europe?”, etc.) Those are not the kinds of questions I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fundamental utility of the term “The Western World.” First of all, what is it? Europe and North America? Europe and the Americas? What about Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, which are highly European, culturally, because of imperialism? Is Russia part of the West? Russia and Germany didn’t get along so hot. Why do we speak about the Western World when both World Wars tore Europe apart? And what is “The West” supposed to be opposed to? The South? The East? Everything but the South and the East? How about religion? Okay, the Judeo-Christian trunk of religions can be the defining factor. Oh wait, there is a comparable number of Buddhists in the US to the numbers in South Korea, which is now overwhelmingly Christian. Does South Korea count as “Western”? I have not been able to convince myself of a single cultural trait that defines the “Western World.”	I think the term “Western World” is mostly meaningless. CMV. In all kinds of disciplines, the term “the Western World” is more or less axiomatic. It surprises me that people are so willing to use this term uncritically, especially in modern times. Obviously in any such division of the planet there will be edge cases along the borders (“Is Tibet part of China?” “Is Turkey part of Europe?”, etc.) Those are not the kinds of questions I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fundamental utility of the term “The Western World.” First of all, what is it? Europe and North America? Europe and the Americas? What about Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, which are highly European, culturally, because of imperialism? Is Russia part of the West? Russia and Germany didn’t get along so hot. Why do we speak about the Western World when both World Wars tore Europe apart? And what is “The West” supposed to be opposed to? The South? The East? Everything but the South and the East? How about religion? Okay, the Judeo-Christian trunk of religions can be the defining factor. Oh wait, there is a comparable number of Buddhists in the US to the numbers in South Korea, which is now overwhelmingly Christian. Does South Korea count as “Western”? I have not been able to convince myself of a single cultural trait that defines the “Western World.”
t3_228c3e	CMV: A hetero couple does not provide significantly more for a child (in raising a child) than a gay couple.	When comparing a wonderful gay couple with a child to a wonderful hetero couple with a child, I believe that the child doesn't get anything significant from the hetero couple that they wouldn't get from a gay couple. I believe this because of people that I know, and know of, that were raised by gay couples and turned out fine. Zach Wahls is a perfect example of this. He was raised by two mothers and is a gay marriage activist. He gave a speech before the Iowa state judiciary committee that went viral in opposition to an amendment to ban gay marriage	CMV: A hetero couple does not provide significantly more for a child (in raising a child) than a gay couple. When comparing a wonderful gay couple with a child to a wonderful hetero couple with a child, I believe that the child doesn't get anything significant from the hetero couple that they wouldn't get from a gay couple. I believe this because of people that I know, and know of, that were raised by gay couples and turned out fine. Zach Wahls is a perfect example of this. He was raised by two mothers and is a gay marriage activist. He gave a speech before the Iowa state judiciary committee that went viral in opposition to an amendment to ban gay marriage
t3_67visw	CMV: God is a bad theory to explain life and the universe	First I want to point out that I'm not claiming to know that there is no God. I identify as an agnostic atheist, "agnostic" meaning that I think it's not possible to know whether there's a god or not and "atheist" (nontheist) because I personally don't believe in God. I also need to define God properly, because some people tend to define almost anything as "God". In this context I'll define God as: omnipotent, supreme being and creator of everything. All that being said, here are my views: Theists usually have two common arguments in their attempt to rationalize their belief in God, A) The universe must have come from somewhere. B) Something can't come out of nothing so it needs a creator. However this is where I think they've already contradicted themselves: Where did God come from? If you answer nothing then why couldn't the universe come out of nothing by itself, why do we need God? If you say God always existed, then why couldn't universe or parts of it always exist, why do we need God? The idea of omnipotent God also comes with its own paradoxes. Classic paradox is this: If God is all powerful then can he create a stone even he can't lift? If he can create such stone but can't lift it he's by definition not omnipotent and if he can't create such stone he's also not omnipotent. To me the concept of God opens up massive logical problems and even more questions than it tries to answer in the first place. This is why I consider it a self-refuting idea and very poor theory to explain the origin of everything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: God is a bad theory to explain life and the universe. First I want to point out that I'm not claiming to know that there is no God. I identify as an agnostic atheist, "agnostic" meaning that I think it's not possible to know whether there's a god or not and "atheist" (nontheist) because I personally don't believe in God. I also need to define God properly, because some people tend to define almost anything as "God". In this context I'll define God as: omnipotent, supreme being and creator of everything. All that being said, here are my views: Theists usually have two common arguments in their attempt to rationalize their belief in God, A) The universe must have come from somewhere. B) Something can't come out of nothing so it needs a creator. However this is where I think they've already contradicted themselves: Where did God come from? If you answer nothing then why couldn't the universe come out of nothing by itself, why do we need God? If you say God always existed, then why couldn't universe or parts of it always exist, why do we need God? The idea of omnipotent God also comes with its own paradoxes. Classic paradox is this: If God is all powerful then can he create a stone even he can't lift? If he can create such stone but can't lift it he's by definition not omnipotent and if he can't create such stone he's also not omnipotent. To me the concept of God opens up massive logical problems and even more questions than it tries to answer in the first place. This is why I consider it a self-refuting idea and very poor theory to explain the origin of everything.
t3_2ycxlz	CMV: I should run for president, based upon my non existent political career and desire to fix things for the middle class.	Like I said, I have no experience in politics- but, I'm a middle class man with a wife and family, I'm a veteran, I work 40+ hours a week to pay my rent, I have an Associates degree from my local community college and I really don't think there's a rich person in this country who gets it. I have no firm policies except to 1. Prevent the wealthy corporations from having welfare dependant 40+ hour employees 2. Eliminate the abuse of government assistance 3. Create a viable 2 year civil service program for post high school and those seeking to become American citizens 4. Stop wasting money on the "War on Drugs" 5. Have regular interactive conversations with the citizens via REAL news sources (Like The Daily Show or Colbert Report) Maybe I'm just daydreaming, but I still think I could make a positive impact. Edit: words	CMV: I should run for president, based upon my non existent political career and desire to fix things for the middle class. Like I said, I have no experience in politics- but, I'm a middle class man with a wife and family, I'm a veteran, I work 40+ hours a week to pay my rent, I have an Associates degree from my local community college and I really don't think there's a rich person in this country who gets it. I have no firm policies except to 1. Prevent the wealthy corporations from having welfare dependant 40+ hour employees 2. Eliminate the abuse of government assistance 3. Create a viable 2 year civil service program for post high school and those seeking to become American citizens 4. Stop wasting money on the "War on Drugs" 5. Have regular interactive conversations with the citizens via REAL news sources (Like The Daily Show or Colbert Report) Maybe I'm just daydreaming, but I still think I could make a positive impact. Edit: words
t3_2hgb4m	CMV: People who give away their pets because they found a non-pet friendly apartment are selfish.	It bothers me when people I know have to find a new place for their pet because they're moving to a new apartment or have a new living arrangement which doesn't allow pets. I find this really frustrating and I normally keep it to myself because I don't want to act "above it all", but why choose a place that doesn't allow pets when you have a pet? You wouldn't abandon your own child because it was no longer convenient to you so why an animal? I have an even worse opinion of them if after not finding the pet a new home, they bring it to a shelter. Yet I do sort of understand since my city is terrible for finding pet friendly apartments, but I wouldn't think of giving away my cat or bringing her to a shelter just so I could live somewhere better. The reason I actually have my cat is because a friend (who isn't my friend anymore, different reason though) was moving in with a guy and couldn't bring her cat with. I know another chick who was showing me pictures of a dog she once had but had to give away and I honestly felt like saying to her, "you didn't love your dog". I'm glad I didn't since she's actually a sweet person. Maybe I'm the terrible person.. I don't know. I don't like being so judgmental, so maybe someone can change my view. I understand that some people don't like animals as much as me, but why be a pet owner then. edit: this edit is important, obviously if there wasn't a pet-friendly apartment available and your only option was to give away animal or be homeless then that would be a different story and I would completely understand. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: People who give away their pets because they found a non-pet friendly apartment are selfish. It bothers me when people I know have to find a new place for their pet because they're moving to a new apartment or have a new living arrangement which doesn't allow pets. I find this really frustrating and I normally keep it to myself because I don't want to act "above it all", but why choose a place that doesn't allow pets when you have a pet? You wouldn't abandon your own child because it was no longer convenient to you so why an animal? I have an even worse opinion of them if after not finding the pet a new home, they bring it to a shelter. Yet I do sort of understand since my city is terrible for finding pet friendly apartments, but I wouldn't think of giving away my cat or bringing her to a shelter just so I could live somewhere better. The reason I actually have my cat is because a friend (who isn't my friend anymore, different reason though) was moving in with a guy and couldn't bring her cat with. I know another chick who was showing me pictures of a dog she once had but had to give away and I honestly felt like saying to her, "you didn't love your dog". I'm glad I didn't since she's actually a sweet person. Maybe I'm the terrible person.. I don't know. I don't like being so judgmental, so maybe someone can change my view. I understand that some people don't like animals as much as me, but why be a pet owner then. edit: this edit is important, obviously if there wasn't a pet-friendly apartment available and your only option was to give away animal or be homeless then that would be a different story and I would completely understand.
t3_1ulc17	I think the "if it's open it grows" image in the /r/changemyview sidebar (only on a comments page) is quite creepy. CMV	NB: before you mods delete this as a joke, please note that 1) I honestly do mean it and 2) it doesn't break any of the rules. Thanks. *** The image in question is `keepopen2` in the stylesheet if I am not mistaken. It's a shrub. Growing out of a guy's head. A shrub. Growing out of a guy's head. He has no scalp. It's just flat. And he's... smiling. It's grotesque and mortifying. And look at his facial expression! He's smiling! But the crazy shape of his mouth coupled with his over-accentuated eyebrows might tell another story. He is no longer himself. He's been taken over by the shrub, and the "emotion" he expresses is in fact one final cry for help before all is forsaken. Please reddit, please change my view. Right now I am really freaked out by what I see and I would love to carry on with my life without that image ever appearing again. I don't want to disable CSS. Convince me it's not creepy. And what's that growing out of his ear?	I think the "if it's open it grows" image in the /r/changemyview sidebar (only on a comments page) is quite creepy. CMV. NB: before you mods delete this as a joke, please note that 1) I honestly do mean it and 2) it doesn't break any of the rules. Thanks. *** The image in question is `keepopen2` in the stylesheet if I am not mistaken. It's a shrub. Growing out of a guy's head. A shrub. Growing out of a guy's head. He has no scalp. It's just flat. And he's... smiling. It's grotesque and mortifying. And look at his facial expression! He's smiling! But the crazy shape of his mouth coupled with his over-accentuated eyebrows might tell another story. He is no longer himself. He's been taken over by the shrub, and the "emotion" he expresses is in fact one final cry for help before all is forsaken. Please reddit, please change my view. Right now I am really freaked out by what I see and I would love to carry on with my life without that image ever appearing again. I don't want to disable CSS. Convince me it's not creepy. And what's that growing out of his ear?
t3_1eanzd	I think Animal Crossing is a shallow time-wasting series with boring gameplay and superficial interactions, unworthy of its popularity and praise. CMV	I want to like Animal Crossing, but i just don't get it. The gameplay is really boring. And the rewards for playing don't seem worth it now that you don't get free NES games for completing activities. And the game seems to not have barely changed over many iterations. Why is Animal Crossing a worldwide juggernaut of a franchise spanning so many platforms and games?	I think Animal Crossing is a shallow time-wasting series with boring gameplay and superficial interactions, unworthy of its popularity and praise. CMV. I want to like Animal Crossing, but i just don't get it. The gameplay is really boring. And the rewards for playing don't seem worth it now that you don't get free NES games for completing activities. And the game seems to not have barely changed over many iterations. Why is Animal Crossing a worldwide juggernaut of a franchise spanning so many platforms and games?
t3_3srwbt	CMV: France has been at war with IS for over a year now. Attacks on Paris should be expected as a consequence.	1. The attacts were terrorist. There was no conceivable military objective in attacking those places. The people killed were civilians, so IMO there could not be a justification for the attacks. 2. I don't know if France has committed terrorism in Syria, but I'm not sure it's important anyway. 3. It's not known who was behind the attacks yet, but France and IS are both saying that it was IS, so I'm going along with that explanation for the sake of argument. If a state goes to war it should anticipate retaliations (including terrorist ones). France should be taking responsibility for protecting its citizens during wartime. And when attacks succeed, France should not act shocked or affronted. This is a consequence of engage in a war, and France has failed to defend its people in a war of its own making. _____ > 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: France has been at war with IS for over a year now. Attacks on Paris should be expected as a consequence. 1. The attacts were terrorist. There was no conceivable military objective in attacking those places. The people killed were civilians, so IMO there could not be a justification for the attacks. 2. I don't know if France has committed terrorism in Syria, but I'm not sure it's important anyway. 3. It's not known who was behind the attacks yet, but France and IS are both saying that it was IS, so I'm going along with that explanation for the sake of argument. If a state goes to war it should anticipate retaliations (including terrorist ones). France should be taking responsibility for protecting its citizens during wartime. And when attacks succeed, France should not act shocked or affronted. This is a consequence of engage in a war, and France has failed to defend its people in a war of its own making.
t3_3fanmc	CMV:Due to global commerce and countries making tons of money off of each other's imports and exports, we will not see another World War (unless there is a global market collapse).	Barring a global market collapse where countries can no longer exchange goods between each other, our global economy is a strong insulator from another World War. For example, trade ties are too strong with China for them to throw away all the money they make off of the US and European countries to join sides with a country like North Korea. Today's world is often cited as one of the most peaceful times in human history. A lot of that is due to global trade, easy travel and shipping between countries, and the ease of communication via the internet. Are there other avenues in which a true World War would be 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:Due to global commerce and countries making tons of money off of each other's imports and exports, we will not see another World War (unless there is a global market collapse). Barring a global market collapse where countries can no longer exchange goods between each other, our global economy is a strong insulator from another World War. For example, trade ties are too strong with China for them to throw away all the money they make off of the US and European countries to join sides with a country like North Korea. Today's world is often cited as one of the most peaceful times in human history. A lot of that is due to global trade, easy travel and shipping between countries, and the ease of communication via the internet. Are there other avenues in which a true World War would be possible? CMV.
t3_2198cs	We have a objective purpose in life. CMV	1. Opinions are not equal: There will ultimately be an opinion that considers more knowledge and involves more critical thinking, therefore objectively better. 2. Therefore, life based on a subjective view may not be objectively the best one, and life founded on opinions that includes the most knowledge is the best one. 4. Thus, our objective in life is to be as knowledgeable as we can. example My opinion on how to run a triangle offense in basketball is objectively worse than Phil Jackson, the 11 time champion who specializes in the triangle offense. Therefore his opinion is objectively better. In parallel My opinion on how to live life is objectively worse than someone who has more knowledge about life, therefore his opinion on how to live life is objectively better, and that i should listen to him without question.	We have a objective purpose in life. CMV. 1. Opinions are not equal: There will ultimately be an opinion that considers more knowledge and involves more critical thinking, therefore objectively better. 2. Therefore, life based on a subjective view may not be objectively the best one, and life founded on opinions that includes the most knowledge is the best one. 4. Thus, our objective in life is to be as knowledgeable as we can. example My opinion on how to run a triangle offense in basketball is objectively worse than Phil Jackson, the 11 time champion who specializes in the triangle offense. Therefore his opinion is objectively better. In parallel My opinion on how to live life is objectively worse than someone who has more knowledge about life, therefore his opinion on how to live life is objectively better, and that i should listen to him without question.
t3_27dizq	CMV - It's arrogant and irresponsible to travel to dangerous parts of the world for pleasure...read article for reference	I'm actually more specifically speaking to this situation in the article below: http://m.citynews.ca/2014/06/04/videos-show-canadian-american-couple-held-in-afghanistan/ So, this couple went travelling to Afghanistan and decided they would journey through the mountains...CMV that not only do they have no right to ask to be rescued (which I'm also aware the Taliban likely made them do it) but by travelling to areas of the world like that and intentionally going to the very places you read about being where groups hide out or train or even live, you are a) an idiot and b) do not deserve to be rescued. They are compromising the integrity of the nations security and putting their families through a ridiculous amount of unnecessary stress and pain simply because of their arrogance...and in this case they've now put their baby in extreme danger. I don't want this to turn into a conversation about Bergdahl, that's a completely different scenario than what I am referring to, but simply that people who travel to areas like this for the sake of entertainment and enjoyment (not work) are taking the risk that things like this can and will happen and they have no right to ask to be saved. "Oh I'm going to go on this incredibly dangerous trip, but if I get caught; you can expect me to expect you to rescue us" No, sorry, it doesn't work like that.	CMV - It's arrogant and irresponsible to travel to dangerous parts of the world for pleasure...read article for reference. I'm actually more specifically speaking to this situation in the article below: http://m.citynews.ca/2014/06/04/videos-show-canadian-american-couple-held-in-afghanistan/ So, this couple went travelling to Afghanistan and decided they would journey through the mountains...CMV that not only do they have no right to ask to be rescued (which I'm also aware the Taliban likely made them do it) but by travelling to areas of the world like that and intentionally going to the very places you read about being where groups hide out or train or even live, you are a) an idiot and b) do not deserve to be rescued. They are compromising the integrity of the nations security and putting their families through a ridiculous amount of unnecessary stress and pain simply because of their arrogance...and in this case they've now put their baby in extreme danger. I don't want this to turn into a conversation about Bergdahl, that's a completely different scenario than what I am referring to, but simply that people who travel to areas like this for the sake of entertainment and enjoyment (not work) are taking the risk that things like this can and will happen and they have no right to ask to be saved. "Oh I'm going to go on this incredibly dangerous trip, but if I get caught; you can expect me to expect you to rescue us" No, sorry, it doesn't work like that.
t3_6sxj3e	CMV: The US should outlaw all political party affiliation and force people to run strictly on the issues	We're at a weird position in the United States where things are falling exactly down party lines. it's becoming a war of advertising and spamming by fake stories designed to elicit visceral responses. eliminating parties would do a great deal to alleviate these issues. there would be less of a drive to get "your" team into congress and more of a drive to get people that actually represent your values and ideals rather than a vague on specifics but solid on buzz words party line. &nbsp; political parties made sense at a time when it was difficult and cumbersome to get your platform out there. but that is no longer the case. &nbsp; i'm a registered member of one of the two main parties in the US and while i've voted for the "other" party in the past it's becoming increasingly more and more difficult to justify voting for anyone from the other party. i'm sure i'm not alone. &nbsp; i fear we're heading toward a bad situation if we keep going this way. &nbsp; clarification: this does not mean automatically getting rid of the 1st amendment. the amendment doesn't explicitly allow for political parties. assembly doesn't automatically mean party affiliation. it's also not getting rid of representative democracy. the people would simply have to vote on a candidate's individual issues rather than a simple party logo. &nbsp; I'm seeing a lot of "this will be hard" and "people will just form political parties anyway" and "we've always done this" but i don't see any real justification for keeping political parties. nothing that would change my view yet. &nbsp; also, i don't have any idea really how to make this happen today. it won't be easy that's for sure. but that's beyond the scope of this post. &nbsp; I'm getting tired of the same old slippery slope you'll have to abolish the first amendment argument. it won't change my view and i will no longer be replying to someone who simply states that same argument again and again. You're welcome to discuss it without me but i've made my view on it clear. the point of htis post is assuming it can be done (without getting rid of free speech entirely - and there's no indication it can't) should it be done. &nbsp; change my view _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: The US should outlaw all political party affiliation and force people to run strictly on the issues. We're at a weird position in the United States where things are falling exactly down party lines. it's becoming a war of advertising and spamming by fake stories designed to elicit visceral responses. eliminating parties would do a great deal to alleviate these issues. there would be less of a drive to get "your" team into congress and more of a drive to get people that actually represent your values and ideals rather than a vague on specifics but solid on buzz words party line. &nbsp; political parties made sense at a time when it was difficult and cumbersome to get your platform out there. but that is no longer the case. &nbsp; i'm a registered member of one of the two main parties in the US and while i've voted for the "other" party in the past it's becoming increasingly more and more difficult to justify voting for anyone from the other party. i'm sure i'm not alone. &nbsp; i fear we're heading toward a bad situation if we keep going this way. &nbsp; clarification: this does not mean automatically getting rid of the 1st amendment. the amendment doesn't explicitly allow for political parties. assembly doesn't automatically mean party affiliation. it's also not getting rid of representative democracy. the people would simply have to vote on a candidate's individual issues rather than a simple party logo. &nbsp; I'm seeing a lot of "this will be hard" and "people will just form political parties anyway" and "we've always done this" but i don't see any real justification for keeping political parties. nothing that would change my view yet. &nbsp; also, i don't have any idea really how to make this happen today. it won't be easy that's for sure. but that's beyond the scope of this post. &nbsp; I'm getting tired of the same old slippery slope you'll have to abolish the first amendment argument. it won't change my view and i will no longer be replying to someone who simply states that same argument again and again. You're welcome to discuss it without me but i've made my view on it clear. the point of htis post is assuming it can be done (without getting rid of free speech entirely - and there's no indication it can't) should it be done. &nbsp; change my view
t3_1i63fk	I don't believe in god, CMV.	I don't believe anything supernatural exists. I believe that if a being more powerful than humanity exists, or anything else we don't understand happens, then it is part of reality, and therefore natural. I also think it's ridiculous to believe that a being powerful enough to create our universe, god or not, imaginary or not, cares about the individual lives of human beings any more than I care about whether or not a particular lichen has committed sin. I believe my most fundamental goals and motivations are necessarily irrational and instinctual, but that I can most effectively pursue those goals in a rational manner. I believe the phenomenon we call reality is worth studying under the assumption we haven't learned all we're capable of understanding. I believe religion and faith are excuses to give up on the study of reality. I believe faith can be useful to an individual(depending on the goal) and that a church can be beneficial to a community. But I believe the concentration of power in large religious organizations is harmful to the interests of the average person.	I don't believe in god, CMV. I don't believe anything supernatural exists. I believe that if a being more powerful than humanity exists, or anything else we don't understand happens, then it is part of reality, and therefore natural. I also think it's ridiculous to believe that a being powerful enough to create our universe, god or not, imaginary or not, cares about the individual lives of human beings any more than I care about whether or not a particular lichen has committed sin. I believe my most fundamental goals and motivations are necessarily irrational and instinctual, but that I can most effectively pursue those goals in a rational manner. I believe the phenomenon we call reality is worth studying under the assumption we haven't learned all we're capable of understanding. I believe religion and faith are excuses to give up on the study of reality. I believe faith can be useful to an individual(depending on the goal) and that a church can be beneficial to a community. But I believe the concentration of power in large religious organizations is harmful to the interests of the average person.
t3_34iql8	CMV: Grooveshark was blatantly breaking the law and it's good that they got shut down	It's pretty simple. Grooveshark was distributing and making money off of other people's music without paying the appropriate royalties. The employees and founders of the company uploaded music themselves, bypassing the DMCA provision against user-uploaded content. There’s no way to argue that what they were doing was legal. They had years since their first lawsuit in 2011 to pay up, but they didn't. Doesn't seem like they even made an attempt. At least the Pirate Bay is honest about their intentions. Streaming services are cheaper than ever and nowadays there's no excuse to pirate your music. $10 per month is totally reasonable for unlimited access to all the music you want _____ > 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: Grooveshark was blatantly breaking the law and it's good that they got shut down. It's pretty simple. Grooveshark was distributing and making money off of other people's music without paying the appropriate royalties. The employees and founders of the company uploaded music themselves, bypassing the DMCA provision against user-uploaded content. There’s no way to argue that what they were doing was legal. They had years since their first lawsuit in 2011 to pay up, but they didn't. Doesn't seem like they even made an attempt. At least the Pirate Bay is honest about their intentions. Streaming services are cheaper than ever and nowadays there's no excuse to pirate your music. $10 per month is totally reasonable for unlimited access to all the music you want
t3_1j6cur	I believe getting food stamps in college is justifiable for students who could instead buy food with loans. CMV.	I'm going to a four year institution next year where my family and I will, by the end of my university tenure, end up taking out approximately $90,000 in loans after interest. I feel comfortable paying back the money but feel as if receiving food stamps is justifiable because of the sheer cost I will incur during my education process. I come from a middle class family that earns what it does because my parents moved to the suburbs to raise a family near decent schools. Because the cost of attending college has grown enormously compared to inflation, wages, et cetera, I feel as if receiving food stamps to the tune of four to five thousand dollars over four years is justifiable because state and national legislatures have no recourse for people making decent livings to allow their students to attend good colleges without taking out a crippling amount of loans. CMV.	I believe getting food stamps in college is justifiable for students who could instead buy food with loans. CMV. I'm going to a four year institution next year where my family and I will, by the end of my university tenure, end up taking out approximately $90,000 in loans after interest. I feel comfortable paying back the money but feel as if receiving food stamps is justifiable because of the sheer cost I will incur during my education process. I come from a middle class family that earns what it does because my parents moved to the suburbs to raise a family near decent schools. Because the cost of attending college has grown enormously compared to inflation, wages, et cetera, I feel as if receiving food stamps to the tune of four to five thousand dollars over four years is justifiable because state and national legislatures have no recourse for people making decent livings to allow their students to attend good colleges without taking out a crippling amount of loans. CMV.
t3_21z87o	CMV: Today is a lovely day in Dallas, and I saw we ride with the top down.	I mean come on, the people love me, I can't wave to my constituents from a window. I have this awesome motorcade to protect me, and I have to worry about voters to impress. Plus Jackie got all dolled out, and it would be a shame for the public not to see her. Its not like I have any enemies, or anything. 0 percent chance of rain. I say we ride with the top down. I mean, there are no strong winds - things would be much different if there were strong winds. What is this car, a Lincoln? See, a great president riding in a car named after a great president. We probably will have so much in common by the time I leave office. Plus, you know, I'm in charge. -JFK. _____ > Hello, people of the past. This is a footnote from the moderators of this 'internet forum'. I'm afraid to say that some wannabe scientist, while looking into time travel, has caused a temporal distortion field. It should dissipate in the next 24 hours. In the mean time, feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)* about a view you hold while you're visiting the present, and remember to have a look through *[our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)*.	CMV: Today is a lovely day in Dallas, and I saw we ride with the top down. I mean come on, the people love me, I can't wave to my constituents from a window. I have this awesome motorcade to protect me, and I have to worry about voters to impress. Plus Jackie got all dolled out, and it would be a shame for the public not to see her. Its not like I have any enemies, or anything. 0 percent chance of rain. I say we ride with the top down. I mean, there are no strong winds - things would be much different if there were strong winds. What is this car, a Lincoln? See, a great president riding in a car named after a great president. We probably will have so much in common by the time I leave office. Plus, you know, I'm in charge. -JFK.
t3_49cyzl	CMV: A victim holds a certain amount of responsibility for their own victimization	Legally I agree that the victim is the victim is the victim. Meaning no matter how avoidable the crime was, the person who committed the crime should always bear full responsibility. Whether the crime is violent, petty, or anywhere in between. im not arguing against a victims legal rights. I do however judge how much sympathy a victim deserves on how easily their victimization could have been prevented if they thought ahead. I know this is treading 'victim blaming', but hear me out. If my buddy told me his car got jacked, my level of sympathy for him would be pretty high. But if he expanded on his story and told me it was stolen when he left the keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked while he went grocery shopping, suddenly I would feel much less sympathy for him. Obviously the thief is the bad guy. He shouldnt have stolen that car, and deserves the appropriate sentence for it. But this hypothetical friend of mine would be partially to blame for his own victimization. Yes we SHOULD live in a society where we dont have to expect the worst from people. But we do live in a society where its our responsibility to take bad people into consideration. It sucks, but thats just a fact. Can someone change my view?	CMV: A victim holds a certain amount of responsibility for their own victimization. Legally I agree that the victim is the victim is the victim. Meaning no matter how avoidable the crime was, the person who committed the crime should always bear full responsibility. Whether the crime is violent, petty, or anywhere in between. im not arguing against a victims legal rights. I do however judge how much sympathy a victim deserves on how easily their victimization could have been prevented if they thought ahead. I know this is treading 'victim blaming', but hear me out. If my buddy told me his car got jacked, my level of sympathy for him would be pretty high. But if he expanded on his story and told me it was stolen when he left the keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked while he went grocery shopping, suddenly I would feel much less sympathy for him. Obviously the thief is the bad guy. He shouldnt have stolen that car, and deserves the appropriate sentence for it. But this hypothetical friend of mine would be partially to blame for his own victimization. Yes we SHOULD live in a society where we dont have to expect the worst from people. But we do live in a society where its our responsibility to take bad people into consideration. It sucks, but thats just a fact. Can someone change my view?
t3_2c7nkn	CMV: Definitive statements should be taken as hyperbole, instead of literally, and you're a pedant for correcting them.	Okay look. We all know that you don't actually mean all trees are made of wood. Every definitive statement is a colloquialism, and not a tautology. Except there's always some random jerk who will chime in and correct you when you use words like "never" or "always". They're never helpful either. It's a plague on CMV too. Someone makes a statement like "CMV: Cops are corrupt." And it never fails that someone points out that they met a guy whose cousin was a cop who pulled over another cop for blowing a red light. And it's always tedious to have to qualify every definitive statement you ever make. Yes, we all get it that definitive statements are always inherently false. We all understand that they're rules of thumb instead of laws. I mean, without the sarcastic italics, all of these definitive statements, if taken as generalizations and hyperbole, would be fine. You're about as helpful as a grammar Nazi. CMV: You're not enriching a conversation by correcting a definitive statement.	CMV: Definitive statements should be taken as hyperbole, instead of literally, and you're a pedant for correcting them. Okay look. We all know that you don't actually mean all trees are made of wood. Every definitive statement is a colloquialism, and not a tautology. Except there's always some random jerk who will chime in and correct you when you use words like "never" or "always". They're never helpful either. It's a plague on CMV too. Someone makes a statement like "CMV: Cops are corrupt." And it never fails that someone points out that they met a guy whose cousin was a cop who pulled over another cop for blowing a red light. And it's always tedious to have to qualify every definitive statement you ever make. Yes, we all get it that definitive statements are always inherently false. We all understand that they're rules of thumb instead of laws. I mean, without the sarcastic italics, all of these definitive statements, if taken as generalizations and hyperbole, would be fine. You're about as helpful as a grammar Nazi. CMV: You're not enriching a conversation by correcting a definitive statement.
t3_35eca7	CMV: Telling children they are "special" is unnecessary and potentially harmful and should be replaced with teaching them skills like empathy and the value of hard work	Kids already naturally feel "special" and essentially narcissistic, so it's redundant to tell them they are special. That would plant a seed that could lead to entitlement or arrogance. "I've always been told I'm special, so it's ok if I just spend all day on my phone instead of being social." Wouldn't it be much more valuable to inundate them with the value of empathy and hard work? Also special implies that the child is greater than the average, and that just isn't true for everybody, à la the point from The Incredibles, if everyone is special, then nobody is. _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: Telling children they are "special" is unnecessary and potentially harmful and should be replaced with teaching them skills like empathy and the value of hard work. Kids already naturally feel "special" and essentially narcissistic, so it's redundant to tell them they are special. That would plant a seed that could lead to entitlement or arrogance. "I've always been told I'm special, so it's ok if I just spend all day on my phone instead of being social." Wouldn't it be much more valuable to inundate them with the value of empathy and hard work? Also special implies that the child is greater than the average, and that just isn't true for everybody, à la the point from The Incredibles, if everyone is special, then nobody is.
t3_24xi33	CMV: I believe that there are only two genders and three possible sexual orientations.	I believe that a person can only be male or female and can only be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. I also believe that if a person wants to change genders or believes that they were born into the wrong gender then they have the right to do so. I've recently heard of Facebook allowing over 30 possible gender options and I think that doesn't make any sense what so ever. How can people be anything other than male or female? I don't know if I'm the only sane person in a world filling with perverts and/or young people confused with their own sexuality and want to make us go out of our way to change our existing ideas of sexuality just so they can feel happy or just a bigot unaware of some sort of change. try to CMV please. > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: I believe that there are only two genders and three possible sexual orientations. I believe that a person can only be male or female and can only be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. I also believe that if a person wants to change genders or believes that they were born into the wrong gender then they have the right to do so. I've recently heard of Facebook allowing over 30 possible gender options and I think that doesn't make any sense what so ever. How can people be anything other than male or female? I don't know if I'm the only sane person in a world filling with perverts and/or young people confused with their own sexuality and want to make us go out of our way to change our existing ideas of sexuality just so they can feel happy or just a bigot unaware of some sort of change. try to CMV please. > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*
t3_3z5hul	CMV: Insider trading on stocks should not be illegal	The stock market is meant to reflect the value of a company- it's potential to grow/ profit/ make money for its shareholders/ etc.. The people best placed to provide this information (company employees, the first people to find out if a fancy drug trial went bust, if a new prototype of a product is working, etc.) are by in large prohibited from buying/selling company stock because of insider trading laws. This leads to a failure (in the narrow sense of the word) in the stock market as prices of a given stock does not adequately reflect the actual value and potential of a given company. So outlawing insider trading is a bad idea. Some sources on the issue: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100917279 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-insider-trading-should-be-legal-2011-05-17 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/26/insider-trading-makes-us-richer-better-informed-and-could-prevent-corporate-scandals-legalize-it/ Many many people seem to look at insider trading as an absolutely abhorrent and evil action, yet the only justification I've been given for this feeling is that its evil because its illegal (circular reasoning is circular!). Edit: \u\Thamanizer and \u\MontiBurns have succeeded. _____ > 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: Insider trading on stocks should not be illegal. The stock market is meant to reflect the value of a company- it's potential to grow/ profit/ make money for its shareholders/ etc.. The people best placed to provide this information (company employees, the first people to find out if a fancy drug trial went bust, if a new prototype of a product is working, etc.) are by in large prohibited from buying/selling company stock because of insider trading laws. This leads to a failure (in the narrow sense of the word) in the stock market as prices of a given stock does not adequately reflect the actual value and potential of a given company. So outlawing insider trading is a bad idea. Some sources on the issue: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100917279 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-insider-trading-should-be-legal-2011-05-17 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/26/insider-trading-makes-us-richer-better-informed-and-could-prevent-corporate-scandals-legalize-it/ Many many people seem to look at insider trading as an absolutely abhorrent and evil action, yet the only justification I've been given for this feeling is that its evil because its illegal (circular reasoning is circular!). Edit: \u\Thamanizer and \u\MontiBurns have succeeded.
t3_2891yb	CMV: Professional athletes are paid too much	Professional athletes are paid waaaay too much money for what they do. For instance, NBA players make tens of millions of dollars a year for what? Because they can throw a ball into a hoop. Don't get me wrong, I understand they're good at what they do...I'm not undermining their skill level or anything, but the basic concept remains the same. These guys aren't slaving away in a lab somewhere trying to develop a cure for a disease, they aren't developing new technology, and they aren't furthering the development of our country/world. So why do they make multi-millions(not counting endorsements, etc)...I honestly don't understand it. "But OP, they sacrifice so much" -So do people in the military, law enforcement, scientists Someone please explain this to me _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: Professional athletes are paid too much. Professional athletes are paid waaaay too much money for what they do. For instance, NBA players make tens of millions of dollars a year for what? Because they can throw a ball into a hoop. Don't get me wrong, I understand they're good at what they do...I'm not undermining their skill level or anything, but the basic concept remains the same. These guys aren't slaving away in a lab somewhere trying to develop a cure for a disease, they aren't developing new technology, and they aren't furthering the development of our country/world. So why do they make multi-millions(not counting endorsements, etc)...I honestly don't understand it. "But OP, they sacrifice so much" -So do people in the military, law enforcement, scientists Someone please explain this to me
t3_5c05a6	CMV As a Muslim, Trump is much better for me in Long term.	- First off, I don't live in US, and I don't care what fascist dictator does to US people or South Americans that lives there. - Last night, Before I go to bed, When I thought off The Worst case scenario, i thought to Myself Hillary and Putin could start another world war. Which is way worse than anything This idiot can do. - Trump has good relationship with leaders of many secular Muslim majority country, I don't see He is gonna try to stop peoples from Turkey, Malaysia or Indonesia visiting/living in US. But He is gonna Syrian, Afghanis and Iraqis immigrating to US. I don't see (and btw I am Turk), There is many of these people who actually tries to immigrate to US compare to EU. Since Those who wanna immigrate isn't a lot of people, Germany/Turkey etc isn't bad place until they go back. - Since Franklin Roosevelt, All foreign policy of US was horrible and it made World such a piece of shit that it is Today. USSR was founded based on Ideas and Utopia. US fought with USSR with help of Cia and US navy(which was horiable idea), Cold war was US's fault. US should have stayed isolationist after WW2. US foreign policy always remind me of a clumsy Giant. You might intend to do good but it creates mke problem. All of US interventions after WW2 created more problem than it solved. Afghanistan war, Iraqi-Syrian civil wars, Algerian civil war all has Tribal roots, US peoples(including Redditors) doesn't have any idea of real reasons of these wars and US policy makes it worse for Middle eastern peoples. You just need to take your gear and go back to your home. - Isolationist US is better for Me (And Rest of the World) and Triumph wants that.	CMV As a Muslim, Trump is much better for me in Long term. - First off, I don't live in US, and I don't care what fascist dictator does to US people or South Americans that lives there. - Last night, Before I go to bed, When I thought off The Worst case scenario, i thought to Myself Hillary and Putin could start another world war. Which is way worse than anything This idiot can do. - Trump has good relationship with leaders of many secular Muslim majority country, I don't see He is gonna try to stop peoples from Turkey, Malaysia or Indonesia visiting/living in US. But He is gonna Syrian, Afghanis and Iraqis immigrating to US. I don't see (and btw I am Turk), There is many of these people who actually tries to immigrate to US compare to EU. Since Those who wanna immigrate isn't a lot of people, Germany/Turkey etc isn't bad place until they go back. - Since Franklin Roosevelt, All foreign policy of US was horrible and it made World such a piece of shit that it is Today. USSR was founded based on Ideas and Utopia. US fought with USSR with help of Cia and US navy(which was horiable idea), Cold war was US's fault. US should have stayed isolationist after WW2. US foreign policy always remind me of a clumsy Giant. You might intend to do good but it creates mke problem. All of US interventions after WW2 created more problem than it solved. Afghanistan war, Iraqi-Syrian civil wars, Algerian civil war all has Tribal roots, US peoples(including Redditors) doesn't have any idea of real reasons of these wars and US policy makes it worse for Middle eastern peoples. You just need to take your gear and go back to your home. - Isolationist US is better for Me (And Rest of the World) and Triumph wants that.
t3_3uh23h	CMV: Supporting Assad in the Syrian civil war is in the interests of Europe	The [Syrian civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War) started in 2011 as part of the "Arab Spring" uprisings when Sunni rebels backed by the US, Turkey and Gulf States sought to overthrow the governmnent of Bashar al-Assad, who is backed by Iran and Russia. In almost five years of fighting, hundred of thousands people were killed, millions became refugees, hundred of thousands of them going to Europe. In the resulting power void, rebels and al-Qaeda elements created the Islamic State, which controls a territory of ten million people which it rules with absolute brutality and has now started to carry out terror attacks even in Europe, like the recent Paris attack. The US, Turkey and Gulf states, while formally committed to fight against the ISIS, do very little against it in practice, and in fact the government of Turkey and various Arab countries are believed to either directly fund and arm the ISIS or at least look the other way while elements of their countries do it. They still haven't renounced their goal of overthrowing Assad, as evidenced by the recent downing of the Russian fighter jet by the Turkish air-force. Assad is a dictator who has committed war crimes such as using chemical weapons against his population. But under his rule Syria was a functional state which didn't constitute a security threat and large migration source to Europe. And as bad as he was for his citizen, he was certainly much better than the ISIS. Therefore, I believe that it is in the national interests of European countries, in addition to interests of the Syrian people, to support Assad's government and therefore to join forces with Russia and Iran in order to restore its control over Syria, at least for the time being. In the long term it may be desirable for Europe to support a process that leads to the democratization of Syria, but this has to happen in a time of peace and stability, not amidst a bloody civil war with a refugee and security crisis that affects Europe. _____ > 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: Supporting Assad in the Syrian civil war is in the interests of Europe. The [Syrian civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War) started in 2011 as part of the "Arab Spring" uprisings when Sunni rebels backed by the US, Turkey and Gulf States sought to overthrow the governmnent of Bashar al-Assad, who is backed by Iran and Russia. In almost five years of fighting, hundred of thousands people were killed, millions became refugees, hundred of thousands of them going to Europe. In the resulting power void, rebels and al-Qaeda elements created the Islamic State, which controls a territory of ten million people which it rules with absolute brutality and has now started to carry out terror attacks even in Europe, like the recent Paris attack. The US, Turkey and Gulf states, while formally committed to fight against the ISIS, do very little against it in practice, and in fact the government of Turkey and various Arab countries are believed to either directly fund and arm the ISIS or at least look the other way while elements of their countries do it. They still haven't renounced their goal of overthrowing Assad, as evidenced by the recent downing of the Russian fighter jet by the Turkish air-force. Assad is a dictator who has committed war crimes such as using chemical weapons against his population. But under his rule Syria was a functional state which didn't constitute a security threat and large migration source to Europe. And as bad as he was for his citizen, he was certainly much better than the ISIS. Therefore, I believe that it is in the national interests of European countries, in addition to interests of the Syrian people, to support Assad's government and therefore to join forces with Russia and Iran in order to restore its control over Syria, at least for the time being. In the long term it may be desirable for Europe to support a process that leads to the democratization of Syria, but this has to happen in a time of peace and stability, not amidst a bloody civil war with a refugee and security crisis that affects Europe.
t3_1bodtx	I don't think it's wrong for a girl to be slutty and promiscuous provided that she practises safe sex and birth control. CMV	I don't see why women that have lots of sex (usually not with the same person) are looked down upon. Sex is something that all enjoy and that can be simply practiced for pleasure. As long as she or her partner use a condom,and she isn't cheating / sleeping with a person already in a relationship, I really don't see the problem.	I don't think it's wrong for a girl to be slutty and promiscuous provided that she practises safe sex and birth control. CMV. I don't see why women that have lots of sex (usually not with the same person) are looked down upon. Sex is something that all enjoy and that can be simply practiced for pleasure. As long as she or her partner use a condom,and she isn't cheating / sleeping with a person already in a relationship, I really don't see the problem.
t3_71rjt1	CMV:As a boss, if you allow dress down Fridays, there is no good reason you can't allow your employees to dress down every day.	I've worked in office buildings before as a programmer, stuck in the back, where no client will ever see me. Yet, we are still required to dress business casual. I've heard it said that if you dress better, you'll perform better. Which I believe is absolute crap. But this CMV isn't about that. Now, I'm not saying that there should be no dress code at all. I'm saying that you shouldn't have a stricter dress code for Mon-Thurs and a different code for Fri. I'm also not saying that there might not be special occasions that you would require your employees to dress up. Perhaps the big client is coming in to tour and you need to present a more professional front. Fine. CMV _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV:As a boss, if you allow dress down Fridays, there is no good reason you can't allow your employees to dress down every day. I've worked in office buildings before as a programmer, stuck in the back, where no client will ever see me. Yet, we are still required to dress business casual. I've heard it said that if you dress better, you'll perform better. Which I believe is absolute crap. But this CMV isn't about that. Now, I'm not saying that there should be no dress code at all. I'm saying that you shouldn't have a stricter dress code for Mon-Thurs and a different code for Fri. I'm also not saying that there might not be special occasions that you would require your employees to dress up. Perhaps the big client is coming in to tour and you need to present a more professional front. Fine. CMV
t3_1wbzdt	I'm a bleeding heart vegan, and I want to start carrying a concealed weapon. CMV.	Long time lurker here. I currently live in one of the biggest cities in the United States, and I am seriously considering getting a concealed carry permit so I can become trained and carry. I believe I will be much safer. However, I am in no way a conservative and am well aware of the dangers of gun violence. I have read books and articles on the topic, but I can't shake the idea that having a gun will make me feel safer in my day-to-day life. It doesn't help that I am a 5'0" female who weighs so little that I don't think I'll be able to donate blood at any point in my life.	I'm a bleeding heart vegan, and I want to start carrying a concealed weapon. CMV. Long time lurker here. I currently live in one of the biggest cities in the United States, and I am seriously considering getting a concealed carry permit so I can become trained and carry. I believe I will be much safer. However, I am in no way a conservative and am well aware of the dangers of gun violence. I have read books and articles on the topic, but I can't shake the idea that having a gun will make me feel safer in my day-to-day life. It doesn't help that I am a 5'0" female who weighs so little that I don't think I'll be able to donate blood at any point in my life.
t3_2vsx6s	CMV: Saturday Morning Cartoons lead to adults who view violence as a solution	Hi Everyone (Crowd: "Hi Doctor Nick!") Hope everyone got that joke. I actually created an account so I could post this, so please be gentle. I would like to start out by clarifying a few things that I suspect will come into the discussion. First, I am not trying to tie in a debate about violent video games with this discussion. I am solely interested in talking about violent cartoons. This is because I think that cartoons are primarily viewed by children, whereas video games have a broad age range. The second is that I do not believe that cartoons are solely responsible for creating the adults who view violence as a solution, but perhaps are a contributor that most people don't think about. My view is simply this: I have come to realize that the majority of cartoons, and other shows that children watch, often portray a role model, such as a super hero, who solves problems primarily by enacting violence against another person. I believe that this leads to those children growing up to be more open to seeing violence as a solution. Meaning that these people will see war as being a solution, as opposed to diplomacy, empathy, and compromise with others. _____ > 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: Saturday Morning Cartoons lead to adults who view violence as a solution. Hi Everyone (Crowd: "Hi Doctor Nick!") Hope everyone got that joke. I actually created an account so I could post this, so please be gentle. I would like to start out by clarifying a few things that I suspect will come into the discussion. First, I am not trying to tie in a debate about violent video games with this discussion. I am solely interested in talking about violent cartoons. This is because I think that cartoons are primarily viewed by children, whereas video games have a broad age range. The second is that I do not believe that cartoons are solely responsible for creating the adults who view violence as a solution, but perhaps are a contributor that most people don't think about. My view is simply this: I have come to realize that the majority of cartoons, and other shows that children watch, often portray a role model, such as a super hero, who solves problems primarily by enacting violence against another person. I believe that this leads to those children growing up to be more open to seeing violence as a solution. Meaning that these people will see war as being a solution, as opposed to diplomacy, empathy, and compromise with others.
t3_1fb24p	I think it's stupid how fouls are encouraged in the last minutes of basketball. CMV	My idea on the subject is simple. In the last minute of basketball teams are purposely trying to make fouls so they can stop the clock or try to regain possession of the ball more quickly, but since a foul is something done that is against the rules of the game, I think it's pretty stupid to encourage the breaking of the rules as a strategy.	I think it's stupid how fouls are encouraged in the last minutes of basketball. CMV. My idea on the subject is simple. In the last minute of basketball teams are purposely trying to make fouls so they can stop the clock or try to regain possession of the ball more quickly, but since a foul is something done that is against the rules of the game, I think it's pretty stupid to encourage the breaking of the rules as a strategy.
t3_2vuhqi	CMV: Bill Nye should not be a respected as a leader of the scientific community	I know most people who are actually apart of and contribute to the scientific community tend not to believe this, but a lot of people seem to put him on the same level as people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Personally, I'm really not a huge fan of either so I'm not saying this because I have anything against Bill Nye. And really they're pretty much the same, except actually they're not the same because of one thing. One teensy weensy thing, Bill Nye is not a scientist. He doesn't even have a degree in a scientific field! His only degree is a bachelors in mechanical engineering, which I know is stem but that still doesnt make him a scientist. I'm not sure if it's something I'm missing or maybe there really arent many who believe this. But really though, is he anything other than a "celebrity"? I mean how can you seriously call yourself a scientist when your only known for teaching kids about basic science? _____ > 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: Bill Nye should not be a respected as a leader of the scientific community. I know most people who are actually apart of and contribute to the scientific community tend not to believe this, but a lot of people seem to put him on the same level as people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Personally, I'm really not a huge fan of either so I'm not saying this because I have anything against Bill Nye. And really they're pretty much the same, except actually they're not the same because of one thing. One teensy weensy thing, Bill Nye is not a scientist. He doesn't even have a degree in a scientific field! His only degree is a bachelors in mechanical engineering, which I know is stem but that still doesnt make him a scientist. I'm not sure if it's something I'm missing or maybe there really arent many who believe this. But really though, is he anything other than a "celebrity"? I mean how can you seriously call yourself a scientist when your only known for teaching kids about basic science?
t3_2oz233	CMV: I'm glad that Pirate Bay was brought down. I see no moral justification for piracy of modern movies and games.	The most upvoted comments concerning Pirate Bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance. It comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods. I understand that Piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of Steam or Netflix. What I don't understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection. There is no situation where I would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters (or before it was released). That is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole. There is also no situation where I would pirate a recently released game for the same reason. Further, the argument of "They don't deserve my money" that people always throw around concerning the likes of Ubisoft or EA is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy. If there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it. I don't agree with the human rights violations that happen in China or Bangladesh, but that doesn't mean I'm justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them. I feel like I should add as an addendum that there is one situation where I have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if I had been able to. My father was bedridden while fighting Lung Cancer and wanted to see the second Hobbit. There was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he wouldn't be around long enough for a DVD release. That is such an extreme case though, that I hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the Pirate Bay. Edit: Discovered that we're having car problems this morning (x2) so I may not be around to respond for a couple hours, but I will! Edit 2: Also glad that every comment I make, though being substantive and contributing to discussion, is getting downvoted. Read [redditquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette), the side bar, hover over, and footnote included on every CMV op... _____ > Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our *[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)* first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	CMV: I'm glad that Pirate Bay was brought down. I see no moral justification for piracy of modern movies and games. The most upvoted comments concerning Pirate Bay always hold it to some impossible level of importance. It comes across as people thinking that piracy is justified because big studios charge too much money for their goods. I understand that Piracy can force the market to adapt in order to lower prices or allow for easier access, and this leads to the birth of Steam or Netflix. What I don't understand are the people that hold it as some sort of right to have access to anything and everything at no charge simply because they have an internet connection. There is no situation where I would illegally download a move that was just released in theaters (or before it was released). That is flat out stealing, and harms the industry as a whole. There is also no situation where I would pirate a recently released game for the same reason. Further, the argument of "They don't deserve my money" that people always throw around concerning the likes of Ubisoft or EA is an incredibly idiotic argument to justify piracy. If there is a product by a company you want to consume then purchase it. I don't agree with the human rights violations that happen in China or Bangladesh, but that doesn't mean I'm justified to steal the products produced there in lieu of boycotting them. I feel like I should add as an addendum that there is one situation where I have thought it was justified to pirate a movie, and would have if I had been able to. My father was bedridden while fighting Lung Cancer and wanted to see the second Hobbit. There was no way he could have sat through it at the theater, and we knew he wouldn't be around long enough for a DVD release. That is such an extreme case though, that I hard think that it can be used as a justification for the existence of the Pirate Bay. Edit: Discovered that we're having car problems this morning (x2) so I may not be around to respond for a couple hours, but I will! Edit 2: Also glad that every comment I make, though being substantive and contributing to discussion, is getting downvoted. Read [redditquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette), the side bar, hover over, and footnote included on every CMV op...
t3_6k2d96	CMV: Parents, when taking young children to a place for the first time, should explain what place is FOR and what behavior is appropriate for that space.	Virtually everywhere we go we go to for a reason particular to that place: we go to restaurants to eat, we go to libraries to get books, we go to store to buy things, we go to parks to play. They are not all the same place, and parents would do their kids a huge favor over the long term by simply explaining, when going to someplace new, WHY they are there and WHAT they can do there. Even very young children are able to understand this simple concept, and to not explain this to them causes them to not see the world as it really is, doing the children (and the parents) a disservice in the long run. > 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: Parents, when taking young children to a place for the first time, should explain what place is FOR and what behavior is appropriate for that space. Virtually everywhere we go we go to for a reason particular to that place: we go to restaurants to eat, we go to libraries to get books, we go to store to buy things, we go to parks to play. They are not all the same place, and parents would do their kids a huge favor over the long term by simply explaining, when going to someplace new, WHY they are there and WHAT they can do there. Even very young children are able to understand this simple concept, and to not explain this to them causes them to not see the world as it really is, doing the children (and the parents) a disservice in the long run. > 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!*